PDA

View Full Version : The Terrorist Regime wins- Obama and Iran


Pages : [1] 2

Southpaw2012
07-14-2015, 09:54 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/formal-nuclear-deal-reached-iran-063643162--politics.html

At least it helps his legacy.. Until a few years from now when he doesn't have to deal with the repercussions this deal will have.

Southpaw2012
07-14-2015, 09:58 AM
I don't always agree with this guy, but he's absolutely correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-worst-agreement-in-us-diplomatic-history/2015/07/02/960e8cf2-20e8-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer

Southpaw2012
07-14-2015, 10:10 AM
The terrorist regime of Iran is responsible for more American deaths than any Al Qaeda or Iraqi soldier in the past fifteen years, and we give in to these savages just because Obama is looking to please them. They chant death to America, they train soldiers to kill us, and they are intent to build a nuclear bomb. Obama should be removed from office, but Congress is too damn weak to do something, likely in fear of being labeled racist by the mentally insane blowhard liberal media. If there is any other idiot out there who supports this deal, they are pathetic and ignorant. Goodbye Israel, our greatest and only normal (for Middle East standards) because this deal will destroy that. At least we can please the terrorists though. God forbid we make them mad.

GonzoTheGreat
07-14-2015, 11:05 AM
The terrorist regime of Iran is responsible for more American deaths than any Al Qaeda or Iraqi soldier in the past fifteen years, ...
Citation needed.

Kimon
07-14-2015, 11:34 AM
The terrorist regime of Iran is responsible for more American deaths than any Al Qaeda or Iraqi soldier in the past fifteen years, and we give in to these savages just because Obama is looking to please them. They chant death to America, they train soldiers to kill us, and they are intent to build a nuclear bomb. Obama should be removed from office, but Congress is too damn weak to do something, likely in fear of being labeled racist by the mentally insane blowhard liberal media. If there is any other idiot out there who supports this deal, they are pathetic and ignorant. Goodbye Israel, our greatest and only normal (for Middle East standards) because this deal will destroy that. At least we can please the terrorists though. God forbid we make them mad.

You do realize that you can edit a post, yes? There seems little reason why this thread needed to start with three separate posts, rather than just amending your first post by adding that Krauthammer article and your unsubstantiated, and incorrect, assertion about American casualties at the hands of Iran.

As for the deal itself, if you really hate it so much, you do realize that it was not just Obama, but also David Cameron (UK), Angela Merkel (Germany), Francois Hollande (France), Xi Jinping (China), and Putin (Russia) that all signed onto the deal, yes? Israel doesn't like it, nor does Saudi Arabia. Because those two countries dislike it, and because Obama is associated with it, Fox News and other conservative parrots criticize it. Should our foreign policy, and assessments of decisions relating thereto, really be dictated simply by knee-jerk hostility to everything the president does and to everything Israel wants? Well, let's look at what this deal really will provide in terms of obligations for Iran:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33518524

remove two-thirds of installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision
get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium
accept that sanctions would be rapidly restored if the deal was violated
permanently give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access "where necessary when necessary"
Sanctions relief would be gradual, Mr Obama said, with an arms embargo remaining in place for five years and an embargo on missiles for eight years.
Separately, the IAEA and Iran said they had signed a roadmap to resolve outstanding issues.
IAEA head Yukiya Amano told reporters in Vienna, Austria, that his organisation had signed a roadmap "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme".
He called the agreement a "significant step forward", saying it would allow the agency to "make an assessment of issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme by the end of 2015".

If Iran kicks out the IAEA overseers, or doesn't allow them into certain facilities, Iran will have breached the agreement and sanctions can be re-authorized. Without this deal, Iran could have still gotten a bomb, many indeed, and indeed they could have had many already if that was their only goal. Indeed Netanyahu has been playing nuclear harbinger for decades.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Will Iran get nuclear weapons as a result of this deal? Perhaps. But not for a few years. The same was true before this deal. This however, by removing the sanctions, lessens their incentive to getting nuclear weapons as it provides an economic inducement for compliance, one that clearly was not present while under the sanctions. And if they get a nuclear weapon is that really so disastrous? They certainly will never give it to Sunni terorists, as those organizations are just as dangerous to them and their allies, perhaps even more so, than they are to us, because Iran is Shia. Will they attack Israel? I doubt it, but this will perhaps be an assurance against Israel attacking them, or attacking the Palestinians again. How is that a bad thing? And if Israel and Iran do go to war, why should we care? You do realize that Israel has nuclear weapons, yes? You do realize that Israel's possession of those weapons is illegal according to international law, yes?

The only truly worrisome issue as a consequence of this is the Saudis. Will they insist on a Sunni nuclear power (Saudi Arabia obviously) to balance the Shia nuclear power (Iran)? That is a legitimate worry. Not cause enough however to not welcome this long overdue rapprochement with Iran.

GonzoTheGreat
07-14-2015, 12:00 PM
The only truly worrisome issue as a consequence of this is the Saudis. Will they insist on a Sunni nuclear power (Saudi Arabia obviously) to balance the Shia nuclear power (Iran)?
If they really want that, and if they are honest about it, then they could quite happily accept the fact that there already is a Sunni nuclear power balancing Iran, right on the other side of Iran: Pakistan.

But honesty isn't something I would be eager to accuse the Saudis of, so this is only a theoretical nitpick, not a realistic one.

Ozymandias
07-14-2015, 01:59 PM
Citation needed.

Why bother? He's never provided anything before. Only op-ed or think pieces. I guess those pass for facts.

Southpaw2012
07-14-2015, 08:41 PM
Why bother? He's never provided anything before. Only op-ed or think pieces. I guess those pass for facts.

I have family members in the special forces.

Also, of course China and Russia are going to sign on. Russia has been giving Iran weapons for years, and China is closely aligned. England and Germany don't do squat as it is. Yeah, Israel has every right to worry, considering that Iran has wanted to wipe them out since the beginning of existence. This deal has set the stage for World War III.

ShadowbaneX
07-14-2015, 08:58 PM
I have family members in the special forces.

and I'm totally sure they can beat up my dad, but they can't because that'd mean they'd have to break their cover.

Oh, you forgot to mention how the Legalization of Gay Marriage plays a part in bringing about World War III.

The Unreasoner
07-14-2015, 10:07 PM
I have family members in the special forces.
That doesn't sound like a citation. It may not even be relevant. Are they one of the nuclear physicists, economists, policy experts, or game theoreticians the special forces groups employ? I kinda doubt it.

You have yet to prove you can argue a point well (or at all) anywhere, which doesn't bode well for your career as a lawyer (though admittedly, it's less worrisome (to you) than the 4th tier school you attend).

And put your other toys away before buying a new one in the future.

GonzoTheGreat
07-15-2015, 03:53 AM
I have family members in the special forces.How many of them were killed by Iran?
Bonus question: how many of those were killed by Iran while they weren't involved in invading Iran?

If the answer is "fewer than four thousand of your family members were killed by Iran", then you will still need to provide actual evidence to back up your claim.

Yeah, Israel has every right to worry, considering that Iran has wanted to wipe them out since the beginning of existence.
Once again: citation needed.
During the reign of the Shah, there were diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran.

So, did you mean " the beginning of the existence of the "Islamic Republic of Iran"?
If so, then Israel could of course have taken the side of its good friend Saddam Hussain when he invaded Iran in 1980. Was Saddam Israel's friend?

Ozymandias
07-15-2015, 07:35 AM
Once again: citation needed.
During the reign of the Shah, there were diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran.

So, did you mean " the beginning of the existence of the "Islamic Republic of Iran"?
If so, then Israel could of course have taken the side of its good friend Saddam Hussain when he invaded Iran in 1980. Was Saddam Israel's friend?

Also historically, Persia has been extremely friendly to Jews, back to the very ancient beginnings of Persian civilization (whether or not you believe in the collection of myths that is the Bible, they are quite explicit in showing Cyrus as one of God's tools on earth).

Davian93
07-15-2015, 08:59 AM
God you're so stupid.

That's all I've got on holiday.

Davian93
07-15-2015, 09:05 AM
I have family members in the special forces.

Also, of course China and Russia are going to sign on. Russia has been giving Iran weapons for years, and China is closely aligned. England and Germany don't do squat as it is. Yeah, Israel has every right to worry, considering that Iran has wanted to wipe them out since the beginning of existence. This deal has set the stage for World War III.

And that makes them or you an expert in what exactly? Hell, I did intel support for 1st SF group when I was in the army...I wouldn't think that makes me an expert on anything at all. SF guys are very well trained tools to be used by the military, nothing more. Being "SF" doesn't make you an expert on anything in the geopollitical sense. This is perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever posted...which is impressive given your history.

SomeOneElse
07-15-2015, 02:25 PM
Iran and Bashar Al-assad currently are the only two forces who really fight terrorism in that region, so referring to them as a terrorist regime is a very big nonsense.
As for Iran developing nuclear weapons, that wouldn't benefit them since they won't be able to reach Europe or USA while, at the same time, it will probably put Iran under more harder sanctions and lead to a war with the west which they won't be able to win.

Just count how many wars current Iranian regime (since 1979) had started and the same about your country and its closest allies (like UK and Israel). That little thing will probably suggest who's a real terrorist.

The biggest problem of the region is ISIS and their satellite groups like Jabhat al-nusra (Nusra probably isn't with them any more, but I think you got the idea). There's no doubt they all are backed by Turkey (a NATO member - just a side note), KSA and other gulf countries, but Israel as well, since Netanyahu is jumping all day trying to convince everyone how bad is the agreement with Iran, while, at the same time, he rarely exposes any concerns about ISIS becoming stronger and stronger every day. ISIS already conquered a big territory where they do wildest things to which Iran or Bashar Al Assad aren't even close. And probably the main thing to highlite here is that ISIS, being a jihady group, never attacked Israel. That leads to a very obvious conclusion about Israel being involved in the situation with Syria and Iraq created by ISIS.

Just another example of terrorism is an operation currently ran by KSA and other gulf countries against Yamen. They justify their attacks by a request of former yemeni president Hadi, but, in fact, the coalition of gulf monarchies (who have little to do with human rights USA are talking about so often) is trying to stop the revolution in Yamen (like in Bahrain in 2011) because it is ran by people politically affiliated with Iranian regime. It is very funny how USA are supporting "revolutions" in some places like Ukraine or Syria and seem to be okay about the case with Yamen.

Was Saddam Israel's friend?
Saddam proven to be Israel's friend numerous times.

Kimon
07-15-2015, 03:46 PM
Iran and Bashar Al-assad currently are the only two forces who really fight terrorism in that region, so referring to them as a terrorist regime is a very big nonsense.
As for Iran developing nuclear weapons, that wouldn't benefit them since they won't be able to reach Europe or USA while, at the same time, it will probably put Iran under more harder sanctions and lead to a war with the west which they won't be able to win.

Just count how many wars current Iranian regime (since 1979) had started and the same about your country and its closest allies (like UK and Israel). That little thing will probably suggest who's a real terrorist.

The biggest problem of the region is ISIS and their satellite groups like Jabhat al-nusra (Nusra probably isn't with them any more, but I think you got the idea). There's no doubt they all are backed by Turkey (a NATO member - just a side note), KSA and other gulf countries, but Israel as well, since Netanyahu is jumping all day trying to convince everyone how bad is the agreement with Iran, while, at the same time, he rarely exposes any concerns about ISIS becoming stronger and stronger every day. ISIS already conquered a big territory where they do wildest things to which Iran or Bashar Al Assad aren't even close. And probably the main thing to highlite here is that ISIS, being a jihady group, never attacked Israel. That leads to a very obvious conclusion about Israel being involved in the situation with Syria and Iraq created by ISIS.

Just another example of terrorism is an operation currently ran by KSA and other gulf countries against Yamen. They justify their attacks by a request of former yemeni president Hadi, but, in fact, the coalition of gulf monarchies (who have little to do with human rights USA are talking about so often) is trying to stop the revolution in Yamen (like in Bahrain in 2011) because it is ran by people politically affiliated with Iranian regime. It is very funny how USA are supporting "revolutions" in some places like Ukraine or Syria and seem to be okay about the case with Yamen.


Saddam proven to be Israel's friend numerous times.

I get the feeling that Russian media must make even Fox look like a credible news outlet by comparison.

Ozymandias
07-15-2015, 03:56 PM
Iran and Bashar Al-assad currently are the only two forces who really fight terrorism in that region, so referring to them as a terrorist regime is a very big nonsense.

They also tend to be the biggest sponsors of terrorism. In fact, along with Pakistan, those can probably be considered the Big 3 of active terrorist sponsors (there is an interesting debate about the degree to which the Saudi/Wahhabist alliance is creating the fanatical terrorist mindset). There was a great deal of reporting about how the Iranians were importing Syrian gangsters to tamp down on the protests in 2009, and of course Hezbollah is the Syrian proxy in Lebanon and has been for many years.

Most of the militia forces that caused so much devastation in Iraq in the middle of the last decade were Iranian-backed.

So it actually is fairly accurate to refer to Syria and Iran as terrorist regimes.

As for Iran developing nuclear weapons, that wouldn't benefit them since they won't be able to reach Europe or USA while, at the same time, it will probably put Iran under more harder sanctions and lead to a war with the west which they won't be able to win.

Its a huge issue. Iran is run by a group of old thanatophiliac men. Giving the Iranians nuclear capabilities would mark the first time that we paired the ability to wipe out humanity with people who actively desire to die and revere the thought of dying.

And if there is a war with the West, then it stands to reason the absolutely can use their nuclear weapons, now doesn't it? Amazing how even you can contradict yourself within just a couple sentences.

Moreover, the US has a huge interest in not allowing a nuclear war, anywhere in the world but especially in the Middle East. First off, we have no idea what the detonation of numerous nuclear weapons at more or less the same time would do to global ecology. Secondly, we have a vested interest in preserving human life in general. Thirdly, nuclear war in the Gulf would destroy the entire world economy; without access over the long term to those fuel resources, basically everything we take for granted, from common petroleum goods to a car-based economy to international travel would grind to a halt.

Just count how many wars current Iranian regime (since 1979) had started and the same about your country and its closest allies (like UK and Israel). That little thing will probably suggest who's a real terrorist.

You don't seem to understand the difference between war and terrorism. There is one, and it is codified in law.

The biggest problem of the region is ISIS and their satellite groups like Jabhat al-nusra (Nusra probably isn't with them any more, but I think you got the idea).

Actually, the biggest problem in the region is Islam, followed closely by possession of oil.


Just another example of terrorism is an operation currently ran by KSA and other gulf countries against Yamen. They justify their attacks by a request of former yemeni president Hadi, but, in fact, the coalition of gulf monarchies (who have little to do with human rights USA are talking about so often) is trying to stop the revolution in Yamen (like in Bahrain in 2011) because it is ran by people politically affiliated with Iranian regime. It is very funny how USA are supporting "revolutions" in some places like Ukraine or Syria and seem to be okay about the case with Yamen.

What is happening in Ukraine is not a "revolution". It is an invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Just because a regionally-concentrated ethnic minority is pro-Russia does not mean that Ukraine is obligated to cede territory to Russia, the same as the US is not obligated to cede South Florida to Cuba.


Saddam proven to be Israel's friend numerous times.

Citation. Oh wait, you don't have one? What a surprise!

EDIT: I will of course be happy to provide citations on request.

SomeOneElse
07-15-2015, 04:36 PM
They also tend to be the biggest sponsors of terrorism. In fact, along with Pakistan, those can probably be considered the Big 3 of active terrorist sponsors (there is an interesting debate about the degree to which the Saudi/Wahhabist alliance is creating the fanatical terrorist mindset). There was a great deal of reporting about how the Iranians were importing Syrian gangsters to tamp down on the protests in 2009, and of course Hezbollah is the Syrian proxy in Lebanon and has been for many years.Sunni regimes helped organizations like ISIS and Al-qaeda who proclaim killing all shia as one of their main goals, so Iran has to respond. Without Bashar in Syria & Hezbollah who of course are 100% backed by Iran and a number of shia groups in Iraq, these two countries along with Lebanon would already be under total control of ISIS. So Iran did a great job here. I'm not going to say their methods are always transparent and clean, but no one is perfect.

Most of the militia forces that caused so much devastation in Iraq in the middle of the last decade were Iranian-backed.America was the one who caused that "devastation". It wasn't Iran who invaded Iraq back in 2003 (wow!).


Iranians nuclear capabilities would mark the first time that we paired the ability to wipe out humanity with people who actively desire to die and revere the thought of dying.In other words, you think that some nations are worse then others by default (e.g. they have "bad" culture)?

And if there is a war with the West, then it stands to reason the absolutely can use their nuclear weapons, now doesn't it?Use against whom? Against USA? Doesn't sound realistic. Against Europe. Probably, but I don't think Iran has rockets necessary to bypass any modern air defense.

