Is War Worth it!?

Electro-

I am truly surprised you can not see the differences between agent orange and true chemical weapons.

As previously noted, agent orange is used to kill vegetation. In what was a guerilla war, the strategy was to elimiante as much ground-cover as possible. Whether this was the best strategy is obviously debateable and of course there were unfortunate side-effects. If the intent is to kill humans with a chemical, agent orange would not even be on the menu.

Now, true chemical weapons are far different and are fatally superior. Their sole intention is to affect human life... which typically translates to ending human life.
The plain fact is that deliberate use of weaponized chemicals and biological agents like VX, sarin, ricin, anthrax, botulinum is fundamentally different than the use of something like agent orange that had unintended side-effects. I suppose we were intending to harm all of our own troops on the ground too?

I have a hard time grasping how you make the leap of equation from what was perhaps a poor strategy of ridding the landscape of ground-cover to deliberate use of true chemical/biological weapons that are solely intended on killing people.

[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
I am truly surprised you can not see the differences between agent orange and true chemical weapons.

Sig, I never said that Agent Orange was intentionally used to be a chemical weapon. And I'm aware of what the differences are. BUT how stupid can someone be to assume that 'commercial weed killer' wouldn't have some sort of horrible affect on everything that was alive and not just plants?? It contains so much dioxin that any scientist should have known this for the sake of the US troops and the people of Vietnam. We have to consider the reprocussions of our actions!! how hard is that to understand? Even though no other nation is doing it, why dont we set an example and actually care about what we're doing to a country's people instead of just focusing on the *evil leader*... humanitarian aid? bah!

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
To respond to the other stuff posted by everyone else:

As far as anything else goes, I'm not saying I'm against non-intervention, nor am I saying I'm for it. My whole point in raising this whole stink is to (not only stir up some trouble
biggrin.gif
) but to create some sort of awareness that there is more to it than what we see in the news, read in the papers and hear from what other sources we may find. Of course we have to have our emotions tied up in this whole thing. It's 'our livelyhood' we're talking about.

We could go on and on about this forever.

All I ask is be sure to understand where I'm coming from (or at least try) before you assume I'm some tree-hugging hippy or left-coaster... I'm a native southerner. Born and raised in Atlanta. I was raised southern baptist.

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
I know all the traditions. I too am very traditional in the way I do just about everything. I know I'm not a historian. I dont care to be. I absolutely hate politics. I've tried to keep my mind out of politics for as long as I can remember...but now that its such an important issue these days, it's important that everyone gets involved. Despite the improbability that it will make a difference. Even my own beliefs are quesioned when we have these current issues going on. How can I just blindly believe that what we're doing and the way we're going about it is the right way? That's what a TRUE democracy is all about. Which I have a hard time really believing we even live in a true democracy anyways by definition.

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
This doesn't mean I want to argue about where I'd rather be living or how lucky you think I should feel to live in the US blah blah blah. I feel very lucky to live here. But it could be, and should be much better. The people should REALLY have a voice. But we don't. There are hidden agenda's... even if it's a matter of 'national security'.. they like to use that to hide the real motives. What's wrong w/ a little accountability once in a while?? That's all I'd like to see!

Now that Osama Bin Laden has escaped (or has he?) We direct our money and attention to the nearest loose cannon... Why not invest in actually trying to find and dismantle Al Qaeda? The prisoners we kept should have been killed on the spot! Releasing them is just going to send them back to work on attacking the US and other nations. I don't care if what I say is controversial. That's the whole point of freedom of speech right? If we dont have that freedom then what is left?

-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
Actually my grandfather was a 33rd degree Mason (or whatever the highest ranking).

Doesn't take some controversial article to confuse me =)

Thanks for the read though. I've read articles like these before. Basically, the world is going to hell in a handbasket.. Enjoy the ride everyone, its gonna get a little bumpy from here on out. We all know that the US gov't is hiding UFO's, mind-control devices, time machines, and invisible planes. It all sounds like fantastic science fiction, but read up on "the montauk project" or "the philadelphia experiement"...

