I'm not only disputing the conclusion, I'm demonstrating that the analogy you used itself is unvalid.
Perhaps you meant 'invalid', but you're actually doing nothing of the sort. My analogy was apt. You simply disagree with the conclusion and thus are attacking the analogy.
Your continued insistence that Hussein was 'a murderer' in fact only reinforces this position. You paint him as a natural murderer - at the very least, as a person who was a murderer for quite some time (you explicitly state 'before the US dealt with him'). So obviously we did not create him.
As a matter of fact, the United States became involved with Hussein in the 1980's due to the fact that we did not want the extreme, fundamentalist, anti-Western Islam which was fomenting in Iran to spread to the rest of the Middle East. Iran was a real threat. Recall that during the Islamic Revolution, Iran decided to hold a number of US citizens as hostages. We sided with a force which we thought would help us to conquer a threat. This is a political move seen throughout history.
You can rather safely argue that the United States thus inappropriately supported and, thus perhaps indirectly, condoned this behavior by allying with Saddam. But the problem there is that you will find yourself equally guilty if you are a member of the United Nations. Note that I made this point in my last reply also, and you chose to avoid addressing it.
For years members of the United Nations did exactly the same thing as the United States, keeping Saddam in power and trying to diplomatically resolve his natural murderous tendencies. And several of these nations also had financial and materiel dealings with Saddam - some after the first Gulf War.
yet you claim giving weapons to a mass-murderer like Saddam, knowing full well that he also used it against civilians (even his own people), is justified because the USa had other geo-political interests, at the time.
That's a rather glib interpretation. It is hardly appropriate to summarize a fundamentalist Islamic movement, openly hostile to the United States, in which hostages are taken, with the term 'geo-political interests'. And again if you dig in the past of any country you will find many such dealings to find objectionable.
The answer is, quite simply, yes.
Clearly that is not the answer. You're simply obscuring fact with prejudice.
Living in a complex world does not excuse anyone from being unethical.
Well that is certainly debatable. The fact of the matter is that survival sometimes requires 'unethical' behavior. As you admit in your next statement.
My country has some vile history during the colonisation-period of africa, and bears responsability for at least part the mess in some countries there. We *did* do illegal and ethical reprehensible things.
Interesting that you are so complacent about the issue. As recently as the 80's my countrymen were peacefully picketing your embassies about this issue. Might I point out that at no time did we burn your flags, or engage in other strange revenge fantasies against you as a people.
Heck, the United Nations even made strong statements against apartheid. Seems like we have quite a bit in common.
Despite your suspiciously clean conscience on the matter, I doubt many Africans would give you a teddy bear hug and kiss your cheek. You feel you've paid for your sins and we haven't paid for ours, which is the most sanctimonious position possible.
Perhaps you should just acknowledge that most nations have blood on their hands, and we should be working for ways to resolve issues, rather than demonize.
The difference is, we acknowledge it as such, why you do not
Perhaps you're not so much knuckleheaded as you are ignorant. The fact of the matter is that the people of the Un
In all honesty: YOU were the one who started with the grade-school reasoned analogy. An analogy who was almost laughingly absurd and incorrect.
The simple fact that you disagree with the conclusion reached by method of analogy does not mean the analogy is flawed. The fact that the OP was comfortable making analogies in a similar vein leads me to believe that the concept is quite sound. Instead of getting lost on hyperbole, let's analyze your actual response.
"If you give weapons to an adult, who you know to be a murderer and uses those weapons to kill people, are you responsible for their actions?"
And this is an obvious false analogy. Because the argument is not whether or not the person uses weapons to kill people - as I said before, members of the armed services do that. This same type of moronic argument is frequently used in advocacy of gun control, the theory being that the weapon is what causes the crime. This has been repeatedly debunked.
The question is this: is the US to blame for Saddam's actions against its interests, simply because the US backed Saddam when he supported US interests? The answer is, quite simply, no. Just as many governments have backed allies which have eventually turned on them, we were simply caught in a position that developed from a very complex real-world problem.
Despite all your protestations to the contrary, one cannot correctly state that the US is to blame for Saddam's actions against Kuwait or the world at large simply because, at some point, we allied with them.
Furthermore if you are making the case that anyone who supported Saddam is responsible for his actions, you need to cast your net of blame in a much wider arc. France, Russia, and Germany - along with many other UN nations - sent money and materiel to his adminstration after he began his aggressive actions against Kuwait and after he began defying UN regulation. Since you are simply a reactionary spreading lies about the United States, I'm not surprised that you did not consider this.
For the problems you caused, you mean.
This is precisely the type of attitude that ensures there will be no solution to this problem, other than one in which only US interests are considered. Your type are simply too childish, too reactionary, too ignorant to understand that it is not a problem of causality. It is a problem of situation. Yes, it is the fault of the US government that the US is in Iraq. But that is as far as direct blame can go. Once you get past that you have to consider the self-serving motives of al-Qaeda and the Sunni minority, the foreign terrorists, and many other factors. Factors which you obviously do not consider due to your inability to rationally assess the situation.
To be blunt: you don't really care about solving a problem, you care about assigning blame and feeling important.
And then you expect us to just swallow it and act as if nothing is the matter too. Pretty damn arrogant of you, just like your government.
A presumptive statement borne of your ignorance. There is nothing keeping the UN nations from condemning the US action while also looking for ways to fix the problem. All we rational people expect is that the UN, an organization supposedly formed to regulate international relations, support peaceful resolution of conflicts, and spread human rights, would find some way to help resolve the conflict.
Also, bear in mind that the UN is at least partially culpable in this matter. The UN quite firmly believed that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction, so much so that for over ten years they conducted continuous investigations, enforced no-fly zones, enacted embargoes, and passed resolutions to demand compliance by the government of Iraq. The only thing the UN did not do was issue a final approval of military action to resolve the matter. Which is why this is the onl
Also note the lack of any such authorization for this latest little Crusade of yours in Mesopotamia.
Again you mistake what you think is the point for what is the point. As you very clearly illustrate, both resolutions were following the same path. However when it came time to declare actual war on Iraq - when this last resolution was defied - it was obvious that many members of the UN did not want to follow through on the consequences promised by the UN. So, in essence, the UN failed.
Since the point was that the UN felt Iraq was a threat (which they clearly did) and had threatened Iraq with the same 'consequences' language used during the first Gulf War (which they clearly did), then it follows that the UN failed in not following through on its resolution. Again I have clearly proven my point. You just can't admit you're wrong.
which implies Annan speaking of Blix.
My mistake again for believing you would have the intelligence necessary to understand that a quote attriubuted to Hans Blix was made by Hans Blix. In the future I won't repeat the mistake of assuming you have a brain.
And again, all your misdirection and attempts to create a 'strawman' argument about what was attributed to whom does not undermine the point that I have proven: the UN felt Iraq was a threat.
Not only was I not mistaken, but you did get exposed
You have a very rich fantasy life. Perhaps you could stop daydreaming and respond to the questions? In any case, any point you attempted to dismiss as a 'strawman' is one conceded by you.
You now pretend that you advocated some third, previously not mentioned position
Nice try. I pretend nothing - I simply thoroughly debunked another one of your asinine statements. Let me quote you:
WWII was not fought to "stop em from dying". It was fought for self-preservation by all participants.
Now, obviously, this statement is false if I can show that at least one party fought for the preservation or benefit of someone other than themselves. Which I have. So, again, you are wrong and cannot admit it.
Strawman. Burning.
Ignorant metaphor. Stretching.
Constructed Democracy is proven under conditions vastly different from Iraq in all areas that matter (many of which I listed) . It is a "workable goal" only if these conditions are met.
This is a lie in that you make a statement - "it is a workable goal only if these conditions are met" - without any proof whatsoever to back up your claim.
Thanks, but no, thanks.
And again I'm not surprised. Information doesn't seem to appeal to you.
Ah, the unmistakable smell of straw burning.
Ah, the unmistakable smell of shit being shoveled. Let's analyze how you try to turn opinion into fact:
All I am out to "prove" is that there are allegations that the UN failed to monitor all aspects of the election
Followed quickly by:
UN appears to have failed to comprehensively monitor the elections
In one sentence you attempt to leap from 'allegations' to substantive proof. Unfortunately in the real world that doesn't work. You are basically admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. Which pretty much anyone reading your rants knows anyway.
As I already mentioned, it is an opinion piece, not an actual in-depth analysis of the Iraq Body Count data.
Okay. Let's tally up here. You know more than the CBC, the BBC, CNN, the AP... and now Newsweek! Every time you attempt to discredit a news source which has done research with your tin foil hat
That is why it was worded as "serious consequences" instead of "military action" for example, no?
Your ignorance knows no bounds. This is political speak, in which no specific action is ever promised. Again, I will illustrate your idiocy with a specific example.
In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN went to war to push Iraq back. However the resolution that set the stage for this war - UN Security Council Resolution 660 - does not specifically mention war or military action. Quoting:
The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
So to again visit your shadowy world of paranoia and delusion - obviously there was no war to push Iraq out of Kuwait because the words 'war' and 'military action' never appear in the statement. What a genius you are.
I pointed out this CNN article titled "Powell lays out path in Iraq dispute", which contains your text verbatim. Word "Annan" does not occur there even once.
Ah, now I see the problem. You're retarded. See, I didn't attribute that quote to Annan. I attributed the statement to Hans Blix. Which is why the name Hans Blix appears in the quote. Yet you still try to claim that this is some misinformation campaign by Powell. Amazing.