You don't seem to understand the difference between war and terrorism. There is one, and it is codified in law.You can call it whatever you want. Hezbollah calls its actions against Israel a war, while most consider it as terrorism. For me what USA did in Iraq and many other places and what gulf countries are doing in Yamen nowadays is terrorism, no matter how one calls it (a war, a "humanitarian operation", dawn of freedom etc).

Actually, the biggest problem in the region is Islam,correct. But, if some countries wouldn't abuse it by driving islamic extremists, the problem won't be that big.

What is happening in Ukraine is not a "revolution".I was talking about nov 2013 - feb 2014 "revolution of dignity", that, as I know, was welcomed by most western countries including the US (correct me if I'm wrong). The situation in Yamen is pretty simalar to what happened in Ukraine.

It is an invasion of one sovereign nation by another.This is a little off-topic, but it doesn't look like that.
If there is that invasion Poroshenko and his crew are talking about, why they don't declare a war against Russia and don't use their air forces and other stuff they have?
But they keep referring to what happens in Donbass as "anti-terror operation" or something like that (sorry couldn't remember the exect english term, anyway they specificly avoid that word "war" when talking about it).

Just because a regionally-concentrated ethnic minority is pro-Russia does not mean that Ukraine is obligated to cede territory to Russia, the same as the US is not obligated to cede South Florida to Cuba.Did South Florida belong to Cuba in near past?
no one is seriously talking about invading southeast Ukraine, mainly because that is not realistic and has no perspective. Putin most probably wants to create some proxy "state" that no one will recognize (like Abkhazia or N.Karabakh etc). Indeed very sad for the locals who will live in such a fucked up place, but that's how life works.
Citation. Oh wait, you don't have one? What a surprise!

Saddam launched a war against Iran right after the revolution of 1979 helping Israel a lot.
Saddam never took any real action against Israel although he was amongst very few who could do it in 80-90s and was talking about it a lot. And at a point he sabotaged a planned attack against Israel, the problem is I don't remember the details about that story, if I memorize it I'll provide the citation.

Kimon
07-15-2015, 05:18 PM
I was talking about nov 2013 - feb 2014 "revolution of dignity", that, as I know, was welcomed by most western countries including the US (correct me if I'm wrong). The situation in Yamen is pretty simalar to what happened in Ukraine.


How familiar are you with the Cedar Revolution? Under the circumstances, it is perhaps the more apt comparison. Assad had long maintained a military presence in Lebanon and interfered in Lebanese politics. Then, in Feb. of 2005 Rafiq Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, and a vocal critic of Assad was assassinated. The evidence pointed to Hezbollah and Assad, and led to the Cedar Revolution and the casting out finally of Syrian soldiers and the casting off of the Syrian yoke. Syrian forces, while forced to withdraw, still maintained a presence in Lebanon of pro-Syrian, and pro-Assad forces, namely Hezbollah, and violence wracked Lebanon throughout 2005, a violence which continued long after the last withdrawal of Syrian forces, namely due to the continued presence of Hezbollah.

There was not quite as dramatic a catalyst to the Orange Revolution, the other particulars are however quite similar. It is also but one of the many examples to which one could point concerning the nefarious actions of Assad. Admittedly however, when one's own country is run by someone like Putin, by contrast Assad might not seem so out of the ordinary.

Southpaw2012
07-15-2015, 05:22 PM
I get the feeling that Russian media must make even Fox look like a credible news outlet by comparison.

I trust Fox over CNN and certainly over MSNBC (who shouldn't even be considered news).

And about the Iran deal, they now get a 24 day warning by inspectors before they come in to inspect. It's like if the police gave meth dealers 24 days to clean up their meth lab before they came in. What a joke. Iran will never be our friend. This deal is setting the stage for bad bad things.

The Unreasoner
07-15-2015, 05:35 PM
I trust Fox over CNN and certainly over MSNBC (who shouldn't even be considered news).

And about the Iran deal, they now get a 24 day warning by inspectors before they come in to inspect. It's like if the police gave meth dealers 24 days to clean up their meth lab before they came in. What a joke. Iran will never be our friend. This deal is setting the stage for bad bad things.
Forget the inspections for a moment. They're turning over the bulk of their enriched uranium. So, even if they wanted to build a bomb, they still have a finite number of centrifuges, restricting the breakout time to almost a year. Sure, that buffer will decrease in time, but that's the same with every nation and every technology. And I welcome the general thaw in relations, a few cc's of Murican culture injected into the country will hardly be a bad thing. It's quite addictive, as history has shown.

In any case: how are things worse with this deal, even making the (ridiculous) assumption that Iran both wants nukes and wants to use them on us (or Israel)?

Ivhon
07-15-2015, 05:56 PM
I trust Fox over CNN and certainly over MSNBC (who shouldn't even be considered news).

And that's your problem. Not that you will ever believe it, but FOX news is less reliable than no news at all. MSNBC slightly more reliable than no news at all. Everything else some degree of better than that. But again, no news > Fox News.

Frenzy
07-16-2015, 12:03 AM
Iran will never be our friend.

The Reagan administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair) seemed to like them...

yks 6nnetu hing
07-16-2015, 03:05 AM
I get the feeling that Russian media must make even Fox look like a credible news outlet by comparison.

truth.

Ozymandias
07-16-2015, 09:46 AM
Sunni regimes helped organizations like ISIS and Al-qaeda who proclaim killing all shia as one of their main goals, so Iran has to respond. Without Bashar in Syria & Hezbollah who of course are 100% backed by Iran and a number of shia groups in Iraq, these two countries along with Lebanon would already be under total control of ISIS. So Iran did a great job here. I'm not going to say their methods are always transparent and clean, but no one is perfect.

We can go back and forth on this all day. All I have to say on this is that the most important Iranian political figure since the Shah (Khomenei) publicly offered blood money to kill an author for daring to write a book that might (and wasn't, for the record) have been an insult to the Quran. Several people died or were assaulted as a result.

That is the definition of terrorism, and not only that, but an assault on the bedrock principle of a secular democracy - the right to free speech.


In other words, you think that some nations are worse then others by default (e.g. they have "bad" culture)?

Absolutely. I think there is no question that the antebellum South was a less ethical and "good" place than our society today. Similarly, I think that any social system which oppresses women and religious minorities as blatantly as the Republic of Iran does is less "good" than where we live.

But more to the point: it is impossible to accept sitting down or reconcile the fact that Islamic religious leaders in general have been so active in calling for fatwas against basically anything or anyone they dislike, and the consistent willingness of their pawns to die violently for their faith (with the explicit blessing and encouragement of their imams and mullahs), with the idea of those very same people having a weapon that could conceivably end human civilization in the time it takes to call the faithful to prayer.

I have an inherent distrust of anyone who thinks (a) that there is something better waiting after death than the situation they find themselves in at the moment, and (b) who knows that if they die in a violent attack on their fellow human beings that they will be granted this paradise. That is an extremely dangerous combination.

Use against whom? Against USA? Doesn't sound realistic. Against Europe. Probably, but I don't think Iran has rockets necessary to bypass any modern air defense.

Well if there is a war, there will be an invasion, which will invariably be led by, and mostly composed of, US servicemen and women.

You can call it whatever you want. Hezbollah calls its actions against Israel a war, while most consider it as terrorism. For me what USA did in Iraq and many other places and what gulf countries are doing in Yamen nowadays is terrorism, no matter how one calls it (a war, a "humanitarian operation", dawn of freedom etc).

You are an idiot. It blows my mind that anyone can look honestly at Saddam, his record of past and (at the time) ongoing human rights atrocities, his very obvious desire to restart at least one war and perhaps more, and his ongoing support of international terrorism, and think that was anything but a just war. At the very least, it was certainly a "legal" war by the standards of international law, and thus not "terrorism" by any measure. As I said, there are legal definitions to these things. All war involves terror.

This is a little off-topic, but it doesn't look like that.
If there is that invasion Poroshenko and his crew are talking about, why they don't declare a war against Russia and don't use their air forces and other stuff they have?
But they keep referring to what happens in Donbass as "anti-terror operation" or something like that (sorry couldn't remember the exect english term, anyway they specificly avoid that word "war" when talking about it).

I am honestly not that well versed on what is going on in Ukraine as I am in the Middle East, but my guess is thus. Ukraine is extremely wary of referring to it as a war because they don't want to give the Russians the excuse to get even more formally involved. As long as they refer to it as "anti-terror operations", they allow Moscow some plausible deniability and it allows everyone to keep the whole thing from escalating into a situation where Putin is forced into backing down (which he won't do) or declaring outright war and formally invading Ukraine (which even he probably realizes would bring NATO forces into it).

That is pure speculation by me.

Saddam launched a war against Iran right after the revolution of 1979 helping Israel a lot.
Saddam never took any real action against Israel although he was amongst very few who could do it in 80-90s and was talking about it a lot. And at a point he sabotaged a planned attack against Israel, the problem is I don't remember the details about that story, if I memorize it I'll provide the citation.

Wait wait wait. Are you serious? Don't bother, because I can provide plenty of citation for this. First off, Israel and Iraq were formally at war from the day Israel declared independence until (at least) Saddam's overthrow; I can't recall if they've formally ended the "conflict"

Secondly, how can ANYONE forget this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm)? This is the kind of stupid selective memory I am talking about which is endemic, it seems, to most people who talk about Saddam's Iraq. He was a vicious psychopath. And as the link clearly shows, he was no friend of Israel's. He may have hated Iran and wanted some strategic parts of that country (if not all of it), but under no circumstance should anyone think he had even the slightest intention of helping Israel by invading Iran. That is drawing a false correlation.

I'll wait for this hazily remembered story about Saddam "sabotaging" a planned attack on Israel, but even if it exists, I have a strong feeling that any benefit to Israel was entirely secondary to some other concern.

GonzoTheGreat
07-16-2015, 10:21 AM
When did Israel start "worrying about Iran" anyway?

As I pointed out, it wasn't in the days of the Shah; they were sort of "enemies of the same enemies" then, and therefore not enemies of each other.
It wasn't in the early days of the Iranian revolution; Israel then still worried about Iraq. Israel basically ignored Iran, and, apart from some rhetoric, Iran returned that favour.
It was only after Saddam got removed from the "credible threat" list in the 1990s and Israel needed another bogeyman to justify its military that they started claiming that Iran was a danger to them.

Ever since, the situation has been basically the same:
-Iran says that at some undetermined time, Allah will remove the Zionist entity from the Earth.
-Israel says that Iran threatens it.
Just about the only deviation from that pattern is that occasionally someone from the Israeli secret services admits that Iran really isn't a danger, but that is routinely ignored by all.

Ozymandias
07-16-2015, 10:40 AM
Ever since, the situation has been basically the same:
-Iran says that at some undetermined time, Allah will remove the Zionist entity from the Earth.
-Israel says that Iran threatens it.
Just about the only deviation from that pattern is that occasionally someone from the Israeli secret services admits that Iran really isn't a danger, but that is routinely ignored by all.

I am hardly the biggest Israel supporter, but this isn't quite true. Iran has been actively and publicly calling for and discussing the annihilation of Israel for many years now.

I don't think there is any question that Iran wants to be a threat to Israel. Whether they are at the moment is debatable... but if they were to gain a nuclear weapon, they certainly would be. And then their desire to be a threat, and their ability, would sync up. Israel is right to be afraid.

Davian93
07-16-2015, 11:37 AM
truth.

In Soviet Russia, news watches you!!!

Davian93
07-16-2015, 11:42 AM
I am hardly the biggest Israel supporter, but this isn't quite true. Iran has been actively and publicly calling for and discussing the annihilation of Israel for many years now.

I don't think there is any question that Iran wants to be a threat to Israel. Whether they are at the moment is debatable... but if they were to gain a nuclear weapon, they certainly would be. And then their desire to be a threat, and their ability, would sync up. Israel is right to be afraid.

MAD tends to work. Say Iran gets the bomb and then nukes Tel Aviv...Israel would immediately respond by nuking every major city in Iran. Hell, our treaty with Israel might even lead us to jump in and level Tehran.

So, what did they gain exactly? The Iranian govt isn't a bunch of extremists living in a cave with nothing to lose...they quite enjoy having near absolute power over their country and the Shiite faith. Them getting the bomb would be less dangerous then NK currently having it or even both Pakistan and India both having it. There is far more chance of a flare up there over Kashmir or by Al Qaida getting one of Pakistans nukes than Iran having it or handing it over to a terrorist.

GonzoTheGreat
07-16-2015, 11:46 AM
MAD tends to work. Say Iran gets the bomb and then nukes Tel Aviv...Israel would immediately respond by nuking every major city in Iran. Hell, our treaty with Israel might even lead us to jump in and level Tehran.
Far worse, from a Muslim point of view: Israel would nuke Mecca and Medina. That'd remove the Hajj, one of the Pillars of Islam.

What Muslim would want to face the Final Judgement and have to admit that he was responsible for provoking the end of Islam?

Davian93
07-16-2015, 11:51 AM
Far worse, from a Muslim point of view: Israel would nuke Mecca and Medina. That'd remove the Hajj, one of the Pillars of Islam.

What Muslim would want to face the Final Judgement and have to admit that he was responsible for provoking the end of Islam?

Would they? I wouldn't doubt it really because any nuke attack on Israel would basically be the end of their country anyway so they'd likely go out swinging...and every middle eastern power knows it...so their whining about Iran and this deal is just stupid.

Kimon
07-16-2015, 12:28 PM
Would they? I wouldn't doubt it really because any nuke attack on Israel would basically be the end of their country anyway so they'd likely go out swinging...and every middle eastern power knows it...so their whining about Iran and this deal is just stupid.

For all the assertions about Iran's threat to Israel, some empty rhetoric aside, any peace is much more likely to be caused by an unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran, than an Iranian attack on Israel. Iran seems content to fight their struggle with Israel by proxy, via Hezbollah. But they're not going to nuke Israel. Even hitting Tel Aviv would mean killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslims by collateral damage. It would be stupid. Far more likely would be a panicked Israeli attack on facilities in Iran, similar to what Israel did to the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981. That nuclear reactor by the way had been purchased by Saddam from France, and operated with the approval of both France and us, and that Israeli attack was condemned by the whole world, including us. If anything dumb happens. It will almost certainly be Netanyahu that is catalyst.

Ozymandias
07-16-2015, 01:18 PM
MAD tends to work. Say Iran gets the bomb and then nukes Tel Aviv...Israel would immediately respond by nuking every major city in Iran. Hell, our treaty with Israel might even lead us to jump in and level Tehran.

So, what did they gain exactly? The Iranian govt isn't a bunch of extremists living in a cave with nothing to lose...they quite enjoy having near absolute power over their country and the Shiite faith. Them getting the bomb would be less dangerous then NK currently having it or even both Pakistan and India both having it. There is far more chance of a flare up there over Kashmir or by Al Qaida getting one of Pakistans nukes than Iran having it or handing it over to a terrorist.

First off, the Iranian government IS a bunch of extremists.

Secondly, the Iranian government is run by a whole bunch of thanatophiliac septagenarians. Say what you will about the Soviets, but they had no illusions (public ones, anyway) about dying in a blaze of martyrdom in order to get their virginal reward in the afterlife. It is very much up for debate what a zealous Muslim would say on that topic.

The ability to end human civilization an expectation of paradise after death are not a combination that sits well with me.

Kimon
07-16-2015, 01:26 PM
First off, the Iranian government IS a bunch of extremists.

Secondly, the Iranian government is run by a whole bunch of thanatophiliac septagenarians. Say what you will about the Soviets, but they had no illusions (public ones, anyway) about dying in a blaze of martyrdom in order to get their virginal reward in the afterlife. It is very much up for debate what a zealous Muslim would say on that topic.

The ability to end human civilization an expectation of paradise after death are not a combination that sits well with me.

How does that make them any different from the bible-thumping idiots that currently run Congress? Sure their religious nuts have beards, and ours are clean-shaven, but other than that it's basically just comparing Coke and Pepsi.

Ivhon
07-16-2015, 04:02 PM
How does that make them any different from the bible-thumping idiots that currently run Congress? Sure their religious nuts have beards, and ours are clean-shaven, but other than that it's basically just comparing Coke and Pepsi.

Coke >>> Pepsi

Kimon
07-16-2015, 04:18 PM
Coke >>> Pepsi

I dislike both - hardly a surprise considering that I was the one that made the comparison.

The Unreasoner
07-16-2015, 04:27 PM
Coke >>> Pepsi
Hmmm...
I see your problem. You're treating the 'i' in Pepsi as (-1)^(1/2), when really it's just part of the name of the variable. But when you do that, the quadratic formula (1/2)*((Coke+Pepsi)+((Coke+Pepsi)^2-4*Coke*Pepsi)^(1/2)) always returns 'Coke', assuming real Coke and real Peps.