HAHAHA I knew that one would get to you guys
biggrin.gif


-E

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
GET OUT OF THIS ONE THEN
GEORGIE BOY

By David Icke

Earlier this month, on December 4th, I was sitting in a hotel bar in Bermuda watching CNN as I killed time waiting for a flight after my talk there. CNN were broadcasting live coverage of a "town meeting" at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, where President Bush was answering non-challenging questions from a sycophantic audience. Then suddenly, as I sipped my beer and despaired at the hero worship being enjoyed by the village idiot, Bush made a startling statement about September 11th and I said to my wife - "you won't believe what this guy has just said, I bet the spin doctors are screaming at the screen."

For the next two days I scanned the newspapers, the Internet "news" sites, etc., including CNN, but there was no mention of the amazing statement he made. Nor had I found any mention of it since. That did not surprise me at all, but now, thanks to Didier, a reader of the David Icke website in Belgium, I have the words that Bush said - ironically posted by the White House website, hidden away in the full transcript of the meeting: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

Bush was talking about what happened on September 11th and how he heard of the atrocities in New York. If you remember, Bush was at a school in Florida where he was taking part in a photo opportunity, which included reading a story about a pet goat to a class of children. The media around the world told us, from White House statements, that Bush heard of the twin tower attacks when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, spoke in his ear in the classroom as he addressed the children. There was the famous picture of Card leaning over Bush accompanied by headlines like: The Moment Bush Knew.

But Bush told the Florida town meeting a very different story. This is what he said about what happened that morning in answer to a question by someone named Jordan:

"Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

THIS IS STAGGERING - THERE WAS NO LIVE TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE TOWER - HOW COULD THERE BE?? THE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST CRASH WAS TAKEN BY ONLOOKERS AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AND DID NOT AIR FOR HOURS AND DAYS AFTER IT HAPPENED. THERE WAS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND CRASH, OF COURSE, BUT NOT OF THE FIRST - SO HOW ON EARTH CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIM TO A PUBLIC MEETING TO HAVE SEEN IT LIVE ON A TELEVISION OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM WHERE HE WAS WAITING TO ADDRESS THOSE CHILDREN?? AND WHY HAS NO NEWS ORGANISATION OR "JOURNALIST" PICKED UP THIS FANTASTIC LIE?

And what about that statement about "there's one terrible pilot". What?? A passenger jet crashes into one of the twin towers full of people and all the President of the United States can say is "there's one terrible pilot"!! And then he walks into a classroom to read a story about a pet goat?? God help us. "There's one terrible pilot"? We are not talking a light plane flown by an amateur, but a commerical airliner and even if it had not been a terrorist outrage, it would still have been an enormous tragedy requiring the leadership of the US president. But of course none of this tissue of lies by Bush could have happened because he could not possibly have seen the first crash on live television because there was no live coverage. The fact that Bush KNEW the plane was going to hit the tower is more like it because he, like his masters who orchestrated it, was well aware of what was going to unfold that morning.

AND EVEN AFTER HE CLAIMS THAT HIS CHIEF OF STAFF TOLD HIM OF THE SECOND PLANE, AND THAT "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK", BUSH WENT ON READING THE STORY ABOUT THE PET GOAT!! YOU SIMPLY COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP, COULD YOU?


As Associated Press reported on September 12th: "In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later. "

"Briefly" remained somber?? He's just been told that the New York twin towers have been struck by commercial airliners. Death and destruction on a massive scale was already obvious and the President was "briefly somber" before continuing to read a children's story? Bush told the town meeting:

"But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-in-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so, I've talked to the Secretary of Defense; one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."

BUT HE COULD NOT HAVE TALKED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE UNTIL HE FINISHED THE GOAT STORY AND LEFT THE CLASSROOM AND ONLY THEN DID HE PUT AMERICA ON ALERT. HOW MUCH CRUCIAL TIME WAS LOST THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED, FOR INSTANCE, THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, WHICH HAPPENED 40 MINUTES AFTER THE SECOND TOWER WAS HIT?