You on the other hand, as expected, dug up some poor approximation, quoted it and promptly misunderstood it. Another example of your "informed" position.
Um, sure. You, as expected, hunted around until you could find a loose enough definition to attempt to pretend that you meant something else entirely. You made a mistake. Just admit it.
Interestingly you seem to think that your attempt at misdirection worked. But it didn't. So we will now assume that you have conceded the following points:
- The United States assisted Europe in WWII for reasons much more complex than 'profit'
- Constructed Democracy is a proven and workable goal
- You are an anti-Semite
- You are a reactionary who is not interested in truth, facts, the future of Iraq, or anything except condemning every action of the United States - even when you have to lie or misrepresent the truth to do it
The thing I find most amazing about your anti-Semitism is that it is based on such astounding ignorance that you can't even make a coherent argument for it. For example, there is a lot of reason to suspect Israel is involved with the recent spate of terror attacks, not the least of which is history. I suggest you look up the Lavon Affair. Don't thank me, it's a freebie. I'm hoping next time we cross paths you will be smarter.
Unlike mine which contained an actual link to an article by a reporter on the ground who wrote for that "Inter Press Service" which is a news service.
You quote one disreputable source - one! - and refuse to examine all evidence given that the rumors you so blindly believe have been soundly disproven. It's ok, it's a wonderful example of paranoia and helps further illustrate your mental instability.
It means 'invasion' in the books of the UN. This was the intent behind the statement.
I dug up your quote, which you insisted was Annan's, and found it to be attributed to Powell by the very CNN you cited as your source
No you didn't. You simply restated the quote I provided, and attributed it to Powell yourself. Doesn't change the facts.
At this point you quickly devolve into severe irrationality and delusional behavior. Let me illustrate that by quoting all the times you say 'strawman':
attack some strawman I created
This is how you build a proper strawman!
A beauty of a strawman here again
Brilliant example of a strawman
Another beauty of a strawman!
Strawman alert!
You then spend the majority of your response addressing your own statement that my arguments - which, again, are all backed by facts which have been cited, unlike your wild accusations and paranoid delusions - are strawmen.
So I thought you might be interested to know the actual definition of the term 'strawman'. Given you have some mental problem which prevents you from actually checking anything you say before you excrete it from your less attractive end, I figured it could only help:
strawman: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
Let's look at this, shall we? You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute. Interesting. So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat? Even taking your insanity into account, doesn't that seem a bit silly?
I believe what you were actually trying to claim is that I am using 'red herring' arguments, not 'strawman' arguments. It's okay, by this time I've grown used to educating you. Since you incorrectly dismiss most of the valid arguments I have made as 'strawmen', your reply makes very little sense. Perhaps you'd like to try again? Until you do we'll have to assume that you concede every point you misidentified as a 'strawman'.
Now that I've completely destroyed your idiotic 'strawman' position, let's move on to the arguments you actually, pathetically, try to make:
Who failed to monitor this.
That would be more harmful if it hadn't been proven to be a hoax. The story most people site for this came from a group called the 'Inter Press Service', which is hardly a reputable news agency. Other articles cite 'rumors' that food rations would be withheld if the people in an area did not vote. However, many people did not vote - fearing terrorist violence by your heroes - yet they still receive food rations today.
Again, I don't expect facts to deter you in the least. But you should realize the stupidity of your position - you believe any anti-US propaganda from any backwater hole in the world. Any rumor, any innuendo. And then you try to actually take on a person who uses facts and reasoning? No wonder you look so ridiculous.
Oh, my. Your most ridiculous mistake yet - and that's saying a lot. From the article you cite:
The survey was carried out by the UK-based Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group - which includes academics and peace activists.
Feel foolish yet? If not, let me explain it to you: the Newsweek article to which I linked explicitly debunks the statements of "Iraq Body Count". Perhaps you should have read either source before hastily posting your non-rebuttal and making such an ass of yourself.
My desire is for Iraq to regain stability and for its citizens to be happy and prosperous.
Er, moviemaking and novel-writing are also viewed as special, outlier, hip professions. Are they not mature?
The difference being, the movie industry and novel writing industry aren't inundated with the 'wanna be a' approach to luring new talent. Certainly one can find such types of ads, perhaps selling a book that will 'teach you how to write a screenplay', or some such. But I don't recall Robert DeNiro issuing a list of things to do to become an actor. Probably because it would be very short:
1. Act.
The shortest how-to ever.
Your "Come up with a game idea" is a silly oversimplification of the creative process. You need a coherent, nuanced overall vision for the project and direct every one of thousands of details towards that vision.
Oversimplification, yes. Silly is a matter of opinion. I expected this to be taken in context with what I wrote about game design as a job.
My point is that every form of professional entertainment development requires a coherent, nuanced overall vision for the project. All of them require one or more to direct every one of the thousands of details towards that vision.
The first step towards maturing any industry is taking hints from other industries about how to approach business. The games industry desperately needs to mature. And the mythology about it being some private club for zealots only hinders this development.
Frankly I think the game industry will only mature when we stop pretending that it's this special, outlier, uber-hipster profession. It's a job, like anything else. All creative jobs require you to a. be creative and b. be skilled at what you want to do.
Want to make games? Learn a skill and come up with a game idea. Big news. Everything else is just self-congratulatory window dressing and delusion.
If more people treated it like a profession, the industry would naturally become more professional.
Nope. Not only there was no such resolution (to "attack" Iraq) but they was clearly no reason to do so
Your insanity is remarkable:
On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1992 Gulf War resolution. - Wikipedia
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm. - Wikipedia
You're demonstrably wrong again. But I know that won't stop you.
The CNN also disagrees with you.
Actually, no they don't. You're quoting a different article. Another pathetic attempt at misdirection.
Since you claimed that no protests occurred, even one example disproves your claim.
An example of the type of idiotic thinking that pervades your mindset. So if you claim that rape is not sufficiently prevented, I can debunk your position by showing that law enforcement stopped one rape last year? The fact of the matter is that there was no serious, organized effort to stop sanctions, or to find some other solution to the Iraq problem. Because, once again, your type don't really care. You just look for every opportunity to rant against the US.
Canada being part of the British Empire had little choice (I find that air of proprietorship of yours in regards to Canada telling by the way). As to the US, it did so at first for profit. There was absolutely no appetite for joining any silly European wars in the US.
Another basic flaw with your argumentative style: you mention one of the possible reasons for something, then jump to the conclusion that it is the cause for the action. You do so without any proof. For example in this case you state that the US agreed to provide war materiel to its allies 'for profit' - something which you know you cannot prove.
In fact, if you knew anything about history, you would know that Roosevelt and Churchill were quite close, and that the Roosevelt adminstration was actually quite keen to bring the US into the war in Europe. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is widely regarded by historians as a blunder which served as the perfect pretext to bring the US into the war.
Again, I don't expect facts to sway you, as the basic thesis underlying each and every one of your 'arguments' is that the US is greedy. You approach every argument from this angle, and refuse to actually look at any of the facts. Your mind is already made up.
I am by nature opposing nearly everything, everywhere
Do you know why a magician doesn't do the same trick twice for the same audience? Because magicians have the common sense to realize that eventually the audience will cotton on to what is going on behind the scenes. Some sneaky move, some pause in delivery will give away the gimmick behind the effect.
You lack the common sense to use this type of judgment and continue to employ the same predictable artifice, over and over and over. You take a very specific, targeted argument and rather than answer the argument you generalize it, then attack the generalization which you made. It's rather silly.
But, to again show you how real reasoning works: your oppositional defiant disorder is actually quite targeted. You are anti-Western. More specifically, you are anti-American. You start every one of your arguments from a biased position: that the US is either evil, greedy, or corrupt. Then you extrapolate your own truth from that position.
Your analogy fails. Here's a better one:
The Americans fed and clothed a murderer so that he could help them kill somebody they didn't like.
Unfortunately the world is much more complicated than your grade-school reasoning skills. Funding an army is 'feeding and clothing murderers' by your definition. The fact is Saddam was a power in a foreign country with whom we could ally against an enemy. So we allied when it was beneficial for us. Upon gaining power he then became a problem to the world and had to be dealt with. That's the reality of a complex world. One cannot dismiss the whole situation simply by saying 'but you were friends before!'
Oil consumption is not evil. Killing and subjugating people so that you can get it is.
It's analogous to many situations in life. For example: sex is not evil, but raping somebody so you can get it is.
Oil consumption, as well as conspicuous consumption, are definitely part of the problem. That you consider your hands clean is what I find so odious about you. It's like decrying illegal corporate practices and then shopping at Wal Mart.
Perhaps you could explain how it is better for you to send your money to corrupt governments like Saddam's, supporting the indirect rape, torture, and murder of innocent people. Rather than support actions to remove this corrupt government and give the people some sort of self-ruling system. Regardless of all your sideline arguments, the fact of the matter is that without the terrorist attacks in Iraq, the people have a much better life ahead of them if democracy takes hold there.
Blowing up innocent civilians would fall into that category.
Obviously. The difference is, we don't attempt to justify our killing of civilians. It is always in error, and every attempt is made to minimize them. Juxtapose this with the terrorists, who purposely target civilians. There is a blatant difference. We don't celebrate the death of innocents. We don't tape beheadings and post them on the Web with glee.
Dropping nukes on civilians would also fall into that category.
An odd statement, considering we have only dropped two nukes in combat, and that was during WWII. Anyone who walks away from that massive equation with the sum "America = nukes = bad" has serious comprehension problems.
Giving money, weapons, and intelligence support to mass murderers would also fall into that category.