Easy mistake to make. The correct inequality is Pepsi>>>>>>>>>>My Piss>Coke

Nazbaque
07-16-2015, 05:10 PM
Hmmm...
I see your problem. You're treating the 'i' in Pepsi as (-1)^(1/2), when really it's just part of the name of the variable. But when you do that, the quadratic formula (1/2)*((Coke+Pepsi)+((Coke+Pepsi)^2-4*Coke*Pepsi)^(1/2)) always returns 'Coke', assuming real Coke and real Peps.

Easy mistake to make. The correct inequality is Pepsi>>>>>>>>>>My Piss>Coke

But technically it's not "coke" but "coca cola" and c^3*o^2*a^2*l is way better than p^2*e*s*I

The correct inequality is:
coca cola>>>really big boobs>>>>>>>boobs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pepsi> Unreasoner's piss
in which boobs are natural

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 03:28 AM
First off, the Iranian government IS a bunch of extremists.
Yes, they are extremists. But they are inwardly turned extremists, like the Amish. Unlike the Amish, they aren't pacifists, but they aren't out to conquer either. Their version of Islam tried that shortly after the death of Muhammed, and they got clobbered. Naturally, they then started to believe that Allah would bring them dominance when He wanted, and they're still waiting for that.

Secondly, the Iranian government is run by a whole bunch of thanatophiliac septagenarians. Say what you will about the Soviets, but they had no illusions (public ones, anyway) about dying in a blaze of martyrdom in order to get their virginal reward in the afterlife. It is very much up for debate what a zealous Muslim would say on that topic.Yes, they would indeed probably be willing to sacrifice themselves if necessary, but their idea of when that might be necessary is not the same as that of the Sunni. That is one of the main differences between the two groups, and ignoring that means ignoring reality. In very rare cases that can work, but usually reality turns out to be more powerful than human faith.

The ability to end human civilization an expectation of paradise after death are not a combination that sits well with me.Then prohibit any Christian from being president of either the USA or Russia. The UK doesn't have a president, China is populated by hard line Communists, and while the French may be Christians, they are first and for all French, so they're not a danger in this regard.

Ozymandias
07-17-2015, 09:45 AM
Then prohibit any Christian from being president of either the USA or Russia. The UK doesn't have a president, China is populated by hard line Communists, and while the French may be Christians, they are first and for all French, so they're not a danger in this regard.

If I could, I would. My fear of fanatically evangelical Christians is as acute as it is of fanatical Muslims.

The difference is, we tend to recognize the crackpots in our society, and people who talk about being Raptured into heaven may be listened to, but have very little chance of being elected to a position where their finger is on the firing button.

Moreover, the checks and balances in our society, plus the history of at least nominal secularism, means that anyone being elected is far less likely to make a globe-altering decision based on the words of a narcoleptic merchant or an illiterate Palestinian peasant.

Ivhon
07-17-2015, 10:04 AM
If I could, I would. My fear of fanatically evangelical Christians is as acute as it is of fanatical Muslims.

The difference is, we tend to recognize the crackpots in our society, and people who talk about being Raptured into heaven may be listened to, but have very little chance of being elected to a position where their finger is on the firing button.

Moreover, the checks and balances in our society, plus the history of at least nominal secularism, means that anyone being elected is far less likely to make a globe-altering decision based on the words of a narcoleptic merchant or an illiterate Palestinian peasant.

ORLY? Seems like at least 10 of them are running for President. And we recently had 8 years of one of those guys in the White House.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 10:29 AM
Moreover, the checks and balances in our society, plus the history of at least nominal secularism, means that anyone being elected is far less likely to make a globe-altering decision based on the words of a narcoleptic merchant or an illiterate Palestinian peasant.
Which part of those checks and balances kept Sarah Palin from very nearly becoming VP?
For that matter, which part of those checks and balances prevented GWB from setting up the conditions in which Al Qaeda could become a global role model, which led to various effective insurgents all over the world now swearing allegiance to ISIS?
For that matter, which part of those checks and balances made sure that GWB would not ignore North Korea for so long that that country could become a nuclear power?

I do not believe in your checks and balances; I think they are merely a figment of your imagination.
I think it would be better if all nukes were removed; but the USA has spend decades avoiding that possibility and shows no sign at all of intending to change this policy. The result, of course, is that more and more countries do develop nuclear weapons, until only really fanatical ones (like Iran) don't have them.

Kimon
07-17-2015, 11:07 AM
I think it would be better if all nukes were removed; but the USA has spend decades avoiding that possibility and shows no sign at all of intending to change this policy. The result, of course, is that more and more countries do develop nuclear weapons, until only really fanatical ones (like Iran) don't have them.

On the other hand, no one has used them as an actual weapon since Nagasaki, and their presence on the stage is likely the only reason why we didn't experience a WWIII between America (presumably, if only due to treaty, plus all of NATO) and the Soviet Union (plus the Warsaw Pact). Or, why we haven't had a war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Let's not pretend we don't recognize perhaps the main reason why countries want them. They are almost an assurance against attack by all but non-state actors, like Al Qaeda. This doubtless is a significant part of why the detractors don't want Iran to get the bomb. Not that they truly think that Iran will use it, but that it restricts their own ability to threaten and to wage war against Iran themselves. The bomb isn't just prestige, it's also an insurance policy.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 11:19 AM
Yes, and that will keep working until someone miscalculates and nuclear weapons are used anyway. At which point either it will be clear that it is possible to have a limited nuclear war and more will follow (until there's a not so limited one) or the war won't be limited and civilization will be over. Either way, it is unstable and will eventually fail with catastrophic consequences.

Add to that that your argument is a strong reason for countries to actually acquire nukes of their own, and the instability will continue to get worse.

Kimon
07-17-2015, 11:48 AM
Add to that that your argument is a strong reason for countries to actually acquire nukes of their own, and the instability will continue to get worse.

Well, duh. Why do you think Iran wants them? Why did Israel? India and Pakistan? China? Every other country that got them since we first developed the technology in '45? Eight countries have been added to that list. The Soviets in '49, no doubt viewing it as a very necessary insurance policy against attack by the West. Britain in '52 and France in '60. Recent history made the reason for their desire quite obvious, nay? None of us obviously batted an eyelash about Britain and France having the bomb. But the rest? China has had it since '64. They haven't gone on a revenge binge against Japan. India has had them since '74, a cause of worry for none except Pakistan, who got theirs in '98. There is another truly worrisome inclusion between those two, Israel in '79. Their reasons for wanting it are also obvious, and perhaps the only reason why they haven't had to fight another real war since. Then the most recent, North Korea in '06.

Iran getting the bomb isn't as terrifying as Pakistan or North Korea. Neither of those regimes are particularly stable, and the leadership in North Korea in particular is of questionable sanity. Is there no cause for worry? Of course not. But of the states that possess, or could possess the weapon, North Korea is the only real worry. For the others it is mainly the worry of instability or complete collapse of the state into chaos creating the possibility of diaspora. That was a real worry during the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's also the obvious worry with Pakistan. Unwarranted paranoia about Hezbollah aside, there is no such worry, at least not immediate or rational worry, with Iran. The worry here would be the Saudis wanting the bomb or Israel doing something stupid.

As for your wish of disarmament, you will never convince the nuclear powers, at least not us or the Russians (maybe France or England) into disarming. We don't want to use them again, but we like having them. Hell, I hate the second amendment, and I really hate guns. I strongly support repealing that abomination of an amendment, and likewise would strongly support banning all domestic guns, but I sure as hell wouldn't support giving up being a nuclear power.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2015, 12:08 PM
Actually, I think that Iran does not want nukes.

As people keep suggesting, their religious extremism makes them somewhat unreasonable, and one of the symptoms of that is that they feel it would be sinful to have (let alone use) nuclear weapons. They can undoubtedly be pushed into a situation where they will rationalise away their worries over this sin, but at the moment at least they seem to be seriously opposed to nuclear weapons.

They probably have remained so intransigent on the subject of dropping their nuclear program because they did not believe that compliance would offer them any advantages; the USA would simply have kept the sanctions in place anyway, and Israel would have kept threatening to attack until it actually did attack.
Can you provide any evidence of the USA having negotiated in good faith on this (or any, for that matter) issue with Iran?

Kimon
07-17-2015, 12:23 PM
They probably have remained so intransigent on the subject of dropping their nuclear program because they did not believe that compliance would offer them any advantages; the USA would simply have kept the sanctions in place anyway, and Israel would have kept threatening to attack until it actually did attack.


I'm not sure either. I think they felt that they have the right to civilian nuclear power, and shouldn't have had to put up with nosy inspectors if Israel didn't have to. They may have a point, but kicking out those inspectors gave their enemies an opportunity to exploit. As for Israel and the Republicans, nothing was ever going to be enough for them. The ayatollah could have offered to personally surrender to Jesus, swear allegiance to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and let the Netanyahu and Dick Cheney lead the inspections, and it still wouldn't have been enough for that crowd. Of course, if Iran instead gives a bunch of oil contracts to Shell and BP, they'll likely start singing a different tune, at least in private.

Davian93
07-17-2015, 12:29 PM
@Ozy: You mischaracterize Irans leaders as extremists. They are and have always been realists. They would never jeopardize their position with such an act. They care way too much too do that. An Extremist is more akin to the idiot suicide bombers or idiots that crashed planes into buildings. They won't risk all out destruction for zero real gain.

Don't misunderstand statements they make for domestic consumption with their actual opinions.

Southpaw2012
07-20-2015, 10:53 AM
All that matters is that we satisfied that terrorist supporting regime on their quest for nuclear weapons, right? It would be an awful thing to make them feel left out or "less than" others. Supreme Leader continues to praise his "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" supporters, though, liberals don't care about the former of those two chants.

GonzoTheGreat
07-20-2015, 11:13 AM
Why do you believe they are on a quest for nuclear weapons?

Southpaw2012
07-21-2015, 08:35 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-says-iran-vow-defy-u-very-disturbing-070223527.html


Kerry is starting to see what Conservatives and people with sense have been worried about for awhile now..

GonzoTheGreat
07-21-2015, 10:27 AM
I notice that Kerry is honest enough not to pretend that he is willing to let the people in the region decide. Instead, the decisions are to be made by US-friendly dictators, and the big problem the US has with Iran is that it isn't US-friendly, not that it has some dictatorial characteristics.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 11:55 AM
You guys are just as fanatic as Southpaw. Hilarious. You're all like minded and he is the odd one out and comes off looking like the crazy one. And then all the personal attacks and belittling -- questioning his intelligence and life choices. I'm truly surprised I haven't seen any of you try to encourage him to kill himself. It sure seems like you're not far off with some of the insults you throw at him. You should all be ashamed. Cyber bullying is a sad sad thing and you all are good at it.

And that's your problem. Not that you will ever believe it, but FOX news is less reliable than no news at all. MSNBC slightly more reliable than no news at all. Everything else some degree of better than that. But again, no news > Fox News.

Ivhon - you're just as good at spouting dribble as Southpaw... where did you get this baseless crap? It sounds to me like you just made it up and hail it as fact.

Washington Post article on most trusted news source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/)

Granted, most polls show low trust in general when it comes to news providers.

MSNBC is the most biased news source... If anyone professes to watch MSNBC exclusively... they are definitely worse off than anyone watching Fox News exclusively:
Forbes Article - MSNBC most biased (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/)

Also, at US News (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/10/14/fox-news-less-biased-than-cnn-msnbc-in-white-house-coverage-)
a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

GonzoTheGreat
07-21-2015, 11:59 AM
Nitpick: "most trusted" is not necessarily the same as "most trustworthy".

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 12:05 PM
You guys are just as fanatic as Southpaw. Hilarious. You're all like minded and he is the odd one out and comes off looking like the crazy one. And then all the personal attacks and belittling -- questioning his intelligence and life choices. I'm truly surprised I haven't seen any of you try to encourage him to kill himself. It sure seems like you're not far off with some of the insults you throw at him. You should all be ashamed. Cyber bullying is a sad sad thing and you all are good at it.



Ivhon - you're just as good at spouting dribble as Southpaw... where did you get this baseless crap? It sounds to me like you just made it up and hail it as fact.

Washington Post article on most trusted news source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/)

Granted, most polls show low trust in general when it comes to news providers.

Exactly which of us was that directed at?

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 12:27 PM
Nitpick: "most trusted" is not necessarily the same as "most trustworthy".

In order for something to be trusted, it first has to be trustworthy.

Other than stating the obvious -- What does your nitpick add to or change about anything?

Exactly which of us was that directed at?

Relax Nazbaque - if you've never bullied or belittled Southpaw, its not directed at you.

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 12:49 PM
In order for something to be trusted, it first has to be trustworthy.
If that were true there wouldn't be any religious disputes. People are poor judges in what deserves trust.

And while it is true that many of us go too far the big problem isn't that we disagree with southpaw, but the fact that he doesn't actually discuss the subject. He starts a thread and if he ever leaves replies it's on the lines of repeating and linking whatever online articles caught his interest. He is just announcing his opinions. He never responds to our opinions never shows he has actually ever read what others wrote.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 12:59 PM
If that were true there wouldn't be any religious disputes. People are poor judges in what deserves trust.

And while it is true that many of us go too far the big problem isn't that we disagree with southpaw, but the fact that he doesn't actually discuss the subject. He starts a thread and if he ever leaves replies it's on the lines of repeating and linking whatever online articles caught his interest. He is just announcing his opinions. He never responds to our opinions never shows he has actually ever read what others wrote.

I assume that when you say If that were true -- the meaning of that is idea that "In order for something to be trusted, it first has to be trustworthy."

So what you're saying is:
If its true that in order for something to be trusted it first has to be trustworthy -- then there wouldn't be any religious disputes. There are religious disputes therefore the statement cannot be true.
You're wrong. Just because something is trustworthy and/or trusted doesn't mean it is automatically true. It means that it is trustworthy and/or trusted. Yes -- people ARE poor judges in what deserves trust. You and I are among those people just like everyone else.

He may do some things that the community doesn't like and don't necessarily harm them but the community is willing to intentionally harm him with bullying tactics. I am not advocating Southpaws behavior and you shouldn't advocate the behavior of those who bully or belittle him.

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 01:09 PM
But it is true. Just because something is trustworthy and/or trusted doesn't mean it is automatically true. It means that it is trustworthy and/or trusted. Yes -- people ARE poor judges in what deserves trust. You and I are among those people just like everyone else.

No trustworthy means exactly that. It can be trusted i.e. it's true. But people believe in many things being trustworthy when they aren't. And I am very different from a lot of people in this. I know the limits of humanity and choose to be uncertain about everything.

He may do some things that the community doesn't like and don't necessarily harm them but the community is willing to intentionally harm him with bullying tactics. I am not advocating Southpaws behavior and you shouldn't advocate the behavior of those who bully or belittle him.

I was merely sharing a more in depth analysis on the situation, not advocating anything at all.

EDIT: wow you changed a lot. Give me a minute to catch up.
EDIT2: replies to your edit

I assume that when you say If that were true -- the meaning of that is idea that "In order for something to be trusted, it first has to be trustworthy."

So what you're saying is:
If its true that in order for something to be trusted it first has to be trustworthy -- then there wouldn't be any religious disputes. There are religious disputes therefore the statement cannot be true.
You're wrong. Just because something is trustworthy and/or trusted doesn't mean it is automatically true. It means that it is trustworthy and/or trusted. Yes -- people ARE poor judges in what deserves trust. You and I are among those people just like everyone else.
No what I mean is that if human beings were capable of judging trustworthiness they wouldn't believe in anything untrue which is the basis of all religious disputes. There are religious disputes thus people are poor judges of what is trustworthy and trust many things that don't deserve it.

Ivhon
07-21-2015, 01:15 PM
Citation 1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5)

Citation2 implicitly supporting citation 1 (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/24/cnn-highlights-fox-news-brainwashing-republican-party.html)

Citation3 while only on one specific issue, once again Fox News is hind tit. And generally supports the premise. (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141113/06034829128/yet-another-study-shows-us-satire-programs-do-better-job-informing-viewers-than-actual-news-outlets.shtml)

Citation4 clears up the "Fox News Makes you Dumber" sensationalist headlines for citation 1. However, affirms that Fox News viewers are least informed (http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/25/facts-and-fiction-how-one-survey-was-reported-in-the-media/)

People jump on Southpaw here not because he has a conservative slant but because he posts factually incorrect rants from highly biased sources and then stands by them despite overwhelmingly presented evidence to the contrary. Its really no different than the reaction over the years to various prolific moron posters on the WoT defending easily debunked ridiculous theories in the face of overwhelming textual evidence to the contrary.