Bush has been caught in a monumental lie here and it is just one of the endless daily lies that gush forth from the lips of this lying imbecile, who is currently a national hero. So news media, where are you when a real story is set before you? I would appreciate it if people could circulate this to all the news media you can think of and bombard the White House with requests for a statement about the provable, blatant, lies of the President of the United States about one of the darkest days in US history.

David Icke
 
Electro:

I'm trying to decide if your mention of the "Philadelphia Experiment" is actually serious or satirical. If the former, you've blown whatever credibility you may have had by citing this urban legend. (What's next...don't invade Iraq...because it'll piss off the Ancient Astronauts?)

P.S. It's spelled "Vietnam" not "Veitnam," and as you know, it was an immoral, unjust, and sadistic hellhole. (Sort of like living in present day Iraq.)
 
So....

I wonder where all the Anthrax went?

Perhaps if we give the inspectors and Saddam another 12 years, it will show up.

-Jim
 
Spencer, Given the fact that I enjoy reading things that dont exactly sit well with those that cant (or are unable to) question their own reality... should not have anything to do with my credibility. What credibility do I have anyways? I'm only a 25 year old kid remember?

What does it matter either way? I'm no politician... I'm no history major. I'm not even interested in politics. We're not talking about MY credibility here. We're talking about the credibility of our own "hero" of a leader! Wake up and read this discussion for what we're talking about instead of searching for grammar and spelling errors.

As far as the correct spelling of "Viet nam" as its really spelled in Vietnamese (the Americans combined the two monosyllabic portions of the word to create one word Vietnam) Let's try not to pick apart each other's posts by pointing out minor spelling errors. I dont have time to use the apostrophe in words like "dont" and sometimes i may not capitalize the letter I when typing.. Who cares?? How about let's hear something worth arguing about.

-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 27 January 2003).]
 
Good point, Jim. Given Hans Blix's past record it COULD be about 12 years.

But I suspect we're ALL going to hear about the anthrax and all of Saddam's other goodies next week.

As Bob Woodward is reporting in the Washington Post today... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52135-2003Jan27.html
the admininistration is about to declassify materials next week.

But after all, what does Mr. Bush know? He just gets to read that dumb 'ole CIA briefing book every morning...he certainly doesn't have access to the insightful geopolitical analyses of Woody Harrelson or Barbara Streisand.

P.S. Hey Electro...now that your done with the Philadelphia Experiment, why not explain to all of us how Skull and Bones controls the NYSE, if you have the time.
 
Interesting segway...

I like how you pick and choose what not to reply to and what to respond to... at least you're trying to be cunning. Very good.

I was actually just reading a similar article about this very subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

It's obvious that Bush is willing to come up w/ whatever documents he needs to justify his war... Why would he waste all the money he spent on sending all his troops and equipment out there? Gotta do *something* w/ all this surplus of army gear and arms.

It's funny how easily everyone plays into my sarcasm... just like sheep. Carry on. This is getting juicy.
wink.gif


-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
Originally posted by Electro:
I'm no politician... I'm no history major. I'm not even interested in politics.

No interest? Then why are babbling about it? Now you can't even agree with yourself.

If you are going to have a credible opinion (and wish to be taken seriously by anyone who approaches the subject with reason instead of blind emotion) you need to have a thorough grasp of two things:

1) History (you have both claimed and demonstrated you have no real grasp of this)

2) A deep understanding of the current situation (you have also claimed and again demonstrated you have no real grasp of this).


So, what exactly is the point of your post? You are rambling on about a subject you claim to have little knowledge of and no interest in. Are you really that bored?

How can I just blindly believe that what we're doing and the way we're going about it is the right way?

Huh? So instead you argue blindly against it? Whatever.

The prisoners we kept should have been killed on the spot!