Interesting, then, that this is business-as-usual for the UN, and for pointless palaverers like yourself, who continuously advocate 'diplomatic' solutions to problems. Such as negotiating with terrorists and mass murderers.
Better inactive than to be active in causing suffering in others.
A position I can never understand. Your type think you are better because you do nothing, even when that nothing causes or worsens suffering around the world. You take some haughty self-satisfaction from your inactivity.
Look, no matter what rhetoric you want to spew about woulda-shoulda-coulda, the fact of the matter is that the situation is what it is. You want to pretend you really care about the Iraqis, or the world at all? Then do something about it. Help stabilize the region. Get the UN involved so Halliburton doesn't have free reign to steal all the contracts. Stop with the self-righteous attitude. All the US-hating and flag burning in the world won't make the problem better.
If America cared so much about Hussein killing Iraqis, then why did they give him weapons to do it with?
Because at the time we gave him the weapons, he was an ally helping us fight a militant enemy which showed aggression to the United States. Your argument is pointless - if you feed and clothe a child, who grows up to be a murderer, are you responsible for their actions? If you attempt to do something to correct their path or deal with them, are you being hypocritical?
Who else were you funding around that time? Oh, right.. your good friend Osama Bin Laden the freedom fighter.
That is a myth. Bin Laden never received direct support from the United States, and he had a negligible role in fighting the Soviets.
Your country has its dirty, grubby little fingers all over the mess in the middle east. Why is that? Because the middle east has the substance that you need like a crackhead needs crack. You'll do anything to get it.
I love when people say this. I suppose you do not have electricity in your house? You don't drive a car, or take mass transit? Oil consumption is the evil of the rest of the world, right?
Reminds me of the time a Canadian who owns an SUV told me my country was in a war for oil. But his hands are clean. I guess people will tell themselves anything.
And now I'm sure you'll be prepared with justifications for why it was OK for the US to support Saddam, and why it was OK for the US to support Osama - but then, people who do horrible things always have justifications for the things they do. Osama has a justification for flying planes into buildings full of civilans, and you have yours for supporting mass murderers.
Anyone can offer rationale for their position. Child molesters claim that they really love the children they violate. It is up to intelligent people to determine if the rationale behind the action is reasonable or unreasonable. There is a lot of reason to think that the US action in Iraq is reasonable, but zero to think that flying planes into civilian-occupied buildings, blowing up schoolchildren, and shooting brides on their way to a wedding is 'justified'.
I doubt you actually believe any of those actions are justified, you're just so busy frothing at the mouth about the US that you haven't really thought it through. The privilege of the inactive.
In my experience, any post that begins with 'hey fucko' can be safely ignored. But I'm bored. So...
I didn't say the music was loose and that you liked it because I know more about music than you do, I said it was loose because I thought it was loose, and I liked it, too. Music can be loose and still be good, asshole.
You're the same guy who wrote the article? I'm amazed. Why didn't you name the article "Hey Fuckos, 'We Love Katamari' Rocks Your Cock!" or something similarly eloquent?
And yes, I used to actually listen to "Pizzicato Five," only I didn't put their name in quotation marks.
I have actually tried listening to "Pizzicato Five" and found it to be meandering Casio-keyboard-quality electronic boredom. To each his own. The difference between you and me is that I can say 'this music wasn't for me'
I was actually rather excited about your web page, until it loaded and I was greeted with the giant banner ads for PETA. This speaks very poorly of you.
PETA is a terrorist organization, sponsoring radicals to bomb laboratories for their own idiotic ends, harassing people who disagree with them, and generally conducting themselves like smug, ignorant, hypocritical assholes.
Anyone who attempts to speak about ethics while simultaneously supporting PETA could at the very least be described as inconsistent.
Exactly! So they are capable of being wrong, and were wrong for a. not continuing with the invasion of Iraq after the first Gulf War and b. not following through on their resolution to attack Iraq after weapons inspections failed. Thanks for pointing that out!
No, he is merely covering his ass as any politician does
Read: you are attempting to discredit a quote which obviously debunks your position, since you cannot support your position directly. Result: you lose.
This is actually Colin Powell speaking in one of his misinformation sessions. I know, it must be really hard to keep track of your useless props.
Actually quoted from CNN. So far you've claimed to know more than both CNN and the BBC. Pardon me if I disagree.
Your debate style is pathetic - when your ignorance is illustrated you either attempt to misdirect the conversation, claim to know more than the source that is being cited, or just go on ad hominem attacks.
Nobody takes action against sanctions.
Right.
Nobody takes action against suffering inside a country
Uh huh.
Interesting that you equate taking action with simply issuing a mission statement. I have seen a petition circulating the Internet to boycott Microsoft. So I gather you believe that is all that should be done to fight their monopolistic practices?
The fact of the matter is nobody was taking out full-page ads, picketing in front of embassies, marching on Washington, calling their Congressmen, or burning flags over sanctions. Your type are bandwagoners and opportunist America-haters, and only speak up when the camera is aimed at you.
WWII was not fought to "stop em from dying". It was fought for self-preservation by all participants.
What an ignorant world view you have. Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked? Must be more of that 'self preservation' you're talking about.
In fact, if the US were as evil as the fantasy you whack off to, wouldn't we have sided with the Germans? After all, then we could have had Anglo control of the world, including all the oil.
Face it, the actions of the US don't mirror the bizarre fantasy you have about our implicit corruption, greed, and narcissim. You simply find these traits in every one of our actions because you're predisposed towards that world view - you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder. You disagree with everything that you don't, yourself, think of - and since you never actually think of anything, that doesn't leave much with which to agree.
I actually managed to get you to call me an anti-semite for refusing to grant Jews the central role in the universe!
Actually, no. See, while there is definitely truth to the position that one can speak ill of a group without being racist, one has to look at the motivations of the person who is doing the speaking. You can say 'Jews aren't the center of the universe', in that the statement itself is certainly not racist. But your motivation for saying it is racist. I never claimed Jews were the center of the universe - you simply leaped to that conclusion because of your anti-Semitism. I'll let the rest of your rant on this matter speak for itself.
You know you only make yourself look more nutty by the minute with these patently false, easily disprovable wild conspiracy theories
Perhaps you should read more:
Israel has withdrawn its UN 'test resolution' calling for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism following an Egyptian-led attempt to turn it into yet another anti-Israel motion. - AP
But this isn't the point. Of course some men say stupid things about women. Everyone says something stupid sometime. It's the only universal truth.
The point is that we are being conditioned to believe that women are better than men - despite ample evidence to the contrary - by our society and media. From television programs which foist this point-of-view on us, to commercials, to headlines whenever a female in any area does anything (Wie almost makes the cut, it's headlines. A female race car driver finishes like 15th and it's headlines). Focus groups are conducted about how to artificially introduce more women into fields they do not usually enter - not because there's any objective benefit to this, but because everything has to be at least 50% male and 50% female or it's sexist. Women have special female-only scholarships and funds to get them into the sciences. Women have private clubs, and if men have one (e.g. The Masters) it's considered tantamount to a Nazi death camp. On and on.
Don't delude yourself, there is a double standard. Most men ignore/tolerate it, most women think it's justified because they want revenge for sexism which, ironically, most of them weren't even around to experience.
UN is influential sometimes, sometimes it is just a puppet of those who can shrewdly manipulate it and it sports an impressive bureaucracy
Again, I couldn't ask for a better summarization of the stupidity of your position: the UN is a good organization when its actions agree with your viewpoint. When they do not, you ramble on for pages about how corrupt, US-influenced, and pointless the whole affair is. The term for this is 'sour grapes'.
Even if they were such, which I doubt, and even if Annan believed so, which I doubt as you don't quote him
I apologize for presuming you had the knowledge and capability to find his statements on your own. Since you evidently don't actually know how to use a search engine, let me clip some of Annan's statements for you:
Until the inspectors report, I think we pretty much can't make any judgment - Kofi Annan, 12/31/2002. Obviously he felt that the continued inspections were necessary.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq had failed to provide evidence in its declaration to prove that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction - CNN, 12/31/2002
The UN Security Council and Secretary General Kofi Annan declared August 6 that Iraq has violated the Gulf War cease-fire agreement by unilaterally suspending cooperation with UN weapons inspectors - USIS. Annan felt that Iraq was concealing weapons, and still felt so in 2002.
But don't let the facts sway you. It was evil America! Eeeeeeviiilll America!
I will repeat it as simply as possible because its whizzing over your head again
The only thing whizzing here is me pissing on your parade. Nobody takes action against sanctions. Nobody takes action against suffering inside a country. People only take action against military maneuvers, because since the 60's this has been the sexy issue to protest. You're a product of a carefully engineered counter-culture brainwashing. Face it, you're a puppet.
WWII was not fought over Jews
And this war was not fought over the Kurds, or the Shiites. However in both cases, entire sections of humanity would be the victims of your 'let 'em all die, as long as I don't have to lift a finger' mentality.
You can end your posturing about Jews as the planet does not revolve around them
And now another facet of your delusional mentality emerges: your anti-Semitism. No wonder you're so anti-US! You're part of the group that backs the Arab-controlled security council, which routinely passes laws in favor of Palestine and then refuses to pass the same laws for Israel. Given your intrinsic anti-Semitic bias, and racist beliefs, no wonder you're against the war in Iraq. And no wonder you don't want the people to win, and are happy that terrorists blow up children and civilians there.
Nor does it imply there is one as you would want everyone to believe.
And that's the best response you could think of? The full-sentence equivalent of 'fraid not!'. What next, I'm rubber and you're glue?