But hey, welcome back and thanks for dropping some bombs and insults of your own

The Unreasoner
07-21-2015, 02:07 PM
Relax Nazbaque - if you've never bullied or belittled Southpaw, its not directed at you.
Am I blushing?

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 02:18 PM
But hey, welcome back and thanks for dropping some bombs and insults of your own

@Ivhon

Thanks! That's the nature of the beast.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 02:20 PM
Am I blushing?
Should you be?

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 02:32 PM
Should you be?

And that would be your problem Nargsbrood. You actually don't who you are accusing nor in any detail what you are accusing them of. This means that your opinion on the matter is shallow guess work. You have right to it certainly, but you won't get any mending of ways from us any time soon if you aren't willing to at least show that you know what you are judging.

SomeOneElse
07-21-2015, 03:15 PM
I think it would be better if all nukes were removed;The day all nukes will be removed the 3rd world war will be started.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 03:47 PM
And that would be your problem Nargsbrood. You actually don't who you are accusing nor in any detail what you are accusing them of. This means that your opinion on the matter is shallow guess work. You have right to it certainly, but you won't get any mending of ways from us any time soon if you aren't willing to at least show that you know what you are judging.

I haven't made a note of who is doing the bullying and belittling. How does that equate to shallow guess work? Its called casual observation. I don't care enough to substantiate it for you. Does this mean its unsubstantial? No. The substance is there... and obvious.

Mending of ways? You think I care that you mend your ways? I am more interesting in seeing someone make a fool of themselves for knowingly cyber bullying someone. That's where I'll get my satisfaction. Orgasmic!

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 04:02 PM
I haven't made a note of who is doing the bullying and belittling. How does that equate to shallow guess work? Its called casual observation. I don't care enough to substantiate it for you. Does this mean its unsubstantial? No. The substance is there... and obvious.

Mending of ways? You think I care that you mend your ways? I am more interesting in seeing someone make a fool of themselves for knowingly cyber bullying someone. That's where I'll get my satisfaction. Orgasmic!

Well aren't you easily satisfied. Youtube must give you a lot of satisfaction.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 04:26 PM
Well aren't you easily satisfied. Youtube must give you a lot of satisfaction.

Oh yes! I do very much enjoy YouTube.

By the way, given that its a slow day at work and I am bored... I started looking through old Southpaw threads and have compiled a pretty big list of moments where he was belittled or bullied. Only got through 2.333 posts before I lost interest.

For a group of individuals that allegedly champion tolerance, you sure aren't very tolerant.

Here are those that either bullied or belittled:
The Unreasoned
Ozymandias
Davian93
Nazbaque
Ivhon
Terez
Gonzo The Great
Nargsbrood

Sure -- I don't mind putting me on there

The Unreasoner
07-21-2015, 04:48 PM
Here are those that either bullied or belittled:
The Unreasoned
Ozymandias
Davian93
Nazbaque
Ivhon
Terez
Gonzo The Great
I seem to be in good company.

NargsBrood
07-21-2015, 04:57 PM
@Unreasoner, you're not as clever as you think.

The Unreasoner
07-21-2015, 05:13 PM
@Unreasoner, you're not as clever as you think.
Well, sometimes you just have to make yourself laugh.

Nazbaque
07-21-2015, 06:12 PM
Oh yes! I do very much enjoy YouTube.

By the way, given that its a slow day at work and I am bored... I started looking through old Southpaw threads and have compiled a pretty big list of moments where he was belittled or bullied. Only got through 2.333 posts before I lost interest.

For a group of individuals that allegedly champion tolerance, you sure aren't very tolerant.

Here are those that either bullied or belittled:
The Unreasoned
Ozymandias
Davian93
Nazbaque
Ivhon
Terez
Gonzo The Great
Nargsbrood

Sure -- I don't mind putting me on there

You mean my complaining to you about your ignorance actually drove you to look stuff up?

Man, I've got you whipped and it's only our first conversation.

Terez
07-22-2015, 03:10 AM
You guys are just as fanatic as Southpaw. Hilarious. You're all like minded and he is the odd one out and comes off looking like the crazy one. And then all the personal attacks and belittling -- questioning his intelligence and life choices. I'm truly surprised I haven't seen any of you try to encourage him to kill himself. It sure seems like you're not far off with some of the insults you throw at him. You should all be ashamed. Cyber bullying is a sad sad thing and you all are good at it.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

GonzoTheGreat
07-22-2015, 03:54 AM
In order for something to be trusted, it first has to be trustworthy.
Thousands of years of stories about conmen show that your claim is false. What evidence do you have to back it up?

If you were correct, then no one would ever fall for a Ponzi scheme.
If you were correct, then no one would ever be fooled by a "I'm not married" declaration.
If you were correct, then the Protocols of the Elders of Zion aren't a fabrication after all.
If you were correct, then the Piltdown Man was a real ancient fossil.

None of which is actually true. So, I will ask again: what evidence do you have to show that humans will only believe things that are actually really true?

PS I wonder: am I now belittling you, or am I bullying you? Not that it matters for how I act, I guess, but I would like to know what I am doing.

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 12:00 PM
Thousands of years of stories about conmen show that your claim is false. What evidence do you have to back it up?

If you were correct, then no one would ever fall for a Ponzi scheme.
If you were correct, then no one would ever be fooled by a "I'm not married" declaration.
If you were correct, then the Protocols of the Elders of Zion aren't a fabrication after all.
If you were correct, then the Piltdown Man was a real ancient fossil.

None of which is actually true. So, I will ask again: what evidence do you have to show that humans will only believe things that are actually really true?

PS I wonder: am I now belittling you, or am I bullying you? Not that it matters for how I act, I guess, but I would like to know what I am doing.
I'll cede the point -- In order for something to be trusted it has to either be trustworthy or falsely believed to be trustworthy.

No -- You're being a little snarky but civil nonetheless. I wouldn't say you're belittling or bullying.

Considering the major news sources -- choice of news source has little to do with the source being trusted or trustworthy. It has to do with people finding likeminded individuals. All the likeminded individuals then feed off each other and reaffirm each other's beliefs, understandings, and perceptions of reality whether correct or incorrect. They trust the group because it thinks like they do.

Now that they "belong" to this group of likeminded individuals, they more willingly accept new ideas introduced by other members of that group. Not because its a trustworthy group but because they trust the group. Group thinking can be dangerous. See fascinating article: Groupthink (http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm)

The reality of that person is easily shaped and even controlled by the group. This is true whether you're liberal or conservative or if you are examining other facets of the human experience. This has always been a human condition but has been magnified by the media and internets. Group thinking produces zealots.

The Unreasoner
07-22-2015, 02:12 PM
In nothing is the power of Southpaw more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 03:16 PM
In nothing is the power of Southpaw more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.

Ah.. the 1954 edition of 101 Geek Insults. Classic edition.

The Unreasoner
07-22-2015, 03:23 PM
Ah.. the 1954 edition of 101 Geek Insults. Classic edition.
Lol. I thought it would be more polite than just telling you to fuck off.

ETA:
Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. We're not idiots, we know what Fox News is, we know about group mentality. I've reached out a tentatively respectful hand to Southpaw, he ignored it. Nazbaque did the same, Southpaw spat on it. Maybe read more than 2.33 posts before drawing conclusions in the future.

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 04:22 PM
Lol. I thought it would be more polite than just telling you to fuck off.

ETA:
Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. We're not idiots, we know what Fox News is, we know about group mentality. I've reached out a tentatively respectful hand to Southpaw, he ignored it. Nazbaque did the same, Southpaw spat on it. Maybe read more than 2.33 posts before drawing conclusions in the future.

The quote you used doesn't doesn't even approach your goal of politely telling someone to fuck off. You grossly misused the quote. And It appeared to be directed at Southpaw, not me.... Oh, now I see. Maybe you're more clever than I originally gave you credit for... I need to read 2 skewed levels deep for you and take off my sober filter.

Maybe you misunderstood the 2.33 posts. I read only 2.33 posts to look for instances of bullying or belittling before I became bored of the task. My casual observations extend well beyond that. I know the history but that doesn't change the facts at hand. I'm sure you're all decent people at heart. Except Terez.

Nazbaque
07-22-2015, 04:55 PM
The quote you used doesn't doesn't even approach your goal of politely telling someone to fuck off. You grossly misused the quote. And It appeared to be directed at Southpaw, not me.... Oh, now I see. Maybe you're more clever than I originally gave you credit for... I need to read 2 skewed levels deep for you and take off my sober filter.

Maybe you misunderstood the 2.33 posts. I read only 2.33 posts to look for instances of bullying or belittling before I became bored of the task. My casual observations extend well beyond that. I know the history but that doesn't change the facts at hand. I'm sure you're all decent people at heart. Except Terez.

Now let's get this straight. The only decent person around here is yks. Some of the rest of us might not be completely obnoxious, but at least three steps away from decent.

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 05:42 PM
Now let's get this straight. The only decent person around here is yks. Some of the rest of us might not be completely obnoxious, but at least three steps away from decent.

Being decent is good but is also indicative of a group thinker. The base of decency is moral relativity -- not moral principal.

Nazbaque
07-22-2015, 06:00 PM
Being decent is good but is also indicative of a group thinker. The base of decency is moral relativity -- not moral principal.

And your point is?

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 06:31 PM
And your point is?

You talk of decency like its a quality. I don't see it as such. That's my point. You should aspire to something greater than just decency.

Nazbaque
07-22-2015, 06:49 PM
You talk of decency like its a quality. I don't see it as such. That's my point. You should aspire to something greater than just decency.

It's more a lack of quality. You on the other hand are blinded by greatness. It indicates a shallow mentality. If you had trained yourself to recognise subtleties you might not have leapt to any conclusions on my aspirations.

Davian93
07-22-2015, 07:50 PM
Oh yes! I do very much enjoy YouTube.

By the way, given that its a slow day at work and I am bored... I started looking through old Southpaw threads and have compiled a pretty big list of moments where he was belittled or bullied. Only got through 2.333 posts before I lost interest.

For a group of individuals that allegedly champion tolerance, you sure aren't very tolerant.

Here are those that either bullied or belittled:
The Unreasoned
Ozymandias
Davian93
Nazbaque
Ivhon
Terez
Gonzo The Great
Nargsbrood

Sure -- I don't mind putting me on there

I think I've held back actually. I'd be far worse if I really opens up on him.

Terez
07-22-2015, 08:42 PM
I think I've held back actually.
I made like one comment. But hey, Narg is pretty open about being a troll.

NargsBrood
07-22-2015, 10:26 PM
I made like one comment. But hey, Narg is pretty open about being a troll.

One comment? http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-laughter-smiley-emoticon.gif I've been civil to you in this thread compared to past encounters. I've forgotten how easy you cry over everything.

It's more a lack of quality. You on the other hand are blinded by greatness. It indicates a shallow mentality. If you had trained yourself to recognise subtleties you might not have leapt to any conclusions on my aspirations.

You was a royal you. Aren't you quite the little narcissist?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/6e23e27f06387c88b37d39e031cb44f6/tumblr_npimwmJWJo1rq1pj8o1_500.jpg

Zombie Sammael
07-22-2015, 11:02 PM
Stupid thread is stupid.

Then again, when was the last time we had an intelligent discussion about anything?

Lupusdeusest
07-22-2015, 11:30 PM
Stupid thread is stupid.

Then again, when was the last time we had an intelligent discussion about anything?

Depends who's involved in the conversation...

The Unreasoner
07-22-2015, 11:35 PM
Oh, now I see. Maybe you're more clever than I originally gave you credit for... I need to read 2 skewed levels deep for you and take off my sober filter.
FWIW, I make no claim to either cleverness or sobriety. Though, obviously, the quote was never directed at Southtron (isn't it lovely that life sometimes just gives you a freebie?), in any incarnation.

Frenzy
07-23-2015, 12:12 AM
Depends who's involved in the conversation...

i saw a picture of a kangaroo in a snowfield. So how's winter treating you guys? ;)

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2015, 03:19 AM
Maybe you misunderstood the 2.33 posts. I read only 2.33 posts to look for instances of bullying or belittling before I became bored of the task.Could you provide links to those posts?

I'm curious to see how you managed to come up with seven different posters B&Bing* one other poster from fewer than 3 posts. Based on the posting mechanism around here, at least 4 of those posters would have to have been judged based on quotes only, not on their actual posts.

* Is that the proper abbreviation for it, or is there some other way of doing that?

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 09:08 AM
You was a royal you. Aren't you quite the little narcissist?

No I'm a big one and everyone who is anyone around here knows it you dirty little peasant who is unworthy of licking my footprints.

NargsBrood
07-23-2015, 10:53 AM
No I'm a big one and everyone who is anyone around here knows it you dirty little peasant who is unworthy of licking my footprints.
Got it
https://janeaustenrunsmylife.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/gastonfab.jpg

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 12:28 PM
Got it
https://janeaustenrunsmylife.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/gastonfab.jpg

Oooh Disney reference. Have you realized who the real bad guy of that particular movie is btw?

NargsBrood
07-23-2015, 03:07 PM
Oooh Disney reference. Have you realized who the real bad guy of that particular movie is btw?

The real bad guy? You're implying that Gaston was a good dude?

I've never had cause to reason it out although I guess it depends on your perspective and also what kind of twisted logic you employ. Disney likely intended it to be and most normal people would settle on Gaston.

Weirdo conspiracy theorists might try to convince you its the enchantress for the injustices she forced on innocent bystanders but not enough information is known about enchantress or the "innocent" bystanders to substantiate that claim.

Who do you claim it was?

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 03:53 PM
The real bad guy? You're implying that Gaston was a good dude?

I've never had cause to reason it out although I guess it depends on your perspective and also what kind of twisted logic you employ. Disney likely intended it to be and most normal people would settle on Gaston.

Weirdo conspiracy theorists might try to convince you its the enchantress for the injustices she forced on innocent bystanders but not enough information is known about enchantress or the "innocent" bystanders to substantiate that claim.

Who do you claim it was?

It's not a matter of what disney intended. Gaston is a bad person yes, but he isn't the master mind behind it all. The true villain is the character at the very beginning, who does not have a proper name, but known only as the "Enchantress", is not ever actually animated and damn well gets away with it.

Okay the prince is spoiled, selfish and unkind, but let's look at the presented facts.

1.) The crime is an act of unkindness to a beggar woman. Now it's not nice to turn away someone in need, but let us clarify a bit.

1.1.) The Enchantress starts the whole thing with deliberate deceit. She is in disguise.

1.2.) She pretends to only be able to compensate the prince with a rose, while in reality she could offer her vast magical talents to fix the old castle up a bit.

1.3.) She is not even in any kind of need harsh weather or not. The magical powers she soon demonstrated would surely have protected her.

Thus the whole thing is a con set up so that Enchantress gets an excuse to go all out. She even ignores his apology.

2.) The Enchantress then moves straight to punishment. She offers nothing that in any way shows she has a right to do what she does. No matter how nasty the prince was this woman didn't have the right to do what she did. She has the power and she uses it as she pleases.

3.) The actual punishment is a great deal harsher than the crime deserves.

3.1.) Turning someone into frog for half a day to teach them a lesson is one thing. This would have been a life sentence if the prince couldn't prove he had learned the lesson within the given time limit.

3.2.) The time limit is his 21st birthday. This means that he was given very little time or he was actually a minor. In both cases the Enchantress is not actually on the moral high ground.

3.3.) The servants get punished as well. There is no possible way for that to be justified.

Gaston is the douchebag of douchebags, but he has nothing on the Enchantress.

Kimon
07-23-2015, 04:29 PM
Not to derail the recent pages of nonsense, but in other news of diplomatic victories by our "terrorist regime" in the region, Turkey finally agreed to join in the struggle against ISIS, and to allow us to use Incirlik Airbase.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33641315

NargsBrood
07-23-2015, 05:00 PM
Like I said before... not enough is known about the enchantress or the bystanders to substantiate this claim. You'd have to make a lot of assumptions for all of your statements to be true.

The Enchantress
Who is she? What is she? What is her true nature? How did she get this immense power and why? What happens if she uses this power in the wrong way? Is there something or someone that governs her? Does she have some sort of stewardship over the prince? Does she even have a form? Or is she just an energy? Sounds familiar.

Bystanders
Who were they before they were caught up in the curse? Were they really innocent or did they need to be redirected as well?





1.) The crime is an act of unkindness to a beggar woman. Now it's not nice to turn away someone in need, but let us clarify a bit.

We don't know if this is the crime. It could have been his chance at redemption for his past crimes. It could have merely been the mechanism that the enchantress knew would set all the events in motion.


1.1.) The Enchantress starts the whole thing with deliberate deceit. She is in disguise.