This is a gem even for you. Firs you rail against the immorality of a war against Iraq, then you argue for the murder of prisoners. Way to rack up that credibility. You are clearly operatiing at a level of intellectual sophistication that is far beyond the comprehension of a bumpkin redneck like myself.

Please just stop. At this point, its just plain embarrassing.
 
Originally posted by HOLLYWOOD:
How many of "the people" just told you to kill that pile of bodies?

Well, one Sir.

And who was that?

My commanding officer, Sir.


The one thing I remember being repeated every time the UCMJ was discussed in basic training was that it was my DUTY to refuse to obey any order that I (yes, me, myself as a thinking individual) considered to be immoral or illegal. Do you have any real experience in this area, or did you pick up all of your knowledge watching Oliver Stone movies? I would spend a bit more time arguing your views, but your screen name makes your situation clear to everyone.

AS HENRY KISSINGER SAYS:
"MILITARY MEN ARE JUST DUMB, STUPID, ANIMALS
TO BE USED AS PAWNS IN FOREIGN POLICY"

I can't think of any person in the entire history of our country LESS qualified to articulate the role of the soldier in society than Henry Kissenger.


[This message has been edited by David (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
David, I disagree with your 2 points. In order for someone to have an oppinion, they do not have to be history buffs...

I certainly wish I didnt have to hear about all the bullshit thats going on everyday... yet I am blasted on a daily basis, whether I like it or not, with this garbage.

I can form an oppinion on whatever I feel is worth it. Or even if I feel its not worth it, I'll still have an oppinion about it. Whether or not you or anyone else is willing to reply is a different story. I couldn't care less that you disagree with me. That's not suprising to me.

What's embarrassing to me is you're willingness to show your inability to understand me. But hey, I dont care. Feel and think what you like. That still doesnt convince me that you possess the credibility to discredit everything everyone has said in here that is in opposition to your ideas.

Not once have you made a clear statement that refutes the questions I have brought up. (the whole reason for this thread in the first place) Have you ever been to california? sounds to me like all of your ideas about california is gathered from the movies as well. Your close-mindedness is all too sobering.

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
(which further illustrates my point about the inability of some people to just open their eyes and their willingness to fight tooth and nail for something they think they believe is "right"... when they've never considered anything other than what they were spoon fed in elementary school.)

-Electro
 
Originally posted by Electro:
David, I disagree with your 2 points. In order for someone to have an oppinion, they do not have to be history buffs...

Good Lord, could you possibly be any more immune to reason? READ my post. I said to have a CREDIBLE opinion (anyone can have an opinion wihtout any idea of what is really going on, as you have aptly demonstrated) about POLITICS you need an understanding of history. How can you refute this? The current political situation in any theater is simply the sum total of the historical events leading up it. If you don't understand how they got there, how can you possibly understand what they feel and think and desire? Once again, you express a view COMPLETELY at odds with your own claims - that poeple should be open minded enough to learn the views of others. So, is your opinion somenthing like this - "I demand that you respect my opinion on this subject even though I do not care enough about it to learn what lead to it or even what the current central issues are?" You have got to be kidding me.

I know that being waaaaaay smarter than me, you value the opinions of celebrities over those of statesman, but as a simple ignorant southerner, I don't know any better. So, here's one from Winston Chirchill (Since you don't care about history, I'll fill you in. He was a fat guy that ran England during a big war):

Anyone who is not liberal in their youth has no heart and anyone who is not conservative in their old age has no brain.

[This message has been edited by David (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
I know that being waaaaaay smarter than me, you value the opinions of celebrities over those of statesman, but as a simple ignorant southerner, I don't know any better. [/B]

You obviously haven't been reading MY posts. Thats pathetic. Have I said anything about standing behind someone in hollywood? Nope. Did you happen to read that I GREW UP IN THE SOUTH? I too am a heart-land redneck. So you're facetiousness is meaningless.

As soon as you see the word "hollywood" you immediately discredit anything that anyone has to say thats anywhere remotely associated w/ anything having to do w/ hollywood... even though u've never been there or met anyone that's ever been there.