Quite true, but all of these imply research, scientific knowledge, reasoning, accurate assessment of the disease etc.
I hate to break it to you, but there is actual precedent for what is being done in Iraq. The US created the democracies which exist and thrive in both Germany and Japan. Does that grind at you, too?
I might lend moral support to those who try to rebuild it and expose the warmongers for what they are.
You're delusional. That's the only possible explanation. You lend 'moral support' by posting your fevered rantings to Slashdot? As opposed to the men and women actually over there
Because your wife will beat you up??? Gorw a pair, Nancy!
It's brilliant how poetic that statement is. You've illustrated the problem perfectly. Men must accept, revere, and worship women. But if women do anything offensive and we complain, we're just too weak.
The 'revenge feminism' angle is being played way too often. You can see it anywhere on TV if you have your eyes open. Men are consistently infantilized in entertainment and advertising. Since advertisements generally have less air time, they tend to be more egregious about it.
For example, in Canada there is a commercial about stopping the spread of HIV. On this commercial a talk-show host - female - is paneling three 'guy' penis-shaped objects. The woman asks if they ever 'try for sex' on the first date, and the guys all hum and haw about how women aren't objects, they respect their spirituality... and the woman instantly sneers at them and screams at the audience 'don't trust your date'. The audience, full of women, cheers raucously at this. End message: men are sex-obsessed pigs, and only women care about the spread of STDs.
For me, true disgust with this odious gender bigotry pinnacled when I saw an episode of "Third Watch" (ok, it was a slow TV day) where a female detective rammed her gun into a guy's crotch and threatened to shoot off his toolkit. While this was happening heroic music was playing - see, the female cop was avenging the death of her sister, who OD'd on drugs bought from the male pusher. Hooray for justice!
The odd thing is that this swing of attention - which is outright pandering to the female demographic - has actually infiltrated even the steadfastly male-dominated cultures. Yesterday I was watching 'Appleseed', an anime movie. The movie is set in a post-apocalyptic future in which mankind has formed a symbiosis with engineered beings. Every positive character in the movie is female. The Prime Minister is female. The doctor who invented the 'clones' is female. The hero is female. The men in the story are either war-obsessed genocidal maniacs or just there to spout anti-woman dialogue to justify the revenge feminist angle. And this is Japanese anime!
Frankly as much as I find it offensive I also find it pathetic. There's a desperate neediness about the whole thing, which I don't believe truly 'equal' people would require in order to feel good about themselves. But to be fair, we've been suffering the 'white guys are lame, white guys can't dance, white guys can't jump, white guys can't play basketball' crap for years too. Hopefully it's all just a phase.
And, hopefully, someday I'll be able to sit down to dinner without being assaulted by countless vignettes in which men are the goofy idiots and women the wise sages - or, at least, fewer commercials about feminine itch, odor, and leakage.
.. sponsored by the US and the UK as I already mentioned in detail. UN is a weak organisation, hoplessely kept hostage by the security council members, US particularly.
Your stupidity is astounding. You don't even realize that this completely undermines all your arguments for the UN becoming a more influential body. If the US controls the UN, how is this a good thing? Did you forget what you were arguing amidst all your self-righteous blather?
No it would have been vetoed by US and UK.
... and all the other nations who believed that Iraq had dangerous weapons - a group which, again, included Annan. Interesting that you not only chose to ignore this point, but completely snipped it from your summary.
I admit it, I failed to coordinate 6 million people to show up on the streets in 12 countries at noon Tuesday.
I guess mocking the question is easier than answering it. So you've conceded that people only got together and protested the war because, like you, they are attention-seekers? That you don't really have a position except to be against whatever position your government takes? Good to know.
These are secondary sources, which did not get it quite right.
Yeah. I'll trust your journalistic credentials over the BBC.
That is because your kind of "cures" almost always are.
Since we've already established that this is how you see the world, the fact that you believe this really isn't surprising. I'm certainly glad you weren't around in WWII, so you could tell us all 'let that Jew problem sort itself out'.
And we were right this time. Again.
"We"? Feeling a bit cranky, Sybil? Or do you mean you and your parents, with whom you probably still live, typing your Unabomber-type missives on pointless bulletin boards?
Cures are hard to come by for many problems. Subsequently having one is more rare then not.
And just because you don't see it as a cure doesn't mean it isn't one. Cures may have side effects, they may seem harsh or shocking. To cure cancer one has to irradiate the body. To cure some venereal disease doctors would give their patients cyanide. The world is much more complex than your junior high school philosophy classes might have led you to believe.
I was under the impression that it was you blathering and whining in your comfortable chair, in order to make others die for your delusions. I cannot help but wonder why are you not enlisted and in Iraq.
This is, quite possibly, the most obvious and tiresome argument to come from your pussified, granola-chewing, patchouli-oil, hippie faction: that if you aren't out fighting the war, then you shouldn't be speaking in support of it. I'll join the army as soon as you fly to Iraq and join a human chain in front of those 'freedom fighting' Sunni Muslims. Seriously, walk right up to them and start blathering about how you're 'one of the good ones'. Hopefully they catch your demise on tape - the world could use more comedy.
But you are the wrost sort of scum there is, a chikenhawk, a whiny little voice crying "kill them all!, with us or against us!" and hiding behind others, whose lives you deem "expandable" and "collateral damage".
The most interesting part of your paranoid delusion is that, of course, I never said anything of the sort; in fact, it is you furthering this position. You are the one saying 'let them starve under sanctions, I won't lift a finger'. You are the one saying 'let them die under brutal dictatorship; let them stone their rape victims and gas their minorities... I have nothing to say'. You are the most base form of life that exists: a coward who lacks the courage of any form of co
Interesting that it's only sexism when something is said about women. But when women start talking about how much smarter they are than men... that's headline news.
No prescience required. Common sense and logic is all it takes. Something the proponents of war were all clearly short on, but quite long on adrenaline, lust to kill and self-righteous belief in their own infallibility. And they all have been proven wrong. So now you pretend that this prediction was somehow un-imaginably unlikely to be made correctly. Amusing to watch, but no one is buying this crap, and you know it.
Rather than engage in a long-winded reply, as you do to attempt to obfuscate and conceal your ignorance, let me just point out that Iraq was under more than 10 years of constant UN inspection, sanctions, and threats. If the UN honestly believed there was no problem in Iraq, this wouldn't have been the case. Even Annan said that he didn't feel they were being forthright about their weapons stashes, and Annan's son was taking money. So your whole argument is just Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Many of us (myself included) opposed the sanctions as ineffective and poorly targeted.
And you're evading the question - the question was why weren't there massive, organized protests against these problems? Why weren't you on your poorly-informed soapbox screaming that things had to change? Because it wasn't sexy, it wouldn't be televised, and you don't really give a shit. You're just bandwagoning.
Quoth Scott Ritter:
Quoth Time:
Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam.
Quoth the BBC:
In early 1998 an inspection by Mr Ritter's team led to the most serious confrontation between Baghdad and the UN since the Gulf War, and eventually to Unscom leaving Iraq.
In August 1998, Mr Ritter resigned from his job, accusing the Security Council and the United States of caving in to the Iraqis.
Sounds to me like he wasn't sure what he believed. And, again, the _entire_ UN seemed quite convinced of Saddam's weapons holdings.
Right. I see. So the UN should have amassed an army and rolled over Iraq,
Since the UN is supposed to protect the world from dictatorial human-rights abusers, and Saddam had just declared war on a sovereign nation and would undoubtedly exterminate the rebellion in Iraq which helped the UN - YES. Unequivocally.
If the situation is un-fixable by available means (i.e. the cure is worse then the disease), all one can do is peripheral work, sadly.
The problem with your type is you always see the cure as worse than the disease. Because cure requires you to actually do something. Disease lets you sit back in your comfortable chair, typing your disapproval for every action. Which is why your type never accomplish anything, and never make policy.
O.K. Let me make this as simple as possible for you... [remainder snipped]
If by 'simple' you meant 'skewed', you are correct. Simply casting the situation as one of an incurable terminal disease which nobody can do anything about immediately biases it to your side. If this is truly how you see the world - they're all sick, we should just let them die - then your problem is much, much bigger than the US.
And bonus: it also sheds the light on the "lesser intellect" which you so kindly brought up.
I guess I just wasn't prepared for you being so comfortable in that spotlight. But then again your type are all about attention. Look at me! I told you it was a bad idea. Look at me! I said do nothing, and you did something, and now bad stuff is happening. Look at me! I can't offer any constructive ideas, or any solutions, but I can sure criticize everything you do! It's sad, and I mean that in a pathetic way.
It was the US who put him in power in the first place. They did that about the same time they were putting groups like the Taliban in charge of the Afgani's to resist Soviet occupation, and training people like Bin Laden to do the guerilla fighting.
Each and every one of these statements is either false, or mixes truth with lie. So you'll excuse me if I don't immediately bow to your wisdom.
One can find out about Hussein's rise to power - and the history of the Baath party - with very little effort via Google. The US government never trained bin Laden, or the Taliban, to fight anyone. They didn't even exist when the Soviets were invading Afghanistan. You seriously need to check your facts.
The UN is inefficient, but bad stuff tends not to come out of the UN because too many people have veto power. As opposed to here.
The UN is not inefficient. It is ineffective. Bad stuff definitely comes out of the UN - ask the Kurds, or the Sudanese, or all the people starving under 'humane' UN-approved sanctions.
Like most people, you are completely willing to accept suffering due to inaction rather than suffering due to action. The desire to feel great about everything that your country does has become a boat anchor around your neck.