We don't know enough about her to say if she was acting deceitfully. Does she even have a form at all? Is she a multi form being? Does she have the power to allow people to see her as they want to? We don't know enough about her / it.


1.2.) She pretends to only be able to compensate the prince with a rose, while in reality she could offer her vast magical talents to fix the old castle up a bit.

She may have been bound by laws and/or guidelines that would not allow her to award him more than a rose for letting her stay there. She may not have been lying at all.


1.3.) She is not even in any kind of need harsh weather or not. The magical powers she soon demonstrated would surely have protected her.

Thus the whole thing is a con set up so that Enchantress gets an excuse to go all out. She even ignores his apology.

We don't know that it was a con. Aladdin's Genie was all powerfull but he was bound by rules and laws that he spells out to Aladdin on-screen. Perhaps she really was in need and perhaps she couldn't use her magic on herself in that way.


2.) The Enchantress then moves straight to punishment. She offers nothing that in any way shows she has a right to do what she does. No matter how nasty the prince was this woman didn't have the right to do what she did. She has the power and she uses it as she pleases.

We don't know enough about her for these statements to hold up.


3.) The actual punishment is a great deal harsher than the crime deserves.

We don't understand the crime and we don't even understand if it is even a punishment or if it is a means of correcting his behavior or what. We don't know enough about who or what she is to make this claim.



3.1.) Turning someone into frog for half a day to teach them a lesson is one thing. This would have been a life sentence if the prince couldn't prove he had learned the lesson within the given time limit.

We don't know if she knew beforehand if he was going to be able to break the curse. We don't know if the scenario was set up for him to succeed.


3.2.) The time limit is his 21st birthday. This means that he was given very little time or he was actually a minor. In both cases the Enchantress is not actually on the moral high ground.

Being a minor is a construct of your modern mind. These statements are relative to your existence, not the Prince's or the enchantress'. If he was set up to succeed then the shorter amount of time should seem more "humane". To boot, we don't know if the flow of time for the prince was altered by the curse.


3.3.) The servants get punished as well. There is no possible way for that to be justified.

Not enough is known about the servants before the curse to validate this statement. Not enough is known about the relationship between the servants and the enchantress.


Was this simply a test that she randomly administers to random individuals? Or was it a last chance at redemption? I posit that it was neither. It was merely a means of fixing the broken Prince. She knew he would eventually be able to break the curse even if it was at the last moment. Being a steward over him, she can do with him as she sees fit under the restrictions that she is bound to. Her goal was to fix the prince. She succeeded. Case closed. Job well done -- She moves on.

We do however know enough about Gaston to see that he is a douchebag.

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 05:33 PM
So she is basically the only person who gets the benefit of the doubt. A teenager prince is (unless he had less than a year) presumably guilty of crimes for which the punishment was appropriate. Every single servant as well including the cooks children who were turned into teacups.

There may be some higher powers she answers to but the point is that she never cites these, meaning that even if she was a representative of such powers at that time she was taking the law into her own hands so to speak.

And even if there were restrictions or whatever her true form is, she was pretending to be something she isn't. Beggar women do not have the power to turn into enchantresses and then turn servants into kitchen utensils. Thus it was a disguise and her initial approach was deceitful.

It's true that we know nothing of her personality, but there is absolutely nothing about Gaston that can compeat with turning little kids into teacups in the Villain scale.

NargsBrood
07-23-2015, 05:55 PM
So she is basically the only person who gets the benefit of the doubt.

No, we can give the benefit to any one from the story. In fact, with imagination, we can easily build up almost any scenario that makes almost any character from the movie the protagonist or antagonist.

What I am getting at is simply this:
There is reasonable doubt that she is the villain because we don't have all the facts. Don't make dogma of the points you wrote up.

Whatever logic you come up with you could name any one from the movie as the villain. You just have to fill in a lot of holes and make a lot of assumptions... like you are doing with the "enchantress".

The Unreasoner
07-23-2015, 05:59 PM
How many times have you two seen that movie?

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 06:33 PM
No, we can give the benefit to any one from the story. In fact, with imagination, we can easily build up almost any scenario that makes almost any character from the movie the protagonist or antagonist.

What I am getting at is simply this:
There is reasonable doubt that she is the villain because we don't have all the facts. Don't make dogma of the points you wrote up.

Whatever logic you come up with you could name any one from the movie as the villain. You just have to fill in a lot of holes and make a lot of assumptions... like you are doing with the "enchantress".

Yes but for the Enchantress this is actually reversed. You can imagine a lot for anyone, maybe even the tea cup boy but I personally draw the line at the leg rest dog, but you have to imagine the justification for the Enchantress. You have to imagine the higher powers she works for. You have to imagine the limitations on her powers. You even have to imagine her good intentions. We only know about that one crime and the punishment that was extended all the way to a servants children and a dog.

So what is more plausible? Enchantress being a psychotic vigilante or a little boy deserving the tea cup transformation? And btw the kid would in that case be a lot worse than Gaston so he loses either way.

How many times have you two seen that movie?

Younger cousin's favourite movie. A lot of times.

Terez
07-23-2015, 07:44 PM
How many times have you two seen that movie?
I watched it so many times at one point about 20 years ago (??) that I had all the music memorized. But I have no idea what they're talking about.

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 08:23 PM
I watched it so many times at one point about 20 years ago (??) that I had all the music memorized. But I have no idea what they're talking about.

The opening of the movie that explains how and why the castle got cursed. The first two and a half minutes plus the disney self-congradulation of however long. And as I just checked it to refresh my memory I will add that at pretty near the end of that sequence were the words "As the years passed" just after the time limit of age twenty-one was given. That expression is of course vague but personally I would think it was at least four years, which makes the rude prince a sixteen-year-old about to turn seventeen and that is the maximum stretch for me. I would expect it to be more than five years or even ten years, but in that case the prince would be a preteen and the tea cup boy a new born baby if he was born at all opening some disturbing questions on teapots' mating capabilities.

And there was also a part that I forgot to put in my original litany where the Enchantress warns the prince about deceptive appearances "for beauty is found within" which was the icing on the whole cake as her subsequent actions so clearly showed the lack of her inner beauty. On top of everything she is a hypocrite.

Zombie Sammael
07-23-2015, 09:49 PM
i saw a picture of a kangaroo in a snowfield. So how's winter treating you guys? ;)

Winter? That was last week.

Zombie Sammael
07-23-2015, 09:55 PM
The Enchantress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchantress_(Marvel_Comics)) is a villain, just ask the Mighty Thor.

But the real villain of Beast's Castle is Xaldin (http://www.khwiki.com/Xaldin). That boss fight is hard.

Kimon
07-23-2015, 10:14 PM
The opening of the movie that explains how and why the castle got cursed. The first two and a half minutes plus the disney self-congradulation of however long. And as I just checked it to refresh my memory I will add that at pretty near the end of that sequence were the words "As the years passed" just after the time limit of age twenty-one was given. That expression is of course vague but personally I would think it was at least four years, which makes the rude prince a sixteen-year-old about to turn seventeen and that is the maximum stretch for me. I would expect it to be more than five years or even ten years, but in that case the prince would be a preteen and the tea cup boy a new born baby if he was born at all opening some disturbing questions on teapots' mating capabilities.

And there was also a part that I forgot to put in my original litany where the Enchantress warns the prince about deceptive appearances "for beauty is found within" which was the icing on the whole cake as her subsequent actions so clearly showed the lack of her inner beauty. On top of everything she is a hypocrite.

I won't pretend to be as familiar with Disney's silly version as any of you, but it's just a xenia lesson. Had Disney followed Villeneuve's version of the fairy tale then there would be a case for the fairy being a villain, but Disney followed Beaumont's version. The fairy wasn't a villain, the beast was just a bad host, as he was inconsiderate of guests. This story, aside from the non sequitur love tangent, is little different from the Greek myth of Baucis and Philemon or the Biblical myth of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in both of those tales the gods (Zeus and Hermes in the former) were far less forgiving than was the fairy.

Lupusdeusest
07-23-2015, 10:20 PM
i saw a picture of a kangaroo in a snowfield. So how's winter treating you guys? ;)

The vortex thing hasn't really reached us up here in the tropics; we've had a little unseasonable rain and that's about it put of the ordinary. The snow has had me really gah about being stuck up here though; a lot of places my mother and I used to go on holidays are under a dusting of white. All we got was some lousy frost... we need to head back down south.
Snow getting as far north as it did this season happens every 8 years or so, so we'll just have to have a car/licence for the next one. And money.

everything else in this thread

...did we just go full Theoryland?

Zombie Sammael
07-23-2015, 11:03 PM
...did we just go full Theoryland?

It got you and I up off the Entropy Sideline Couch (TM) so we must have.

Nazbaque
07-23-2015, 11:29 PM
It got you and I up off the Entropy Sideline Couch (TM) so we must have.

I'm pretty sure some of our regulars are still missing, but I'm not sure where to draw the line on who counts as a regular at the moment.

Frenzy
07-23-2015, 11:38 PM
1) Lumiere laments that they've been rusting for 10 years. Assuming the Beast hasn't turned 21 yet, he was cursed at age 10.

2) Cannot be unseen. (http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/35600000/No-one-twerks-like-Gaston-disney-princess-35659677-250-250.jpg)

3) Even though they were cursed, all the servants seem to be immortal and ageless. So your precious teacup child will be forever fine... unless someone rents out the castle for a Jewish wedding.

The Unreasoner
07-24-2015, 12:41 AM
Truly this is a Pyrrhic victory...a Southpaw thread was successfully derailed, but only after considerable energy was spent thoroughly dissecting and Theorylandizing a fucking Disney movie.

Nazbaque
07-24-2015, 12:57 AM
Truly this is a Pyrrhic victory...a Southpaw thread was successfully derailed, but only after considerable energy was spent thoroughly dissecting and Theorylandizing a fucking Disney movie.

Well that Disney movie is fucked up on so many levels. Thanks Frenzy! So since the Beast was aging by default otherwise the time limit would have been pointless, the Enchantress took magical revenge on a ten year old for being rude, extends that revenge on his servants including a baby and a puppy. She has got to be at least the fifth biggest bitch in Disney history and she gets away with it.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-24-2015, 01:35 AM
to be fair, some 10-year olds are real psychopaths because their parents treat them like little royalty.

though, personally I think that once a kid is past 6 or so there's not much to do to fix anything.

GonzoTheGreat
07-24-2015, 04:03 AM
It got you and I up off the Entropy Sideline Couch (TM) so we must have.
That should have been "you and me". This becomes readily apparent if one leaves out the "you and" bit; then in your version the sentence becomes:
It got I up off the Entropy Sideline Couch (TM) so I must have.

GonzoTheGreat
07-24-2015, 04:04 AM
though, personally I think that once a kid is past 6 or so there's not much to do to fix anything.
Turning them into a tea cup usually works pretty well.

Zombie Sammael
07-24-2015, 06:46 AM
That should have been "you and me". This becomes readily apparent if one leaves out the "you and" bit; then in your version the sentence becomes:
It got I up off the Entropy Sideline Couch (TM) so I must have.

Nuh-uh, because what you didn't realise was I wrote that post in a thick West Country accent.

Ozymandias
07-27-2015, 09:17 AM
Which part of those checks and balances kept Sarah Palin from very nearly becoming VP?
For that matter, which part of those checks and balances prevented GWB from setting up the conditions in which Al Qaeda could become a global role model, which led to various effective insurgents all over the world now swearing allegiance to ISIS?

Wait, what? I must be misunderstanding. Al Qaeda was pretty effectively removed as a force after 9/11. Say what you will about the eternal nature of a "War on Terror", and belittle the efforts of the Bush Administration in planning for and executing the aftermath of the Iraq War... but the global campaign against terrorism has been pretty broadly effective. Especially as it comes to capturing senior Al Qaeda officials.

Al Qaeda was at its most powerful prior to President Bush's inauguration. They have since been driven out of most of their strongholds.

ISIS, I'll point out, began its existence in Syria, not Iraq, and gained the momentum it did in large part because opinions such as yours prevailed, and we did not to take sides in a large scale civil war. That much of ISIS' upper leadership is now compromised of ex-Ba'athist officials is regrettable, but we couldn't leave the Ba'ath Party in charge of Iraq or there would have been a military coup the second we left, and we couldn't just outright kill them all.

And FYI, a constitutional check or balance on power can't actually happen until someone takes office. Sarah Palin not becoming Vice President is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that our country has a reasonable history of secular democracy and recoils from obvious idiots. I would have voted for McCain, had he not displayed his obvious early-onset dementia and chosen Palin as a running mate.

And as for the many religious nuts running... how often do any of them gain real traction? Perry and his ilk are usually one note candidates who fizzle pretty early, usually because they expect their religion to be the only thing people will look at (and not, you know... their policies). But last election cycle, the GOP candidate was a member of a bizarre fringe cult who was quite obviously chosen despite, and not because of, his religious beliefs. McCain, while certainly a religious person, is about as far from Bible thumping as you can get (though again... Palin was about as close as you can get).

For that matter, which part of those checks and balances made sure that GWB would not ignore North Korea for so long that that country could become a nuclear power?

Do you even know what a check and balance is? How does a purely internal matter have any influence on dictating foreign policy? And mind you, given the hawkish nature of the GOP and the relatively dove-ish nature of the Democrats, the easy answer is that it was Congressional Democrats the stopped us from doing anything in North Korea, and the same Congressional Democrats who refused to execrise their check on power and authorized the Iraq War. I'm not entirely sure these questions you are raising are supporting your point.


I think it would be better if all nukes were removed;

I agree

Kimon
07-27-2015, 09:38 AM
ISIS, I'll point out, began its existence in Syria, not Iraq, and gained the momentum it did in large part because opinions such as yours prevailed, and we did not to take sides in a large scale civil war. That much of ISIS' upper leadership is now compromised of ex-Ba'athist officials is regrettable, but we couldn't leave the Ba'ath Party in charge of Iraq or there would have been a military coup the second we left, and we couldn't just outright kill them all.



ISIS didn't move into Syria until the Civil War broke out there in 2011. It was already long in existence in Iraq at that time, and it started as an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, the AQI, under the leadership of al-Zarqawi. He died early in 2006, and his AQI then merged with a number of other groups in Iraq, many of them ex-Baathists, and they changed the name to to the ISI - the Islamic State of Iraq. After they entered into the Syrian civil war, the name was changed again, sometimes rendered as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), sometimes as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Had those Baathists been co-opted into the government, just as had many Nazis and Japanese Imperialists after WWII, they would perhaps have been helping to fight these types of groups, not feeling forced to join them. This was a lesson that should have been remembered.

As for the strength of Al Qaeda. It's not so much that we have destroyed them, but that their presence has been replaced by ISIS. Likewise, the Taliban is still very much a force in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We opened Pandora's Box when we toppled Saddam.

GonzoTheGreat
07-27-2015, 09:48 AM
All that Al Qaeda needs is a couple of competent volunteers and some box cutters. Anything else may be useful, but they have proven that they can do without.

Believing that killing some of them is useful in any real way is naive. For a long time, the Romans thought that if they just killed enough Christian leaders they would be able to stamp out that lunacy. Didn't work then, shows no sign of working now.

Kimon
07-27-2015, 09:59 AM
For a long time, the Romans thought that if they just killed enough Christian leaders they would be able to stamp out that lunacy. Didn't work then, shows no sign of working now.

I feel the need to point out again that this is a lie propagated by the Church. There was never an official policy of persecution except under Galerius (what began under his predecessor Diocletian was just an attempt to rid Christians from the military). Nor was it in any way of long duration unless you consider from Feb 24th, 303 until April of 311, that being the duration of the persecution, as being "a long time". Even if you add in what Diocletian did, then the start date of the persecution is still that same Feb 24, 303. it is complete nonsense. Almost all of the Christians martyred were martyred because they were criminals.

Davian93
07-27-2015, 10:37 AM
All that Al Qaeda needs is a couple of competent volunteers and some box cutters. Anything else may be useful, but they have proven that they can do without.

Believing that killing some of them is useful in any real way is naive. For a long time, the Romans thought that if they just killed enough Christian leaders they would be able to stamp out that lunacy. Didn't work then, shows no sign of working now.

Well, to be fair, it did work for a good 300 years until Constantine simply co-opted them instead and used them for his own devices.

Davian93
07-27-2015, 10:39 AM
I feel the need to point out again that this is a lie propagated by the Church. There was never an official policy of persecution except under Galerius (what began under his predecessor Diocletian was just an attempt to rid Christians from the military). Nor was it in any way of long duration unless you consider from Feb 24th, 303 until April of 311, that being the duration of the persecution, as being "a long time". Even if you add in what Diocletian did, then the start date of the persecution is still that same Feb 24, 303. it is complete nonsense. Almost all of the Christians martyred were martyred because they were criminals.