I enjoy the slant you put on my words. Its very unique.
 
Now can we get back to the subject at hand? This is not a personal debate. I have raised very valid arguements, but of course people like to pick them apart and resort the arguements into personal battles.

I have yet to see anything brought up by David that holds water regarding what I've been talking about. We all know you're a proud Texan. Show us just how intelligent you are and give me some real hard facts that prove or disprove the evidence that I have presented!

-E
 
Originally posted by Electro:
David, I disagree with your 2 points. In order for someone to have an oppinion ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION, they do not have to be history buffs...


What are we talking about here?? I wasnt speaking in general terms, I'm talking about an oppinion ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE... geezus... get a grip man and stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. Its really annoying.

-E
 
Originally posted by Electro:
as soon as you see the word "hollywood" you immediately discredit anything that anyone has to say thats anywhere remotely associated w/ anything having to do w/ hollywood... even though u've never been there or met anyone that's ever been there.

I enjoy the slant you put on my words. Its very unique.

Good lord, you are the biggest hypocrite I have ever met! I have never been to Hollywood? Never met anyone who's been there? I love the way almost every post you make is based on a self-serving assumption. I spent three to five days a week in Hollywood for two years. Been there. Met people.

Now, go ahead and reply with some more baseless assumptions or goundless assertations. You really shoud go back and read some of your posts. Maybe you will see why no one is taking you seriously. Oh, wait, you already explained that - we are ignorant and closed-minded.
 
So Electro,

I read your first post. Now that the inspections are complete and the report is in...

Where's the Anthrax? Doesn't it bother you that it hasn't been accounted for?

You know...there are things worse than war.

-Jim

PS: We don't live in a democracy. If you believe that then you really don't know what form of government that we live under here in the USA.
 
Originally posted by Electro:

What's embarrassing to me is you're willingness to show your inability to understand me.

Your close-mindedness is all too sobering.
B]


Electro-
In reading your posts, I think it is fair to say that you don't exactly bleed understanding yourself. You accuse David of this when you are in fact doing the same thing over and over again. ALthough, you are skilled in the art of rhetorical questions. I am quite sure that there is not anything someone on here will say to change your mind. Though you said awareness is your goal, it is hard to see any mission apart from stirring the pot as you admitted.

What I have consistantly found about the stance of most of my ulra-liberal acquaintances, is that they cling to concepts and ignore context of specific situations. For example, make up what would be considered the most justified war in all of history. Most people in the peace movement, even in the face of such a war will blindly cling to their concept of anti-war instead of weighing the context of the situation at hand. That sir is blind support of a cause. Additionally, the second someone disagrees with them, they get upset and claim moral superiority. The moral superiority thing makes me laugh time and time again.
***sidebar for irony: living just outside DC, I get to see protests on the news and in person just about everyday. I love watching the environmetalist rallies for "save the earth" themes, which are noble causes I might add. Throughout these protests, most of the particpants are pumping their signs cursing the U.S's environmental policies all while simulantaneously tossing their cigarette butts all over national monument grounds
smile.gif
Then all the 18/19 year olds jump into their supersized SUVS that daddy bought them and drive off.****end side bar.

That said, just as liberals take the moral superiority soapbox.... many conservatives take the stance that we are superior thinkers vs. liberals. Both stances are bad business, but very common. I will admit that I fall in this trap at times.



[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 28 January 2003).]
 
No I never said anyone here was ignorant.

You continually miss my point. Which is fine. The reason the things I say may sound hypocritical is because most of it is said in abstract thought. That may be a new concept for you... It's not an easy thing for most people to follow.

You're taking this way too personally. I never attacked you. But of course you get offended. Oh well. I can't please everyone. Nor do I care to. This is not a personal issue. You can say what you like about me or whatever. Feel free... in fact, I'm enjoying just how far off the mark you are on what I believe.

-E
 
Back
Top