Many people simply do not see that as an intrinsically better way of thinking than a strong nation leading the way towards a better world. The fact of the matter is that if the US were to continue to spread its influence around the world, everyone's standard of living would go up. People would have greater freedom.
Laissez-faire is great for soothing your own conscience, but it is no more morally upright than direct action.
You know, there's nothing I love more than some self-proclaimed expert declaring that the music I loved from Katamari Damacy was "loose" and "unrefined", or that I only like it because I don't know as much about music as he does. Thanks a pantload, Chet!
Seriously, does anybody really listen to "Pizzicato Five"? I thought that people only said they did to sound cool and obscure - like how people claim to enjoy the works of Tarkovsky.
But there wouldn't have been a catastrophe. There were no WMDs.
Oh, if only we all had your startling prescience and could see into the future to have known this. Funny, if there were no WMDs where is your righteous indignation against all the children starved to death under UN sanctions against those very nonexistent WMDs?
The UN was verifying this
You're engaging in revisionist history. The UN wasn't verifying this, because the inspectors did not have the freedom they needed to verify it. But don't let the facts get in your way.
I certainly have seen MANY people protesting the sanctions, even (especially?) those anti-iraq-war. You should get out more and stop watching FOX.
It is people like you who ensure that those who watch FOX will continue to rule the nation. Because any time that someone questions your shaky logic, porous reasoning, and self-centered world view, you jump to hyperbole and generalization. "You don't agree that the US is 100% evil? You're a ditto head!" Pardon me if I see the crazy need to actually back my positions with logic and reason.
Here's what I saw, on CNN, the BBC, CBC, and numerous other news channels: thousands of carefully orchestrated, televised protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. Zero over the sanctions. Zero over the fact that the UN left the Iraqi rebellion to die horribly after the first Gulf War. Maybe if you weren't so busy selling yourself your own choice line of BS you'd have seen this.
And what's the point of protesting in the united states against something another country did that everyone agreed was wrong? Preaching to the choir?
How about motivating the member countries of your esteemed UN to actually do something about the situation?
Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. You just sit back and pass judgment on everyone else's actions. Actually doing something is for people of lesser intellect.
no need to PROTEST this, as it's not something OUR COUNTRY is doing. There is need to TAKE ACTION about it. Get your head straight.
Um, sure. Because protest is not about motivating people to action.
If there were an award for most idiotic comment of the year, you'd be giving your Michael-Moore-approved acceptance speech right about... now.
You know, this was never intended to be a serious discussion of the flaws of the UN (or the concept underlying the UN), but I have to say: what you are actually declaring is that catastrophe due to inaction is more acceptable to you than catastrophe due to action.
The number of people who hold that exact same position amazes me. For example, that people all got together to wave their signs and protest the war but nobody protested the embargoes and sanctions that were starving families in Iraq for years. Or the gassing of the Kurds. Or the massacre in the Sudan.
Everybody seems okay with turning their heads away from the disaster. It's getting your hands dirty that pisses people off. Which calls the whole UN thing into question - if we're not supposed to be the world police, what are we supposed to do? Is the purpose of the organization limited to being the stereotypical high-society dame of the world, haughtily lifting her nose at the perils of the world and disclaiming, "Well, I never!".
Polite statements of disapproval has never stopped tyranny. But apathy is rocket fuel.
Of course the whole situation is incredibly complex and would take much more than a few glib responses on Slashdot to fully resolve. So bring on the jokes!
We will give you 1 year to take down your website, before 'more drastic' measures will be taken.
One year later...
Resolution 30357B - Illegal File Traders:
Oh, did we say one year? We meant two. Take two years. But take it down! Don't make us unleash the fury!
Two years later...
Resolution 30357C - Illegal File Traders:
We at the UN can't help but notice that you haven't taken your site down. We strongly disapprove of your actions. So much so that we're giving you three more years to do it. But you'd better believe that when those three years are up it's clobbering time. Seriously.
Three years later...
Resolution 30357D - Illegal File Traders:
It seems you are still running your illegal website. We downloaded several Chingy tunes today (thanks for the UN discount!). But you seriously need to take that site down. Seriously. To show you how serious we are, we're going to start a plan of denying aid to people not in any way affiliated with you. Yes we know this won't affect on you personally, but it makes us look like bad-asses. Five more years! That's all we can give you. Then out come the meat hammers!
Five years later...
Resolution 30357E - Illegal File Traders
- Rider A: Condemnation of Israel for refusing to just fucking disappear like the Mayans
- Rider B: Pay-raise and trips to Disneyland!
Maybe it's us. Are we doing something wrong? Is there something we could give you to make you take that site down? Because, seriously, we're all pussies here at the UN and don't want to do anything drastic like follow through on our empty resolution statements. So why don't we go ahead and give you as many years as you like to take that site down. Just keep those kickbacks coming! And remember, we are the world's last resort for justice!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you meant 'invalid', but you're actually doing nothing of the sort. My analogy was apt. You simply disagree with the conclusion and thus are attacking the analogy.
Your continued insistence that Hussein was 'a murderer' in fact only reinforces this position. You paint him as a natural murderer - at the very least, as a person who was a murderer for quite some time (you explicitly state 'before the US dealt with him'). So obviously we did not create him.
As a matter of fact, the United States became involved with Hussein in the 1980's due to the fact that we did not want the extreme, fundamentalist, anti-Western Islam which was fomenting in Iran to spread to the rest of the Middle East. Iran was a real threat. Recall that during the Islamic Revolution, Iran decided to hold a number of US citizens as hostages. We sided with a force which we thought would help us to conquer a threat. This is a political move seen throughout history.
You can rather safely argue that the United States thus inappropriately supported and, thus perhaps indirectly, condoned this behavior by allying with Saddam. But the problem there is that you will find yourself equally guilty if you are a member of the United Nations. Note that I made this point in my last reply also, and you chose to avoid addressing it.
For years members of the United Nations did exactly the same thing as the United States, keeping Saddam in power and trying to diplomatically resolve his natural murderous tendencies. And several of these nations also had financial and materiel dealings with Saddam - some after the first Gulf War.
That's a rather glib interpretation. It is hardly appropriate to summarize a fundamentalist Islamic movement, openly hostile to the United States, in which hostages are taken, with the term 'geo-political interests'. And again if you dig in the past of any country you will find many such dealings to find objectionable.
Clearly that is not the answer. You're simply obscuring fact with prejudice.
Well that is certainly debatable. The fact of the matter is that survival sometimes requires 'unethical' behavior. As you admit in your next statement.
Interesting that you are so complacent about the issue. As recently as the 80's my countrymen were peacefully picketing your embassies about this issue. Might I point out that at no time did we burn your flags, or engage in other strange revenge fantasies against you as a people.
Heck, the United Nations even made strong statements against apartheid. Seems like we have quite a bit in common.
Despite your suspiciously clean conscience on the matter, I doubt many Africans would give you a teddy bear hug and kiss your cheek. You feel you've paid for your sins and we haven't paid for ours, which is the most sanctimonious position possible.
Perhaps you should just acknowledge that most nations have blood on their hands, and we should be working for ways to resolve issues, rather than demonize.
Perhaps you're not so much knuckleheaded as you are ignorant. The fact of the matter is that the people of the Un
The simple fact that you disagree with the conclusion reached by method of analogy does not mean the analogy is flawed. The fact that the OP was comfortable making analogies in a similar vein leads me to believe that the concept is quite sound. Instead of getting lost on hyperbole, let's analyze your actual response.
And this is an obvious false analogy. Because the argument is not whether or not the person uses weapons to kill people - as I said before, members of the armed services do that. This same type of moronic argument is frequently used in advocacy of gun control, the theory being that the weapon is what causes the crime. This has been repeatedly debunked.
The question is this: is the US to blame for Saddam's actions against its interests, simply because the US backed Saddam when he supported US interests? The answer is, quite simply, no. Just as many governments have backed allies which have eventually turned on them, we were simply caught in a position that developed from a very complex real-world problem.
Despite all your protestations to the contrary, one cannot correctly state that the US is to blame for Saddam's actions against Kuwait or the world at large simply because, at some point, we allied with them.
Furthermore if you are making the case that anyone who supported Saddam is responsible for his actions, you need to cast your net of blame in a much wider arc. France, Russia, and Germany - along with many other UN nations - sent money and materiel to his adminstration after he began his aggressive actions against Kuwait and after he began defying UN regulation. Since you are simply a reactionary spreading lies about the United States, I'm not surprised that you did not consider this.
This is precisely the type of attitude that ensures there will be no solution to this problem, other than one in which only US interests are considered. Your type are simply too childish, too reactionary, too ignorant to understand that it is not a problem of causality. It is a problem of situation. Yes, it is the fault of the US government that the US is in Iraq. But that is as far as direct blame can go. Once you get past that you have to consider the self-serving motives of al-Qaeda and the Sunni minority, the foreign terrorists, and many other factors. Factors which you obviously do not consider due to your inability to rationally assess the situation.
To be blunt: you don't really care about solving a problem, you care about assigning blame and feeling important.
A presumptive statement borne of your ignorance. There is nothing keeping the UN nations from condemning the US action while also looking for ways to fix the problem. All we rational people expect is that the UN, an organization supposedly formed to regulate international relations, support peaceful resolution of conflicts, and spread human rights, would find some way to help resolve the conflict.