LOL...also this.

Along those lines, Mary, Queen of Scots claimed she was executed as a Catholic martyr...all the while ignoring the fact that she was trying to get Elizabeth killed so she could take the throne herself. It was totally the Catholic part though, not the high treason part.

Though I suppose its not High Treason if you arent actually a citizen/subject of that kingdom as she wasn't. She was the idiot that fled there though so go figure.

Ozymandias
07-27-2015, 11:16 AM
Had those Baathists been co-opted into the government, just as had many Nazis and Japanese Imperialists after WWII, they would perhaps have been helping to fight these types of groups, not feeling forced to join them. This was a lesson that should have been remembered.

Actually, de-Ba'athification is extremely similar in scope and intent to de-Nazification.

As for the strength of Al Qaeda. It's not so much that we have destroyed them, but that their presence has been replaced by ISIS. Likewise, the Taliban is still very much a force in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We opened Pandora's Box when we toppled Saddam.

I suggest you read this (http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2015/04/29-terrorism-in-africa-byman) very interesting piece, if not more.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are not the same organization, and one is not the continuation of the other in goals or methods.

And yes, the Taliban (which could very accurately be described as the "official" face of Al Qaeda) is still a threat, though mainly because it is being supported by Pakistan on a quasi-official bases.

That being said, Al Qaeda and ISIS have, effectively, nothing to do with one another any more, and even in the past the association was incredibly loose. Besides, not even the most blind or stupid person can honestly claim that we opened any kind of "Pandora's Box" by toppling Saddam's regime - given the many terrorist acts carried out by Islamic fascists while Saddam was still in power against the West, I think its clear that his removal has not increased the threat to us. And while what is happening in Iraq is/was terrible, there is a strong case to be made that conditions were worse before his was deposed.

Kimon
07-27-2015, 11:53 AM
I suggest you read this (http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2015/04/29-terrorism-in-africa-byman) very interesting piece, if not more.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are not the same organization, and one is not the continuation of the other in goals or methods.



I didn't say they were the same organization, I said that it was born as an Al Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, and that due to its success, has largely replaced Al Qaeda in terms of recruitment.

Here is an excerpt from the Brookings Institute article that you just linked:

The Islamic State began as an Iraqi organization, and this legacy shapes the movement today. Jihadist groups proliferated in Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and many eventually coalesced around Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian jihadist who spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s and again in 2001. Though Bin Laden gave Zarqawi seed money to start his organization, Zarqawi at first refused to swear loyalty to and join Al Qaeda, as he shared only some of Bin Laden’s goals and wanted to remain independent. After months of negotiations, however, Zarqawi pledged his loyalty, and in 2004 his group took on the name “Al Qaeda in Iraq” to signify this connection. Bin Laden got an affiliate in the most important theater of jihad at a time when the Al Qaeda core was on the ropes, and Zarqawi got Al Qaeda’s prestige and contacts to bolster his legitimacy.

Here's his assessment of how the two split following events in Syria, and as a consequence to the successes of ISIS.

Although the Syria conflict revived the Iraqi jihadist movement, it also eventually led it to split with the Al Qaeda leadership. Zawahiri encouraged the Iraqi affiliate to move into Syria, but he also wanted to establish a separate group under separate command, with Syrians in the lead to give it a local face. Zawahiri probably also wanted a separate group given his past doubts on AQI’s loyalty and wisdom. Jabhat al-Nusra was thus created as the Syrian spinoff. But whereas Zawahiri saw this as a positive development, Baghdadi and other Iraqi leaders feared the group had simply gone native and become too independent, focusing too much on Syria and ignoring Iraq and the original leadership. In an attempt to rein it in and reestablish Iraqi authority over the group, Baghdadi declared Jabhat al-Nusra part of his organization. Nusra leaders balked, pledging a direct oath to Zawahiri as a way of retaining its independence. Zawahiri found this lack of unity frustrating and in late 2013 ordered Baghdadi to accept this decision and focus on Iraq. Baghdadi refused, and declared Jabhat al-Nusra subordinate to him: a move that sparked a broader clash in which thoughts of fighters from both groups died. In February of 2014, Zawahiri publicly disavowed Baghdadi’s group, formally ending their affiliation.

In June 2014, Baghdadi’s forces shocked just about everyone when they swept across Iraq, capturing not only large parts of Iraq’s remote areas but also major cities like Mosul and Tikrit, important resources like hydroelectric dams and oil refineries, and several strategic border crossings with Syria. Within a month, the group—now calling itself the Islamic State—would officially declare the establishment of a caliphate in the territory under its control, naming Baghdadi the caliph and “leader for Muslims everywhere.”2 Almost overnight, Baghdadi went from being an annoying thorn in Zawahiri’s side to a serious challenger to his authority and a threat to his organization’s position as the vanguard of the global jihadist movement. Thousands more foreign fighters, inspired by the stunning success of the Islamic State and the bold declaration of a caliphate, flocked to Syria and Iraq to join the fight.

I don't disagree with any of this, nor do I see how this differs with anything that I said.

As for whether or not the war was a mistake and has become a Pandora's Box, I stand by that assessment. I cannot understand why you refuse to see that, but it's also clear that I will never convince you otherwise. I do however fail to see how my assessment that the war was a disaster somehow makes me "the most blind or stupid person".

Nazbaque
07-27-2015, 02:51 PM
As for whether or not the war was a mistake and has become a Pandora's Box, I stand by that assessment. I cannot understand why you refuse to see that, but it's also clear that I will never convince you otherwise. I do however fail to see how my assessment that the war was a disaster somehow makes me "the most blind or stupid person".

That's Ozy for you. He thinks that winning the argument is the same as being right and so he resorts to insults in order to win and there by prove to himself that he is right.

Davian93
07-27-2015, 05:23 PM
ISIS was born out of AlQaida in Iraq...and they worked together for awhile before AlQaida disowned them and then ISIS dominated the region instead.

This isn't really a controversial statement.

GonzoTheGreat
07-28-2015, 03:38 AM
Actually, de-Ba'athification is extremely similar in scope and intent to de-Nazification.With some details which differ, of course.

One of the important differences is that in the 1940s, the Americans had the incredible wisdom and foresight to disarm their enemies before disbanding their army. Whatever gave them that idea we will probably never know, but it is clear that it was exceptional, since the Americans in the 2000s decided to ignore this example and send the suspected Ba'athists home with all the weapons they could carry but no pay.

Davian93
07-28-2015, 06:36 AM
With some details which differ, of course.

One of the important differences is that in the 1940s, the Americans had the incredible wisdom and foresight to disarm their enemies before disbanding their army. Whatever gave them that idea we will probably never know, but it is clear that it was exceptional, since the Americans in the 2000s decided to ignore this example and send the suspected Ba'athists home with all the weapons they could carry but no pay.

The people that pushed for De-Baathification based on the WWII model had pretty much a 3rd grader's understanding of how it went down instead of the reality where we basically co-opted both the Japanese and German bureacracy while getting rid of the really bad big time Nazis/war criminals in show trials and leaving the minor functionaries alone to keep running things. In Iraq, we fired the entire gov't, disbanded the army and then said "Fin!"

Not surprising how dumb we were given the neo-con reactionaries that planned the whole thing all the while ignoring the voices of reason within the Administration and Pentagon (Powell and Shinseki respectively).

Ozymandias
07-30-2015, 04:28 PM
With some details which differ, of course.

One of the important differences is that in the 1940s, the Americans had the incredible wisdom and foresight to disarm their enemies before disbanding their army. Whatever gave them that idea we will probably never know, but it is clear that it was exceptional, since the Americans in the 2000s decided to ignore this example and send the suspected Ba'athists home with all the weapons they could carry but no pay.

The Americans also were able to disarm the Japanese and Germans because they were committed to a complete, long term occupation and rebuilding. Something the Americans and allies were not committed to in Iraq.

Ozymandias
07-30-2015, 04:36 PM
The people that pushed for De-Baathification based on the WWII model had pretty much a 3rd grader's understanding of how it went down instead of the reality where we basically co-opted both the Japanese and German bureacracy while getting rid of the really bad big time Nazis/war criminals in show trials and leaving the minor functionaries alone to keep running things. In Iraq, we fired the entire gov't, disbanded the army and then said "Fin!"


There is an important difference. In Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, "party" membership was so widespread and ubiquitous that it would have been functionally impossible to bar any Nazi Party member from office. There would be no adults left; certainly not enough to run a government. So they went after the higher-ups and called it a day.

In Saddam's Iraq, a very small portion of the population was a member of the Ba'ath Party. And yes, many of those were just plain old people who saw it as a method of career advancement like doctors, etc, but on the whole, when only a very small portion of the population are recognized as inner members, it makes it easier to discriminate.

And most importantly (and this ties into the previous post so I guess I should have combined them, apologies), Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were disarmed. Nazi Party officials couldn't fade into the mist with guns, because there were no guns for them to take. The plan was always to disarm those nations over the long term. By contrast, Iraq was, ideally, to be set up as a stable nation-state within a few years of regime change, without American occupation. In that context, there is no possible way we could have left Ba'athists in charge of the military in place, because it would have guaranteed a coup immediately after we left.

I have always agreed that the transition after the Iraq War was planned and executed poorly. It is impossible not to. However, hindsight is 20/20, and it is difficult to fault the Administration overmuch for screwing up the situation with the army; many of the rank and file had been forcibly conscripted, the upper leadership were complicit in the regime that had just been deposed.... what was the better solution, knowing we weren't planning on being there long term?

Ozymandias
07-30-2015, 04:58 PM
That's Ozy for you. He thinks that winning the argument is the same as being right and so he resorts to insults in order to win and there by prove to himself that he is right.

I have noticed a lot of what is either willful blindness, or willful stupidity, regarding Saddam Hussein. Pointing out a fact may be insulting, but not in the sense you seem to mean it.

Kimon's response that the war was a disaster is his opinion (one I am inclined to agree with, actually), but didn't actually address the point that I was making when I said it would take a blind or stupid person to miss it.

Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Certainly to his own people. It is an incontrovertible fact that he was a passive supporter of international terrorism at the very least, not an opinion (see: Nidal, Abu). Most of you seem convinced that Iraq was some utopian idyll prior to 2003, rather than an enormous torture dungeon masquerading as a failed nation-state.

Kimon's initial point was that ISIS and Al Qaeda have moved into Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam's fall, which is true; however, the underlying argument there, that things were hunky-dory beforehand, is demonstrable nonsense. For all that the region is now a hotbed of terrorism, it hasn't necessarily inspired any attacks against the US, which seems to be the argument most of you make as the only justifiable reasons for being concerned about the area in the first place. I freely admit there is no correlation, but if we're keeping score at home, Al Qaeda seems to have had a great deal more success in harming Americans, on American soil, while Saddam was in power than after. And while the case of Syria is separate, there is a strong argument to be made that things are better in Iraq now than they were under Saddam, not worse (and ditto at the height of the "insurgency"). The only reason I don't think its bulletproof is because so many of Saddam's crimes against his own people (and against humanity in the more formal sense) will never be known, or will be dismissed as mere hearsay or as anecdotal.

I don't feel the need to resort to insults except when I feel my opposite number is being willfully obtuse. I try very hard to source arguments and facts, especially on this topic, which I tend to find is brushed off with often-misremebered hysteria (for example, no one has yet quoted me a single instance of then-President Bush asserting that Saddam has nuclear weapons; the closest he ever came was saying that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons (in Cincinnati in 2002). Saddam did possess chemical weapons; they were found to have been so degraded that they were useless as ordnance. However, it hardly would have been possible to know that without inspecting them, which Saddam didn't let us do. So I hardly call that a "lie". All the evidence that has come out of Iraq since has vindicated the President in that Saddam clearly retained the brainpower capacity within Iraq to restart a WMD program, and clearly still harbored the desire for one.

So you are welcome to find my accusation of blindness or stupidity insulting. If that is what it takes to make someone refute an argument I make, I'll take it. But sidestepping evidence I present, while still making the arguments that I am challenging (if not in some cases outright debunking), is intellectually dishonest. Its the kind of thing I expect from Southpaw, not most of the usually-rational and eloquent people on this site.

Kimon
07-30-2015, 06:02 PM
I have noticed a lot of what is either willful blindness, or willful stupidity, regarding Saddam Hussein. Pointing out a fact may be insulting, but not in the sense you seem to mean it.

Kimon's response that the war was a disaster is his opinion (one I am inclined to agree with, actually), but didn't actually address the point that I was making when I said it would take a blind or stupid person to miss it.

Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Certainly to his own people. It is an incontrovertible fact that he was a passive supporter of international terrorism at the very least, not an opinion (see: Nidal, Abu). Most of you seem convinced that Iraq was some utopian idyll prior to 2003, rather than an enormous torture dungeon masquerading as a failed nation-state.



This is ridiculous. We've discussed Nidal now many times. There is no evidence that he was working for Saddam, only that he was killed by Saddam because he was suspected of working as a spy/operative for the Kuwaitis and/or us. Nor have I confused pre-2003 Iraq for "some utopian idyll". Neither I, nor seemingly anyone else, has been arguing that Saddam was anything but a thug. But he wasn't a threat to us. Moreover, he, while a brutal dictator, was providing stability. Removing him meant that someone else would have to provide that same stability, something which we failed to accomplish, and which the Shia govt we left behind clearly failed in as well. The result has been instability and civil war, and the rise of a sadistic guerrilla force, ISIS, which makes Saddam look like a boy scout by comparison. The war wasn't just unnecessary, it wasn't just expensive, it also left behind a failed state and a civil war. As bad as Saddam was, he was preferable to the chaos that has replaced his removal. Recognizing that is not being obtuse, failing to recognize that certainly is an example of blind stubbornness.

Nazbaque
07-30-2015, 06:10 PM
I have noticed a lot of what is either willful blindness, or willful stupidity, regarding Saddam Hussein. Pointing out a fact may be insulting, but not in the sense you seem to mean it.

Kimon's response that the war was a disaster is his opinion (one I am inclined to agree with, actually), but didn't actually address the point that I was making when I said it would take a blind or stupid person to miss it.

Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Certainly to his own people. It is an incontrovertible fact that he was a passive supporter of international terrorism at the very least, not an opinion (see: Nidal, Abu). Most of you seem convinced that Iraq was some utopian idyll prior to 2003, rather than an enormous torture dungeon masquerading as a failed nation-state.

Kimon's initial point was that ISIS and Al Qaeda have moved into Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam's fall, which is true; however, the underlying argument there, that things were hunky-dory beforehand, is demonstrable nonsense. For all that the region is now a hotbed of terrorism, it hasn't necessarily inspired any attacks against the US, which seems to be the argument most of you make as the only justifiable reasons for being concerned about the area in the first place. I freely admit there is no correlation, but if we're keeping score at home, Al Qaeda seems to have had a great deal more success in harming Americans, on American soil, while Saddam was in power than after. And while the case of Syria is separate, there is a strong argument to be made that things are better in Iraq now than they were under Saddam, not worse (and ditto at the height of the "insurgency"). The only reason I don't think its bulletproof is because so many of Saddam's crimes against his own people (and against humanity in the more formal sense) will never be known, or will be dismissed as mere hearsay or as anecdotal.

I don't feel the need to resort to insults except when I feel my opposite number is being willfully obtuse. I try very hard to source arguments and facts, especially on this topic, which I tend to find is brushed off with often-misremebered hysteria (for example, no one has yet quoted me a single instance of then-President Bush asserting that Saddam has nuclear weapons; the closest he ever came was saying that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons (in Cincinnati in 2002). Saddam did possess chemical weapons; they were found to have been so degraded that they were useless as ordnance. However, it hardly would have been possible to know that without inspecting them, which Saddam didn't let us do. So I hardly call that a "lie". All the evidence that has come out of Iraq since has vindicated the President in that Saddam clearly retained the brainpower capacity within Iraq to restart a WMD program, and clearly still harbored the desire for one.

So you are welcome to find my accusation of blindness or stupidity insulting. If that is what it takes to make someone refute an argument I make, I'll take it. But sidestepping evidence I present, while still making the arguments that I am challenging (if not in some cases outright debunking), is intellectually dishonest. Its the kind of thing I expect from Southpaw, not most of the usually-rational and eloquent people on this site.

You are actually proving my point here, Ozy.

GonzoTheGreat
07-31-2015, 02:57 AM
There is an important difference. In Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, "party" membership was so widespread and ubiquitous that it would have been functionally impossible to bar any Nazi Party member from office. There would be no adults left; certainly not enough to run a government. So they went after the higher-ups and called it a day.

In Saddam's Iraq, a very small portion of the population was a member of the Ba'ath Party. And yes, many of those were just plain old people who saw it as a method of career advancement like doctors, etc, but on the whole, when only a very small portion of the population are recognized as inner members, it makes it easier to discriminate.But when every single one of those who had had the ability and experience to be useful in keeping the organisation of the country going had been a Ba'ath member, then dismissing all of them did ensure that the country could not be kept going. Which is precisely what happened.