Also, bear in mind that the UN is at least partially culpable in this matter. The UN quite firmly believed that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction, so much so that for over ten years they conducted continuous investigations, enforced no-fly zones, enacted embargoes, and passed resolutions to demand compliance by the government of Iraq. The only thing the UN did not do was issue a final approval of military action to resolve the matter. Which is why this is the onl
Again you mistake what you think is the point for what is the point. As you very clearly illustrate, both resolutions were following the same path. However when it came time to declare actual war on Iraq - when this last resolution was defied - it was obvious that many members of the UN did not want to follow through on the consequences promised by the UN. So, in essence, the UN failed.
Since the point was that the UN felt Iraq was a threat (which they clearly did) and had threatened Iraq with the same 'consequences' language used during the first Gulf War (which they clearly did), then it follows that the UN failed in not following through on its resolution. Again I have clearly proven my point. You just can't admit you're wrong.
My mistake again for believing you would have the intelligence necessary to understand that a quote attriubuted to Hans Blix was made by Hans Blix. In the future I won't repeat the mistake of assuming you have a brain.
And again, all your misdirection and attempts to create a 'strawman' argument about what was attributed to whom does not undermine the point that I have proven: the UN felt Iraq was a threat.
You have a very rich fantasy life. Perhaps you could stop daydreaming and respond to the questions? In any case, any point you attempted to dismiss as a 'strawman' is one conceded by you.
Nice try. I pretend nothing - I simply thoroughly debunked another one of your asinine statements. Let me quote you:
Now, obviously, this statement is false if I can show that at least one party fought for the preservation or benefit of someone other than themselves. Which I have. So, again, you are wrong and cannot admit it.
Ignorant metaphor. Stretching.
This is a lie in that you make a statement - "it is a workable goal only if these conditions are met" - without any proof whatsoever to back up your claim.
And again I'm not surprised. Information doesn't seem to appeal to you.
Ah, the unmistakable smell of shit being shoveled. Let's analyze how you try to turn opinion into fact:
Followed quickly by:
In one sentence you attempt to leap from 'allegations' to substantive proof. Unfortunately in the real world that doesn't work. You are basically admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. Which pretty much anyone reading your rants knows anyway.
Okay. Let's tally up here. You know more than the CBC, the BBC, CNN, the AP ... and now Newsweek! Every time you attempt to discredit a news source which has done research with your tin foil hat
Your ignorance knows no bounds. This is political speak, in which no specific action is ever promised. Again, I will illustrate your idiocy with a specific example.
In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN went to war to push Iraq back. However the resolution that set the stage for this war - UN Security Council Resolution 660 - does not specifically mention war or military action. Quoting:
So to again visit your shadowy world of paranoia and delusion - obviously there was no war to push Iraq out of Kuwait because the words 'war' and 'military action' never appear in the statement. What a genius you are.
Ah, now I see the problem. You're retarded. See, I didn't attribute that quote to Annan. I attributed the statement to Hans Blix. Which is why the name Hans Blix appears in the quote. Yet you still try to claim that this is some misinformation campaign by Powell. Amazing.
Um, sure. You, as expected, hunted around until you could find a loose enough definition to attempt to pretend that you meant something else entirely. You made a mistake. Just admit it.
Interestingly you seem to think that your attempt at misdirection worked. But it didn't. So we will now assume that you have conceded the following points:
- The United States assisted Europe in WWII for reasons much more complex than 'profit'
- Constructed Democracy is a proven and workable goal
- You are an anti-Semite
- You are a reactionary who is not interested in truth, facts, the future of Iraq, or anything except condemning every action of the United States - even when you have to lie or misrepresent the truth to do it
The thing I find most amazing about your anti-Semitism is that it is based on such astounding ignorance that you can't even make a coherent argument for it. For example, there is a lot of reason to suspect Israel is involved with the recent spate of terror attacks, not the least of which is history. I suggest you look up the Lavon Affair. Don't thank me, it's a freebie. I'm hoping next time we cross paths you will be smarter.
You quote one disreputable source - one! - and refuse to examine all evidence given that the rumors you so blindly believe have been soundly disproven. It's ok, it's a wonderful example of paranoia and helps further illustrate your mental instability.
Tell you what - since you're so anxio
It means 'invasion' in the books of the UN. This was the intent behind the statement.
No you didn't. You simply restated the quote I provided, and attributed it to Powell yourself. Doesn't change the facts.
At this point you quickly devolve into severe irrationality and delusional behavior. Let me illustrate that by quoting all the times you say 'strawman':
You then spend the majority of your response addressing your own statement that my arguments - which, again, are all backed by facts which have been cited, unlike your wild accusations and paranoid delusions - are strawmen.
So I thought you might be interested to know the actual definition of the term 'strawman'. Given you have some mental problem which prevents you from actually checking anything you say before you excrete it from your less attractive end, I figured it could only help:
Let's look at this, shall we? You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute. Interesting. So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat? Even taking your insanity into account, doesn't that seem a bit silly?
I believe what you were actually trying to claim is that I am using 'red herring' arguments, not 'strawman' arguments. It's okay, by this time I've grown used to educating you. Since you incorrectly dismiss most of the valid arguments I have made as 'strawmen', your reply makes very little sense. Perhaps you'd like to try again? Until you do we'll have to assume that you concede every point you misidentified as a 'strawman'.
Now that I've completely destroyed your idiotic 'strawman' position, let's move on to the arguments you actually, pathetically, try to make:
That would be more harmful if it hadn't been proven to be a hoax. The story most people site for this came from a group called the 'Inter Press Service', which is hardly a reputable news agency. Other articles cite 'rumors' that food rations would be withheld if the people in an area did not vote. However, many people did not vote - fearing terrorist violence by your heroes - yet they still receive food rations today.
Again, I don't expect facts to deter you in the least. But you should realize the stupidity of your position - you believe any anti-US propaganda from any backwater hole in the world. Any rumor, any innuendo. And then you try to actually take on a person who uses facts and reasoning? No wonder you look so ridiculous.
Oh, my. Your most ridiculous mistake yet - and that's saying a lot. From the article you cite:
Feel foolish yet? If not, let me explain it to you: the Newsweek article to which I linked explicitly debunks the statements of "Iraq Body Count". Perhaps you should have read either source before hastily posting your non-rebuttal and making such an ass of yourself.
Bullshit. If that were the case, you would be sp
The difference being, the movie industry and novel writing industry aren't inundated with the 'wanna be a' approach to luring new talent. Certainly one can find such types of ads, perhaps selling a book that will 'teach you how to write a screenplay', or some such. But I don't recall Robert DeNiro issuing a list of things to do to become an actor. Probably because it would be very short:
The shortest how-to ever.
Oversimplification, yes. Silly is a matter of opinion. I expected this to be taken in context with what I wrote about game design as a job.
My point is that every form of professional entertainment development requires a coherent, nuanced overall vision for the project. All of them require one or more to direct every one of the thousands of details towards that vision.
The first step towards maturing any industry is taking hints from other industries about how to approach business. The games industry desperately needs to mature. And the mythology about it being some private club for zealots only hinders this development.
Want to make games? Learn a skill and come up with a game idea. Big news. Everything else is just self-congratulatory window dressing and delusion.
If more people treated it like a profession, the industry would naturally become more professional.
Your insanity is remarkable:
You're demonstrably wrong again. But I know that won't stop you.
Actually, no they don't. You're quoting a different article. Another pathetic attempt at misdirection.
An example of the type of idiotic thinking that pervades your mindset. So if you claim that rape is not sufficiently prevented, I can debunk your position by showing that law enforcement stopped one rape last year? The fact of the matter is that there was no serious, organized effort to stop sanctions, or to find some other solution to the Iraq problem. Because, once again, your type don't really care. You just look for every opportunity to rant against the US.
Another basic flaw with your argumentative style: you mention one of the possible reasons for something, then jump to the conclusion that it is the cause for the action. You do so without any proof. For example in this case you state that the US agreed to provide war materiel to its allies 'for profit' - something which you know you cannot prove.
In fact, if you knew anything about history, you would know that Roosevelt and Churchill were quite close, and that the Roosevelt adminstration was actually quite keen to bring the US into the war in Europe. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is widely regarded by historians as a blunder which served as the perfect pretext to bring the US into the war.
Again, I don't expect facts to sway you, as the basic thesis underlying each and every one of your 'arguments' is that the US is greedy. You approach every argument from this angle, and refuse to actually look at any of the facts. Your mind is already made up.
Do you know why a magician doesn't do the same trick twice for the same audience? Because magicians have the common sense to realize that eventually the audience will cotton on to what is going on behind the scenes. Some sneaky move, some pause in delivery will give away the gimmick behind the effect.
You lack the common sense to use this type of judgment and continue to employ the same predictable artifice, over and over and over. You take a very specific, targeted argument and rather than answer the argument you generalize it, then attack the generalization which you made. It's rather silly.
But, to again show you how real reasoning works: your oppositional defiant disorder is actually quite targeted. You are anti-Western. More specifically, you are anti-American. You start every one of your arguments from a biased position: that the US is either evil, greedy, or corrupt. Then you extrapolate your own truth from that position.
Contrast that with my position. I make a statem
Unfortunately the world is much more complicated than your grade-school reasoning skills. Funding an army is 'feeding and clothing murderers' by your definition. The fact is Saddam was a power in a foreign country with whom we could ally against an enemy. So we allied when it was beneficial for us. Upon gaining power he then became a problem to the world and had to be dealt with. That's the reality of a complex world. One cannot dismiss the whole situation simply by saying 'but you were friends before!'
Oil consumption, as well as conspicuous consumption, are definitely part of the problem. That you consider your hands clean is what I find so odious about you. It's like decrying illegal corporate practices and then shopping at Wal Mart.
Perhaps you could explain how it is better for you to send your money to corrupt governments like Saddam's, supporting the indirect rape, torture, and murder of innocent people. Rather than support actions to remove this corrupt government and give the people some sort of self-ruling system. Regardless of all your sideline arguments, the fact of the matter is that without the terrorist attacks in Iraq, the people have a much better life ahead of them if democracy takes hold there.
Obviously. The difference is, we don't attempt to justify our killing of civilians. It is always in error, and every attempt is made to minimize them. Juxtapose this with the terrorists, who purposely target civilians. There is a blatant difference. We don't celebrate the death of innocents. We don't tape beheadings and post them on the Web with glee.
An odd statement, considering we have only dropped two nukes in combat, and that was during WWII. Anyone who walks away from that massive equation with the sum "America = nukes = bad" has serious comprehension problems.
Interesting, then, that this is business-as-usual for the UN, and for pointless palaverers like yourself, who continuously advocate 'diplomatic' solutions to problems. Such as negotiating with terrorists and mass murderers.
A position I can never understand. Your type think you are better because you do nothing, even when that nothing causes or worsens suffering around the world. You take some haughty self-satisfaction from your inactivity.
Look, no matter what rhetoric you want to spew about woulda-shoulda-coulda, the fact of the matter is that the situation is what it is. You want to pretend you really care about the Iraqis, or the world at all? Then do something about it. Help stabilize the region. Get the UN involved so Halliburton doesn't have free reign to steal all the contracts. Stop with the self-righteous attitude. All the US-hating and flag burning in the world won't make the problem better.
It's time to start looking for solutions.
Because at the time we gave him the weapons, he was an ally helping us fight a militant enemy which showed aggression to the United States. Your argument is pointless - if you feed and clothe a child, who grows up to be a murderer, are you responsible for their actions? If you attempt to do something to correct their path or deal with them, are you being hypocritical?
That is a myth. Bin Laden never received direct support from the United States, and he had a negligible role in fighting the Soviets.
I love when people say this. I suppose you do not have electricity in your house? You don't drive a car, or take mass transit? Oil consumption is the evil of the rest of the world, right?
Reminds me of the time a Canadian who owns an SUV told me my country was in a war for oil. But his hands are clean. I guess people will tell themselves anything.
Anyone can offer rationale for their position. Child molesters claim that they really love the children they violate. It is up to intelligent people to determine if the rationale behind the action is reasonable or unreasonable. There is a lot of reason to think that the US action in Iraq is reasonable, but zero to think that flying planes into civilian-occupied buildings, blowing up schoolchildren, and shooting brides on their way to a wedding is 'justified'.
I doubt you actually believe any of those actions are justified, you're just so busy frothing at the mouth about the US that you haven't really thought it through. The privilege of the inactive.
ThE MaSTeR WouLd Not aPPrOvE
In my experience, any post that begins with 'hey fucko' can be safely ignored. But I'm bored. So ...
You're the same guy who wrote the article? I'm amazed. Why didn't you name the article "Hey Fuckos, 'We Love Katamari' Rocks Your Cock!" or something similarly eloquent?
I have actually tried listening to "Pizzicato Five" and found it to be meandering Casio-keyboard-quality electronic boredom. To each his own. The difference between you and me is that I can say 'this music wasn't for me'
When the time comes.
PETA is a terrorist organization, sponsoring radicals to bomb laboratories for their own idiotic ends, harassing people who disagree with them, and generally conducting themselves like smug, ignorant, hypocritical assholes.
Anyone who attempts to speak about ethics while simultaneously supporting PETA could at the very least be described as inconsistent.
Exactly! So they are capable of being wrong, and were wrong for a. not continuing with the invasion of Iraq after the first Gulf War and b. not following through on their resolution to attack Iraq after weapons inspections failed. Thanks for pointing that out!
Read: you are attempting to discredit a quote which obviously debunks your position, since you cannot support your position directly. Result: you lose.
Actually quoted from CNN. So far you've claimed to know more than both CNN and the BBC. Pardon me if I disagree.
Your debate style is pathetic - when your ignorance is illustrated you either attempt to misdirect the conversation, claim to know more than the source that is being cited, or just go on ad hominem attacks.
Interesting that you equate taking action with simply issuing a mission statement. I have seen a petition circulating the Internet to boycott Microsoft. So I gather you believe that is all that should be done to fight their monopolistic practices?
The fact of the matter is nobody was taking out full-page ads, picketing in front of embassies, marching on Washington, calling their Congressmen, or burning flags over sanctions. Your type are bandwagoners and opportunist America-haters, and only speak up when the camera is aimed at you.
What an ignorant world view you have. Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked? Must be more of that 'self preservation' you're talking about.
In fact, if the US were as evil as the fantasy you whack off to, wouldn't we have sided with the Germans? After all, then we could have had Anglo control of the world, including all the oil.
Face it, the actions of the US don't mirror the bizarre fantasy you have about our implicit corruption, greed, and narcissim. You simply find these traits in every one of our actions because you're predisposed towards that world view - you suffer from oppositional defiant disorder. You disagree with everything that you don't, yourself, think of - and since you never actually think of anything, that doesn't leave much with which to agree.
Actually, no. See, while there is definitely truth to the position that one can speak ill of a group without being racist, one has to look at the motivations of the person who is doing the speaking. You can say 'Jews aren't the center of the universe', in that the statement itself is certainly not racist. But your motivation for saying it is racist. I never claimed Jews were the center of the universe - you simply leaped to that conclusion because of your anti-Semitism. I'll let the rest of your rant on this matter speak for itself.
Perhaps you should read more:
But this isn't the point. Of course some men say stupid things about women. Everyone says something stupid sometime. It's the only universal truth.
The point is that we are being conditioned to believe that women are better than men - despite ample evidence to the contrary - by our society and media. From television programs which foist this point-of-view on us, to commercials, to headlines whenever a female in any area does anything (Wie almost makes the cut, it's headlines. A female race car driver finishes like 15th and it's headlines). Focus groups are conducted about how to artificially introduce more women into fields they do not usually enter - not because there's any objective benefit to this, but because everything has to be at least 50% male and 50% female or it's sexist. Women have special female-only scholarships and funds to get them into the sciences. Women have private clubs, and if men have one (e.g. The Masters) it's considered tantamount to a Nazi death camp. On and on.
Don't delude yourself, there is a double standard. Most men ignore/tolerate it, most women think it's justified because they want revenge for sexism which, ironically, most of them weren't even around to experience.
Again, I couldn't ask for a better summarization of the stupidity of your position: the UN is a good organization when its actions agree with your viewpoint. When they do not, you ramble on for pages about how corrupt, US-influenced, and pointless the whole affair is. The term for this is 'sour grapes'.
I apologize for presuming you had the knowledge and capability to find his statements on your own. Since you evidently don't actually know how to use a search engine, let me clip some of Annan's statements for you:
But don't let the facts sway you. It was evil America! Eeeeeeviiilll America!
The only thing whizzing here is me pissing on your parade. Nobody takes action against sanctions. Nobody takes action against suffering inside a country. People only take action against military maneuvers, because since the 60's this has been the sexy issue to protest. You're a product of a carefully engineered counter-culture brainwashing. Face it, you're a puppet.
And this war was not fought over the Kurds, or the Shiites. However in both cases, entire sections of humanity would be the victims of your 'let 'em all die, as long as I don't have to lift a finger' mentality.
And now another facet of your delusional mentality emerges: your anti-Semitism. No wonder you're so anti-US! You're part of the group that backs the Arab-controlled security council, which routinely passes laws in favor of Palestine and then refuses to pass the same laws for Israel. Given your intrinsic anti-Semitic bias, and racist beliefs, no wonder you're against the war in Iraq. And no wonder you don't want the people to win, and are happy that terrorists blow up children and civilians there.
And that's the best response you could think of? The full-sentence equivalent of 'fraid not!'. What next, I'm rubber and you're glue?
I hate to break it to you, but there is actual precedent for what is being done in Iraq. The US created the democracies which exist and thrive in both Germany and Japan. Does that grind at you, too?
You're delusional. That's the only possible explanation. You lend 'moral support' by posting your fevered rantings to Slashdot? As opposed to the men and women actually over there
It's brilliant how poetic that statement is. You've illustrated the problem perfectly. Men must accept, revere, and worship women. But if women do anything offensive and we complain, we're just too weak.
The 'revenge feminism' angle is being played way too often. You can see it anywhere on TV if you have your eyes open. Men are consistently infantilized in entertainment and advertising. Since advertisements generally have less air time, they tend to be more egregious about it.
For example, in Canada there is a commercial about stopping the spread of HIV. On this commercial a talk-show host - female - is paneling three 'guy' penis-shaped objects. The woman asks if they ever 'try for sex' on the first date, and the guys all hum and haw about how women aren't objects, they respect their spirituality ... and the woman instantly sneers at them and screams at the audience 'don't trust your date'. The audience, full of women, cheers raucously at this. End message: men are sex-obsessed pigs, and only women care about the spread of STDs.
For me, true disgust with this odious gender bigotry pinnacled when I saw an episode of "Third Watch" (ok, it was a slow TV day) where a female detective rammed her gun into a guy's crotch and threatened to shoot off his toolkit. While this was happening heroic music was playing - see, the female cop was avenging the death of her sister, who OD'd on drugs bought from the male pusher. Hooray for justice!