However, hindsight is 20/20, and it is difficult to fault the Administration overmuch for screwing up the situation with the army; many of the rank and file had been forcibly conscripted, the upper leadership were complicit in the regime that had just been deposed.... what was the better solution, knowing we weren't planning on being there long term?Well, a better solution would have seemed to me to dismiss the Iraqi army only after they had handed in their weapons, instead of sending them a notice that they were fired without pay or pension and letting them wander off with all those guns and RPGs which they then used to kill the Americans who had wronged them.

Why do you think that sending them away with their weapons was the best available option?

All the evidence that has come out of Iraq since has vindicated the President in that Saddam clearly retained the brainpower capacity within Iraq to restart a WMD program, and clearly still harbored the desire for one.Saddam had not murdered the scientists who could conceivably help restart a WMD program, true. But then, the USA had not ever openly and explicitly asked for such a murder spree either, so I don't think it is fair to blame Saddam for failing to do what you apparently had wanted him to do.

Ozymandias
08-05-2015, 01:15 PM
This is ridiculous. We've discussed Nidal now many times. There is no evidence that he was working for Saddam, only that he was killed by Saddam because he was suspected of working as a spy/operative for the Kuwaitis and/or us.

If he was working for Saddam, then it would be "active," not "passive," support for terrorism. Saddam knew an internationally wanted terrorist was in country and didn't give him up. How is that anything other than asylum, or any different than the Taliban refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden?

Nor have I confused pre-2003 Iraq for "some utopian idyll". Neither I, nor seemingly anyone else, has been arguing that Saddam was anything but a thug. But he wasn't a threat to us.

The widely-justified first Iraq War seems to contradict that. American soldiers died in that war, and everyone seems to think that was a valid expression of American military force.

Moreover, he, while a brutal dictator, was providing stability.

The man who started, without provocation, two regional wars, one of which might have been the bloodiest since WWII (and if not the bloodiest, certainly on the short list), was providing stability? This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance. The ONLY thing providing "stability" in that region was the already in-place American military presence.


Removing him meant that someone else would have to provide that same stability, something which we failed to accomplish, and which the Shia govt we left behind clearly failed in as well.

Again, Saddam was not providing stability. The United States and its allies were. As we saw with the surge, a continued commitment on that front from NATO or the UN or even just the US would have provided exactly as much "stability" as Saddam, if not more. You cannot conflate the US military presence, which was there precisely to stop Saddam from waging war on his neighbors, with Saddam himself providing said stability.

This like saying that the post-bellum American South were providing black folks with full rights and equal treatment on their own initiative. It was only because they lost a war and were being occupied by an active military that they agreed to emancipation and equal rights.

The result has been instability and civil war, and the rise of a sadistic guerrilla force, ISIS, which makes Saddam look like a boy scout by comparison.

Again, I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. Saddam was guilty of an attempted genocide. I can promise you, my emotional and intellectual attachment to all of the history and culture being destroyed by ISIS far outstrips anyone else on this site, as I devoted a fair portion of my life to studying ancient Mesopotamia, but even I cannot bring myself to say that the murder of an entire ethnic group, and the enslavement of millions more, is better than that.

From a pure efficiency standpoint, a guerrilla movement will never be as effective or efficient as a formal government.

The war wasn't just unnecessary, it wasn't just expensive, it also left behind a failed state and a civil war

Iraq already was a failed state. What you should say is that the Iraq war led to the formation of a stable multiparty democracy in part of the country, and no effective change in the status quo in the rest. Of course, at least now the Iraqi's have the ability to decide their own course and not be ruled as chattel by a crime family... but I guess that is just splitting hairs.

As for the expense, and overall success of the reconstruction, I agree. It was expensive, and the post-war effort was a failure. That doesn't negate all the reasons to have gone to war, nor does our failure to ensure a smooth transition of power somehow mean that the resulting chaos is worse than the state-sanctioned violence that came before.

As bad as Saddam was, he was preferable to the chaos that has replaced his removal. Recognizing that is not being obtuse, failing to recognize that certainly is an example of blind stubbornness.

Again, how anyone can say that amazes me. You are comparing apples to oranges. Either you compare pre-Kuwait Iraq (i.e. no sanctions or NFZ's) to modern day Iraq/Syria, or you have to hypothesize what the region would look like with a massive American commitment of troops and dollars for, say, the next twelve years. In the first case, you have a civil insurgency put next to eight years of war that killed well in excess of a million people. No question which of those was worse. And on the other... well, again, that is a big hypothetical.

Your position on this is totally reliant on taking the rosiest possible view of matters, and, I'll point out, has been discredited on almost every occasion on which it has been used as a rationale (Argentina, Chile, Iran, etc etc) and almost always backfires on the US in the end. Saddam kept his dungeons secret, so you ignore the vast evidence that they existed on a nationwide scale, while ISIS broadcasts its (relatively) few acts of cruelty, so you trumpet them as representative of a much larger sample set.

You say Saddam was preferable because things were "stable". That doesn't mean that even worse atrocities were being committed, only that they had state sanction (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htm). Again, this is entirely a function of the fact that the news media has access to knowledge of what ISIS is doing. There is no possible way to come to the conclusion that what ISIS is doing is worse, either in basic cruelty or in sheer numbers, than what Saddam was doing (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/20/135570128/grave-discovery-in-iraq-unearths-sectarian-unease). Stability does not equal basic humanity.

Saddam Hussein employed all the resources of a modern nation state to war upon his neighbors until forcibly restrained (thoroughly debunking any "stability" argument) and enslave and torture his own people, at least when he wasn't actively mass murdering them. At best, ISIS is merely trying to set up a state in which they can follow in his example. In sheer scale, they haven't even come close yet.

Davian93
08-05-2015, 03:08 PM
The man who started, without provocation, two regional wars, one of which might have been the bloodiest since WWII (and if not the bloodiest, certainly on the short list), was providing stability? This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance. The ONLY thing providing "stability" in that region was the already in-place American military presence.


Um...the first one was a proxy war at our behest (at least the CIA's)...but yeah, the Kuwait invasion I'll give you at least.

Kimon
08-05-2015, 03:18 PM
If he was working for Saddam, then it would be "active," not "passive," support for terrorism. Saddam knew an internationally wanted terrorist was in country and didn't give him up. How is that anything other than asylum, or any different than the Taliban refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden?


Did the Taliban fear that Bin Laden was working for their enemies? Did the Taliban have Bin Laden killed due to those fears?

The widely-justified first Iraq War seems to contradict that. American soldiers died in that war, and everyone seems to think that was a valid expression of American military force.

That war ended in '91. Since the conclusion of that war (until the outbreak of the 2nd War), no Americans, either civilian or military, died, either in terrorist or conventional attacks by Saddam. He was not threatening us, nor was he a threat to us. He wasn't behind 9/11, nor was he an ally of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Nor was he preparing to attack any of his neighbors. Had he done any of those things then the ius fetiale could have been invoked. He hadn't. It couldn't.

The man who started, without provocation, two regional wars, one of which might have been the bloodiest since WWII (and if not the bloodiest, certainly on the short list), was providing stability? This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance. The ONLY thing providing "stability" in that region was the already in-place American military presence.

The former of which, the bloodier one (Iran-Iraq War) was fought not only as our ally, but was fought with our approval, and with weapons sold quite happily to him by us and by our other (mostly France) allies. The latter (First Gulf War) was a miscalculation. He clearly had no intent or desire to take on us, he simply thought, wrongly, that we wouldn't care about Kuwait. A reasonable assumption considering our previously friendly relations.

Again, Saddam was not providing stability. The United States and its allies were. As we saw with the surge, a continued commitment on that front from NATO or the UN or even just the US would have provided exactly as much "stability" as Saddam, if not more. You cannot conflate the US military presence, which was there precisely to stop Saddam from waging war on his neighbors, with Saddam himself providing said stability.

Here are a few examples of what stability is like under ISIS:

For the favored (the Sunni - hint, even this one is terrifyingly bad):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854

For the Yazidi (and captured women in general):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29333327

For the Shia:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/25/isis-ethnic-cleansing-shia-prisoners-iraq-mosul

The refugee crisis:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-worst-refugee-crisis-generation-millions-flee-islamic-state-iraq-syria-1506613

GonzoTheGreat
08-06-2015, 03:36 AM
If he was working for Saddam, then it would be "active," not "passive," support for terrorism. Saddam knew an internationally wanted terrorist was in country and didn't give him up. How is that anything other than asylum, or any different than the Taliban refusing to surrender Osama bin Laden?Or any different than the USA refusing to extradite that Cuban terrorist? Or the USA employing lots of (former, allegedly) Nazis right after WWII, often giving them new identities so that they could help shape US foreign policy? Or, for that matter: the USA refusing to extradite the overthrown Shah?

If the USA had been less hypocritical in these matters, then it would have had a far more convincing case. As it is, the US asked Saddam to "do as we say, not as we do", and he wasn't willing to be holier than his enemies.

On top of that, in the same period that the USA was whining about Abu Nidal, it was also protecting an Al Qaeda camp in Iraq from Saddam. Saddam was willing to take that out, but he needed air power to manage that. However, the camp was in one of the "no fly zones", and thus the US Air Force was actively protecting Al Qaeda terrorists from Saddam. Has any US serviceman been prosecuted for that, ever?
In case you're wondering: yes, the ones who were being trained in that camp later on became the core Al Qaeda in Iraq, and are now IS.

Southpaw2012
08-06-2015, 09:27 PM
What did we get for the Iran deal? We got humiliated. Our "Commander in Chief" (embarrassing to say) couldn't even get our four hostages released. John Kerry even admitted that Iran can't be trusted, so why the hell did we do this?! Then Obama goes out and compares GOP opponents to the Iran savages chanting death to America. This president is the biggest disgrace and disgusting idiot we have ever had. He's not American leader. Anytime someone disagrees with him, he denounces and calls them out.. Well, only if they're Americans. He sure as hell doesn't call out those who are our enemies, like Iran. Honestly, I seriously question who he supports between Israel and Iran. Ally or leader in terrorism support / eternal enemy. His actions indicate the latter. I hate to say that, but this deal made zero zero sense. Either it's what I just mentioned, or he is the biggest dumbass imaginable (which is true) and doesn't understand negotiation. He already demonstrated that though when he told the world that military action is off the table. Seriously, you don't tell your enemy that we won't use military if they commit crimes. Everything should always remain on the table and in secret, even if military action is slim

GonzoTheGreat
08-07-2015, 03:07 AM
Honestly, I seriously question who he supports between Israel and Iran.If Americans were sensible, that would depend on the circumstances; on what Israel and Iran do.

But a lot of Americans are not sensible; they have made very clear that they will support Israel if it commits crimes against Iran. Your president is not that kind of politician, and you fault him for this. Which, I suppose, says something about you.

Terez
08-07-2015, 09:13 AM
What did we get for the Iran deal?
We got them to give up all their highly-enriched uranium, all their high-tech centrifuges, and agree to an unprecedented inspections regime. If we hadn't gotten that, Iran would have had a bomb within months.

Our "Commander in Chief" (embarrassing to say) couldn't even get our four hostages released.
Do you know how negotiation works? None of the above-listed concessions would have happened without it. Asking for hostages would have weakened our position with regards to the nuclear deal, and the latter is clearly more crucial to world peace.

You and many other people seem to be under the impression that if we just threatened to bomb them more, we could have gotten nuclear concessions and hostages and all without lifting any sanctions. No one can explain how that works, or show any precedent. No one has a credible argument for how we are supposed to stop them getting nuclear weapons otherwise.

John Kerry even admitted that Iran can't be trusted, so why the hell did we do this?!
Because they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons? And we wanted to be able to make sure they couldn't make one? Because they have underground facilities we can't bomb? It's like you've never heard the phrase "trust but verify".

Then Obama goes out and compares GOP opponents to the Iran savages chanting death to America.
Really, how is "bomb, bomb Iran" any different?

I hate to say that, but this deal made zero zero sense.
Your rantings make zero zero sense.

Either it's what I just mentioned, or he is the biggest dumbass imaginable (which is true) and doesn't understand negotiation.
Funny, trudging through posts like this bit by bit, and coming full circle.

Also:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/03/238164.htm

Ozymandias
08-11-2015, 02:04 PM
Did the Taliban fear that Bin Laden was working for their enemies? Did the Taliban have Bin Laden killed due to those fears?

Hah. Please. It takes a whole lot of gullibility to swallow that story whole. It is more than likely that Saddam thought Abu Nidal would run the the Americans and try and gain some clemency. However, that again makes you wonder what Saddam feared. He was perfectly content to let Abu Nidal sit around Baghdad for months (if not years, his actual term of residence in Baghdad is up for debate), so the only conceivable reason to have him assassinated all of a sudden is that Nidal knew something, which strongly implies that Saddam had more than a passive involvement in the 93 bombings. Again, killing the man does not negate that he gave him asylum and didn't turn him over to the international courts.

That war ended in '91. Since the conclusion of that war (until the outbreak of the 2nd War), no Americans, either civilian or military, died, either in terrorist or conventional attacks by Saddam. He was not threatening us, nor was he a threat to us. He wasn't behind 9/11, nor was he an ally of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Nor was he preparing to attack any of his neighbors. Had he done any of those things then the ius fetiale could have been invoked. He hadn't. It couldn't.

I freely grant that he was no ally of Al Qaeda, nor was he directly responsible for 9/11. But I refuse to believe someone as intelligent and well spoken as yourself is going to say he was no threat. He was being restrained by military force for the entire time! That is an explicit acknowledgement that he was a threat! Moreover, as I said, he was actively engaged in attacking American pilots every single day. The fact that he didn't succeed in killing any of them doesn't negate the threat.

The former of which, the bloodier one (Iran-Iraq War) was fought not only as our ally, but was fought with our approval, and with weapons sold quite happily to him by us and by our other (mostly France) allies.

Which in no way absolves him of responsibility. He might have had American aid, but that doesn't mean that the entire conflict was initiated by him, at his sole discretion. He might not have risked it in the face of American disapproval (though all the evidence points that he would have no matter what), but beginning a conflict like that is still his own fault.

Also, doesn't your very free acknowledgement of France's close involvement with the Ba'ath regime underline another very important refutation to the anti-War arguments, that of international opposition? It has been pretty conclusively proven that high French (and almost certainly Russian) officials were making a pretty penny under the table by subverting the Oil for Food program. French opposition was rooted in the unethical desire to keep allowing Saddam to finance his regime in return for illegal payments of oil, and yet somehow the French are the ones who took a moral stand in opposing American "imperialism"? Its a farce. Additionally, how is that the Americans were accused of acting "unilaterally;" weren't the French acting similarly unilaterally? The entire term is basically meaningless... every international actor chooses a path based on a unique set of reasons and is thus acting "unilaterally".

The latter (First Gulf War) was a miscalculation. He clearly had no intent or desire to take on us, he simply thought, wrongly, that we wouldn't care about Kuwait. A reasonable assumption considering our previously friendly relations.

Actually, he had a very good reason to think we wouldn't care about Kuwait - we told him we wouldn't intervene to defend the country.

However, this is merely further proof that he was a psychopath who understood nothing but force. And in destabilizing (there can be no question of the word) the region, he was an enormous threat to the entire economic underpinning of the United States.

Here are a few examples of what stability is like under ISIS:

For the favored (the Sunni - hint, even this one is terrifyingly bad):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854


We can go back and forth on ALL of this all day, each providing examples of atrocities being committed. I am not remotely claiming that Syria or Iraq under ISIS/ISIL is a good or pleasant place to live. It comes down to how much you value "stability". Your opinion seems to be that any number of atrocities can be excused as long as you can technically split hairs that a true government exists.

I am of the opinion that the actions of those in power matter more than the mask they put on that power. Lets go through this, shall we? Both Saddam and ISIS are/were (from now on, both referred to in the present tense) engaged in the systemic repression, torture, and murder of their population. For ISIS, its the non-Sunni, non-male people; for Saddam, it was the Sunni and the Kurds. Both have launched entirely unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations. Neither has any apparent direct connection with international terrorism of the sort that might harm the United States. As with all dictatorships, both celestial and earthly, both organizations are absolutely devoted to the glorification of a single entity (God/Saddam), with commensurate benefits redounding to the chosen inner circle (ISIS/Ba'athists).

As far as I can tell, aside from a difference in who they're glorifying, and the fact that Saddam had thousands of international servicemen/women working to restrain his homicidal impulses and ISIS doesn't, the only major difference between ISIS and Saddam is that Saddam had the full power of a sanctioned government with which to carry out his purges and genocides, whereas ISIS has had to make due on a much more piecemeal basis.