The odd thing is that this swing of attention - which is outright pandering to the female demographic - has actually infiltrated even the steadfastly male-dominated cultures. Yesterday I was watching 'Appleseed', an anime movie. The movie is set in a post-apocalyptic future in which mankind has formed a symbiosis with engineered beings. Every positive character in the movie is female. The Prime Minister is female. The doctor who invented the 'clones' is female. The hero is female. The men in the story are either war-obsessed genocidal maniacs or just there to spout anti-woman dialogue to justify the revenge feminist angle. And this is Japanese anime!
Frankly as much as I find it offensive I also find it pathetic. There's a desperate neediness about the whole thing, which I don't believe truly 'equal' people would require in order to feel good about themselves. But to be fair, we've been suffering the 'white guys are lame, white guys can't dance, white guys can't jump, white guys can't play basketball' crap for years too. Hopefully it's all just a phase.
And, hopefully, someday I'll be able to sit down to dinner without being assaulted by countless vignettes in which men are the goofy idiots and women the wise sages - or, at least, fewer commercials about feminine itch, odor, and leakage.
Your stupidity is astounding. You don't even realize that this completely undermines all your arguments for the UN becoming a more influential body. If the US controls the UN, how is this a good thing? Did you forget what you were arguing amidst all your self-righteous blather?
I guess mocking the question is easier than answering it. So you've conceded that people only got together and protested the war because, like you, they are attention-seekers? That you don't really have a position except to be against whatever position your government takes? Good to know.
Yeah. I'll trust your journalistic credentials over the BBC.
Since we've already established that this is how you see the world, the fact that you believe this really isn't surprising. I'm certainly glad you weren't around in WWII, so you could tell us all 'let that Jew problem sort itself out'.
"We"? Feeling a bit cranky, Sybil? Or do you mean you and your parents, with whom you probably still live, typing your Unabomber-type missives on pointless bulletin boards?
And just because you don't see it as a cure doesn't mean it isn't one. Cures may have side effects, they may seem harsh or shocking. To cure cancer one has to irradiate the body. To cure some venereal disease doctors would give their patients cyanide. The world is much more complex than your junior high school philosophy classes might have led you to believe.
This is, quite possibly, the most obvious and tiresome argument to come from your pussified, granola-chewing, patchouli-oil, hippie faction: that if you aren't out fighting the war, then you shouldn't be speaking in support of it. I'll join the army as soon as you fly to Iraq and join a human chain in front of those 'freedom fighting' Sunni Muslims. Seriously, walk right up to them and start blathering about how you're 'one of the good ones'. Hopefully they catch your demise on tape - the world could use more comedy.
The most interesting part of your paranoid delusion is that, of course, I never said anything of the sort; in fact, it is you furthering this position. You are the one saying 'let them starve under sanctions, I won't lift a finger'. You are the one saying 'let them die under brutal dictatorship; let them stone their rape victims and gas their minorities ... I have nothing to say'. You are the most base form of life that exists: a coward who lacks the courage of any form of co
Interesting that it's only sexism when something is said about women. But when women start talking about how much smarter they are than men ... that's headline news.
Rather than engage in a long-winded reply, as you do to attempt to obfuscate and conceal your ignorance, let me just point out that Iraq was under more than 10 years of constant UN inspection, sanctions, and threats. If the UN honestly believed there was no problem in Iraq, this wouldn't have been the case. Even Annan said that he didn't feel they were being forthright about their weapons stashes, and Annan's son was taking money. So your whole argument is just Monday-morning quarterbacking.
And you're evading the question - the question was why weren't there massive, organized protests against these problems? Why weren't you on your poorly-informed soapbox screaming that things had to change? Because it wasn't sexy, it wouldn't be televised, and you don't really give a shit. You're just bandwagoning.
Quoth Time:
Quoth the BBC:
Sounds to me like he wasn't sure what he believed. And, again, the _entire_ UN seemed quite convinced of Saddam's weapons holdings.
Since the UN is supposed to protect the world from dictatorial human-rights abusers, and Saddam had just declared war on a sovereign nation and would undoubtedly exterminate the rebellion in Iraq which helped the UN - YES. Unequivocally.
The problem with your type is you always see the cure as worse than the disease. Because cure requires you to actually do something. Disease lets you sit back in your comfortable chair, typing your disapproval for every action. Which is why your type never accomplish anything, and never make policy.
If by 'simple' you meant 'skewed', you are correct. Simply casting the situation as one of an incurable terminal disease which nobody can do anything about immediately biases it to your side. If this is truly how you see the world - they're all sick, we should just let them die - then your problem is much, much bigger than the US.
I guess I just wasn't prepared for you being so comfortable in that spotlight. But then again your type are all about attention. Look at me! I told you it was a bad idea. Look at me! I said do nothing, and you did something, and now bad stuff is happening. Look at me! I can't offer any constructive ideas, or any solutions, but I can sure criticize everything you do! It's sad, and I mean that in a pathetic way.
Each and every one of these statements is either false, or mixes truth with lie. So you'll excuse me if I don't immediately bow to your wisdom.
One can find out about Hussein's rise to power - and the history of the Baath party - with very little effort via Google. The US government never trained bin Laden, or the Taliban, to fight anyone. They didn't even exist when the Soviets were invading Afghanistan. You seriously need to check your facts.
The UN is not inefficient. It is ineffective. Bad stuff definitely comes out of the UN - ask the Kurds, or the Sudanese, or all the people starving under 'humane' UN-approved sanctions.
Like most people, you are completely willing to accept suffering due to inaction rather than suffering due to action. The desire to feel great about everything that your country does has become a boat anchor around your neck.
Many people simply do not see that as an intrinsically better way of thinking than a strong nation leading the way towards a better world. The fact of the matter is that if the US were to continue to spread its influence around the world, everyone's standard of living would go up. People would have greater freedom.
Laissez-faire is great for soothing your own conscience, but it is no more morally upright than direct action.
Seriously, does anybody really listen to "Pizzicato Five"? I thought that people only said they did to sound cool and obscure - like how people claim to enjoy the works of Tarkovsky.
Oh, if only we all had your startling prescience and could see into the future to have known this. Funny, if there were no WMDs where is your righteous indignation against all the children starved to death under UN sanctions against those very nonexistent WMDs?
You're engaging in revisionist history. The UN wasn't verifying this, because the inspectors did not have the freedom they needed to verify it. But don't let the facts get in your way.
It is people like you who ensure that those who watch FOX will continue to rule the nation. Because any time that someone questions your shaky logic, porous reasoning, and self-centered world view, you jump to hyperbole and generalization. "You don't agree that the US is 100% evil? You're a ditto head!" Pardon me if I see the crazy need to actually back my positions with logic and reason.
Here's what I saw, on CNN, the BBC, CBC, and numerous other news channels: thousands of carefully orchestrated, televised protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. Zero over the sanctions. Zero over the fact that the UN left the Iraqi rebellion to die horribly after the first Gulf War. Maybe if you weren't so busy selling yourself your own choice line of BS you'd have seen this.
How about motivating the member countries of your esteemed UN to actually do something about the situation?
Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. You just sit back and pass judgment on everyone else's actions. Actually doing something is for people of lesser intellect.
Um, sure. Because protest is not about motivating people to action.
If there were an award for most idiotic comment of the year, you'd be giving your Michael-Moore-approved acceptance speech right about ... now.
Remember, I'm just 'booing the booers'.
The number of people who hold that exact same position amazes me. For example, that people all got together to wave their signs and protest the war but nobody protested the embargoes and sanctions that were starving families in Iraq for years. Or the gassing of the Kurds. Or the massacre in the Sudan.
Everybody seems okay with turning their heads away from the disaster. It's getting your hands dirty that pisses people off. Which calls the whole UN thing into question - if we're not supposed to be the world police, what are we supposed to do? Is the purpose of the organization limited to being the stereotypical high-society dame of the world, haughtily lifting her nose at the perils of the world and disclaiming, "Well, I never!".
Polite statements of disapproval has never stopped tyranny. But apathy is rocket fuel.
Of course the whole situation is incredibly complex and would take much more than a few glib responses on Slashdot to fully resolve. So bring on the jokes!
We will give you 1 year to take down your website, before 'more drastic' measures will be taken.
One year later ...
Resolution 30357B - Illegal File Traders:
Oh, did we say one year? We meant two. Take two years. But take it down! Don't make us unleash the fury!
Two years later ...
Resolution 30357C - Illegal File Traders:
We at the UN can't help but notice that you haven't taken your site down. We strongly disapprove of your actions. So much so that we're giving you three more years to do it. But you'd better believe that when those three years are up it's clobbering time. Seriously.
Three years later ...
Resolution 30357D - Illegal File Traders:
It seems you are still running your illegal website. We downloaded several Chingy tunes today (thanks for the UN discount!). But you seriously need to take that site down. Seriously. To show you how serious we are, we're going to start a plan of denying aid to people not in any way affiliated with you. Yes we know this won't affect on you personally, but it makes us look like bad-asses. Five more years! That's all we can give you. Then out come the meat hammers!
Five years later ...
Resolution 30357E - Illegal File Traders
- Rider A: Condemnation of Israel for refusing to just fucking disappear like the Mayans
- Rider B: Pay-raise and trips to Disneyland!
Maybe it's us. Are we doing something wrong? Is there something we could give you to make you take that site down? Because, seriously, we're all pussies here at the UN and don't want to do anything drastic like follow through on our empty resolution statements. So why don't we go ahead and give you as many years as you like to take that site down. Just keep those kickbacks coming! And remember, we are the world's last resort for justice!