Saddam exploited and repressed religious and ethnic minorities. He also kept his power through a functionally random system of punishment and reward. He also killed minorities on a mass scale (much more massive than ISIS, it is worth noting). He also tortured and imprisoned dissidents. He even destroyed historic sites with impunity. Any charge you can lay at ISIS' metaphoric feet, you can similarly accuse Saddam of.

Kimon
08-11-2015, 03:02 PM
Hah. Please. It takes a whole lot of gullibility to swallow that story whole. It is more than likely that Saddam thought Abu Nidal would run the the Americans and try and gain some clemency. However, that again makes you wonder what Saddam feared. He was perfectly content to let Abu Nidal sit around Baghdad for months (if not years, his actual term of residence in Baghdad is up for debate), so the only conceivable reason to have him assassinated all of a sudden is that Nidal knew something, which strongly implies that Saddam had more than a passive involvement in the 93 bombings. Again, killing the man does not negate that he gave him asylum and didn't turn him over to the international courts.


Clearly this thread will just never die, anyway...

Are you referring to the WTC bombing in '93? Woolsey tried to implicate Saddam in that, but the FBI could find no evidence to support his claims. Moreover, there is no link in that attack to Nidal, so unclear how he would be a credible source even if he implicated Saddam. It hardly raises to the level of a credible reason for Saddam to have had him killed. The simpler explanation is the one that makes the most sense. Nidal was likely working for Kuwait (and hence either directly or indirectly for us), Saddam found out, and had him killed. Nidal was an opportunistic mercenary, so that would hardly have been out of character for him. Still think the bigger issue is that regardless of why he was in Baghdad, his presence there was at worst grounds for an extradition request (which would send him probably to the Palestinians or Jordan for justice, not us), but not grounds for a declaration of war.

I freely grant that he was no ally of Al Qaeda, nor was he directly responsible for 9/11. But I refuse to believe someone as intelligent and well spoken as yourself is going to say he was no threat. He was being restrained by military force for the entire time! That is an explicit acknowledgement that he was a threat! Moreover, as I said, he was actively engaged in attacking American pilots every single day. The fact that he didn't succeed in killing any of them doesn't negate the threat.

He was well contained by the No-Fly Zones. His ability to effectively attack us or his neighbors had been dealt with. As for his bounties on allied pilots. None were ever shot down. It was just posturing. Again, those bounties weren't grounds for a new declaration of war. He had done nothing to require war, nor was he showing signs of being a real threat again. Had he begun to be, then the question could be raised. Attacking him under the circumstances was however both unnecessary, and counter-productive, as it pulled needed resources and attention from the necessary fight in Afghanistan.

Also, doesn't your very free acknowledgement of France's close involvement with the Ba'ath regime underline another very important refutation to the anti-War arguments, that of international opposition? It has been pretty conclusively proven that high French (and almost certainly Russian) officials were making a pretty penny under the table by subverting the Oil for Food program. French opposition was rooted in the unethical desire to keep allowing Saddam to finance his regime in return for illegal payments of oil, and yet somehow the French are the ones who took a moral stand in opposing American "imperialism"? Its a farce. Additionally, how is that the Americans were accused of acting "unilaterally;" weren't the French acting similarly unilaterally? The entire term is basically meaningless... every international actor chooses a path based on a unique set of reasons and is thus acting "unilaterally".

The French have always been major arms dealers. Heck they still ended up selling those Mistral Class ships to Russia (a sale which they had initially asserted they would no longer finish) in the midst of the sanctions for Putin's actions in Ukraine. Selling weapons doesn't always imply support, either present or even past, especially when those arms deals are decades old.

We can go back and forth on ALL of this all day, each providing examples of atrocities being committed. I am not remotely claiming that Syria or Iraq under ISIS/ISIL is a good or pleasant place to live. It comes down to how much you value "stability". Your opinion seems to be that any number of atrocities can be excused as long as you can technically split hairs that a true government exists.

I am of the opinion that the actions of those in power matter more than the mask they put on that power. Lets go through this, shall we? Both Saddam and ISIS are/were (from now on, both referred to in the present tense) engaged in the systemic repression, torture, and murder of their population. For ISIS, its the non-Sunni, non-male people; for Saddam, it was the Sunni and the Kurds. Both have launched entirely unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations. Neither has any apparent direct connection with international terrorism of the sort that might harm the United States. As with all dictatorships, both celestial and earthly, both organizations are absolutely devoted to the glorification of a single entity (God/Saddam), with commensurate benefits redounding to the chosen inner circle (ISIS/Ba'athists).

As far as I can tell, aside from a difference in who they're glorifying, and the fact that Saddam had thousands of international servicemen/women working to restrain his homicidal impulses and ISIS doesn't, the only major difference between ISIS and Saddam is that Saddam had the full power of a sanctioned government with which to carry out his purges and genocides, whereas ISIS has had to make due on a much more piecemeal basis.

Saddam exploited and repressed religious and ethnic minorities. He also kept his power through a functionally random system of punishment and reward. He also killed minorities on a mass scale (much more massive than ISIS, it is worth noting). He also tortured and imprisoned dissidents. He even destroyed historic sites with impunity. Any charge you can lay at ISIS' metaphoric feet, you can similarly accuse Saddam of.

Do you have friends or family that personally suffered under Saddam? Are you somehow related to Dick Cheney? Not sure why else you would continue to think that this war made sense.

No one thinks that Saddam was a good leader, nor that under him all were treated equally or well, but aside from his well-documented mistreatment of the Kurds and warcrimes during the war against Iran, life under Saddam was still far better not just for the Sunni, but for all non-Kurd ethnic minorities as well. There is a reason why so many Chaldeans have fled since Saddam's fall, and those Chaldeans overwhelmingly loved Saddam. Saddam not only protected them, but one of his most trusted lieutenants, and long time advisor and Foreign Minister, was Tariq Aziz, an Iraqi Christian. Life for those Chaldeans and other similar minorities, like the Yazidi, became a nightmare once his protection was removed. And life for even the Sunni and Shia has become a nightmare. For the Sunni, they were first shunted to the side by the new Shia govt, then forced to either submit to the nightmare of ISIS rule (which was well-documented in that BBC article about the nightmare-life in Mosul that I linked in that last posting), or they could try to stand up to ISIS, knowing that no help would come and that they would be butchered by ISIS when they inevitably failed. And for the Shia? There is not only the fear of ISIS hanging over them, and of the nightmare that they will experience if their town falls to the new "caliphate", but even in safe areas still under the Shia govt control, nothing works. The electricity and water still aren't working almost at all due to corruption and constant warfare. Hence the widespread discontent and public outcry recently even amongst the Shia. As bad as Saddam was, life was better for nearly everyone (but the Kurds, they are the only real winners from that war) under Saddam. That was the benefit of stability even under a tyrant. What we see now is the price of chaos and anarchy. And this was all foreseeable, and not just by Brent Scowcroft.

Addendum:

The main difference in our opinion seems to be your belief that Saddam was an outlier in terms of his tyranny and brutality to such a degree that there was no effective difference between him and ISIS, whereas I see him as not only far less cruel than ISIS, but not particularly different from any of the other despots in the neighborhood. Is Saddam really much worse than Assad? The Saudis? Khomeini and his puppets in Iran? Erdogan? El-Sisi (or Mubarak before him)? Heck, even Netanyahu is a murderous bastard who is brutally oppressing the Palestinians. And most of those schmucks are, if not all allies, people that we both tolerate and do business with. Saddam was an evil bastard, but you remove him and the predictable happens - he's replaced by something even worse.

GonzoTheGreat
08-12-2015, 03:08 AM
For the Sunni, they were first shunted to the side by the new Shia govt, then forced to either submit to the nightmare of ISIS rule (which was well-documented in that BBC article about the nightmare-life in Mosul that I linked in that last posting), or they could try to stand up to ISIS, knowing that no help would come and that they would be butchered by ISIS when they inevitably failed.You've overlooked the (somewhat remote, but not impossible) case where they would succeed in casting out ISIS. Then the Shia government would take over again, and their militias would start butchering the Sunni who had gotten rid of ISIS, because those Sunni were (obviously) illegal combatants, and, after the first few massacres if not before, they would be illegal enemy combatants, just as all the Gitmo inmates are.

Saddam was an evil bastard, but you remove him and the predictable happens - he's replaced by something even worse.I still think that it was not actually inevitable, if it had been done properly. It was first and foremost my belief that GWB would not (probably could not) do it properly which made me oppose the war. It was known in advance that the Bush administration was going to refuse taking measures that were necessary for making things work (justified by the "we don't do nation building" doctrine).
If, instead, a serious and well thought out attempt had been made to make things work out well, then it isn't certain that that would have failed.

Ozymandias
08-12-2015, 04:01 PM
Clearly this thread will just never die, anyway...

Are you referring to the WTC bombing in '93? Woolsey tried to implicate Saddam in that, but the FBI could find no evidence to support his claims. Moreover, there is no link in that attack to Nidal, so unclear how he would be a credible source even if he implicated Saddam. It hardly raises to the level of a credible reason for Saddam to have had him killed. The simpler explanation is the one that makes the most sense. Nidal was likely working for Kuwait (and hence either directly or indirectly for us), Saddam found out, and had him killed. Nidal was an opportunistic mercenary, so that would hardly have been out of character for him. Still think the bigger issue is that regardless of why he was in Baghdad, his presence there was at worst grounds for an extradition request (which would send him probably to the Palestinians or Jordan for justice, not us), but not grounds for a declaration of war.


I am merely making the point that Saddam knowingly harbored a wanted international terrorist. No, its unlikely he had anything to do with the 93 bombing or 9/11. Somehow people want to translate that into "Saddam was anti-terrorist". He wasn't. He was giving asylum to a wanted terrorist. That is supporting terrorism.

He was well contained by the No-Fly Zones. His ability to effectively attack us or his neighbors had been dealt with. As for his bounties on allied pilots. None were ever shot down. It was just posturing. Again, those bounties weren't grounds for a new declaration of war. He had done nothing to require war, nor was he showing signs of being a real threat again. Had he begun to be, then the question could be raised. Attacking him under the circumstances was however both unnecessary, and counter-productive, as it pulled needed resources and attention from the necessary fight in Afghanistan.

Again, the very fact that we were employing military force shows that he was a threat. Since you feel the No Fly Zones were ethically and legally justified, you obviously believe some degree of force was necessary in dealing with Saddam. So what we're actually arguing is what degree of military action was required. My argument is that, given the nature of Saddam's treatment of his own people, his previously demonstrated attitude towards his neighbors, and his ongoing attempts to ready a WMD program, removing him from power was proper.

Besides, from a "resources" standpoint, it makes more sense to commit to it all at once then face the prospect of a never-ending containment operation against Saddam's regime and, presumably, that of his sons. And I've already agreed the planning for post-Saddam Iraq was flawed... our expenditure in lives and dollars could have been vastly less.

The French have always been major arms dealers. Heck they still ended up selling those Mistral Class ships to Russia (a sale which they had initially asserted they would no longer finish) in the midst of the sanctions for Putin's actions in Ukraine. Selling weapons doesn't always imply support, either present or even past, especially when those arms deals are decades old.

Again, thank you for ignoring the important piece of evidence that the Duelfer Report came up with, which was that the members of the international community who continually objected to the invasion were all recipients of massive amounts of corrupt oil from Saddam.

Do you have friends or family that personally suffered under Saddam? Are you somehow related to Dick Cheney? Not sure why else you would continue to think that this war made sense.

No, but I am a human being who thinks that maybe, just maybe, we should consider the needs of human beings who don't share our same artificially constructed nationalities when deciding on public policy. Your opinion is startlingly callous. Why do we bother sending aid to anyone, for any reason, if that is your opinion? I don't begrudge USAID giving millions of dollars to Haiti for earthquake relief, do you? I don't know any Haitains at all, much less anyone who lives there.

Perhaps this is an irreconciliable difference of opinion, but I think that curbing human rights abuses are a valid place for the US to wield its influence and power. I would have supported a US intervention in Rwanda. I am glad we intervened in Bosnia. If you think that mass slaughter, genocide, torture, rape, and enslavement on a cultural scale are hunky dory as long as it doesn't shed any American blood, I suppose you have every right to think that. I think its a prejudiced and evil view, but I won't change your mind if you think that way. If you agree that America's military, political, and economic pre-eminence in the world is worth utilizing to better the conditions of humanity as a whole, as well as Americans, then I don't see how you object to the war.

No one thinks that Saddam was a good leader, nor that under him all were treated equally or well, but aside from his well-documented mistreatment of the Kurds and warcrimes during the war against Iran, life under Saddam was still far better not just for the Sunni, but for all non-Kurd ethnic minorities as well.

Its called genocide. Please don't skirt the technical term.

And you are entirely wrong about the degree of religious freedom in Iraq. Mostly my fault, as I wrote Sunni when I should have said Shi'a. But Saddam was notorious for suppressing the Shi'a, and randomly arresting many clerics and religious leaders. (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2002/13996.htm)

There is a reason why so many Chaldeans have fled since Saddam's fall, and those Chaldeans overwhelmingly loved Saddam.

Yes. The tiny portion of the population that was Christian (most of whom are Chaldean, as you say) loved Saddam, because he needed to court them to offset the fact that he was part of a minority religious/ethnic group oppressing the majority group.

Saddam not only protected them, but one of his most trusted lieutenants, and long time advisor and Foreign Minister, was Tariq Aziz, an Iraqi Christian. Life for those Chaldeans and other similar minorities, like the Yazidi, became a nightmare once his protection was removed.

And has become much better for the two third of the country that were previously oppressed. From a sheer numbers standpoint, the millions of Shi'a who are no longer viciously oppressed far outweigh the few hundred thousand Christians and Yazedis.

or they could try to stand up to ISIS, knowing that no help would come and that they would be butchered by ISIS when they inevitably failed.

This is, again, demonstrably false, both in the underlying assumption that they couldn't have fought ISIS and that fact that no one would help. The Kurds have very successfully resisted ISIS, and have been helping carry that fight into non-Kurdish areas.

As for the remainder of the paragraph - the Sunnis were not "pushed aside" by the Shi'a government. They are a religious minority and thus could not expect to continue ruling the country in the way they wished when the majority group was given a proportional say. Their religious freedoms and political rights were protected, but of course they were going to see a drastic diminution of their political influence. That is the way federal representative democracy works.

And for the Shia? There is not only the fear of ISIS hanging over them, and of the nightmare that they will experience if their town falls to the new "caliphate", but even in safe areas still under the Shia govt control, nothing works. The electricity and water still aren't working almost at all due to corruption and constant warfare. Hence the widespread discontent and public outcry recently even amongst the Shia. As bad as Saddam was, life was better for nearly everyone (but the Kurds, they are the only real winners from that war) under Saddam. That was the benefit of stability even under a tyrant. What we see now is the price of chaos and anarchy. And this was all foreseeable, and not just by Brent Scowcroft.

Again, I disagree. As do many of the human rights and political justice activists who have reported on this (http://globaljusticecenter.net/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=173&cf_id=34) over the years.

Saddam ran a police state in which good behavior was no shield to random imprisonment and torture. The immediacy of many of these stories is gone, because they occurred decades ago, and because information was easier to contain in the 90s and early 00s, but it still happened. Saddam's regime was at least as bad, and by most reasonable estimates far worse, than ISIS.

As for non-functioning services... what exactly do you think life in Saddam's Iraq was like? Infant mortality was multiples higher than it is now because the country existed in a permanent state of starvation. Forced conscription into the armed forces was the norm.

While going solely on statistics is never the greatest idea, it cannot be ignored that every single economic and humanitarian indicator shows that life is better. To refute a few of your points:

More people have access to electricity now than under Saddam (http://databank.worldbank.org/data//reports.aspx?source=2&country=&series=SP.DYN.CBRT.IN&period=)

GDP has increased dramatically, to say the least (http://databank.worldbank.org/data//reports.aspx?source=2&country=&series=SP.DYN.CBRT.IN&period=)

Access to fresh water has steadily risen
(http://databank.worldbank.org/data//reports.aspx?source=2&country=&series=SP.DYN.CBRT.IN&period=)

In other words, every available data set we have indicates that life for the average Iraqi was worse under Saddam than it is now. The difference? Now we have an international media with access to conditions for ordinary people, and the ability to communicate that instantly.

Addendum:

The main difference in our opinion seems to be your belief that Saddam was an outlier in terms of his tyranny and brutality to such a degree that there was no effective difference between him and ISIS, whereas I see him as not only far less cruel than ISIS, but not particularly different from any of the other despots in the neighborhood.

Every shred of evidence we have, every report put together, every firsthand account - they all speak to the fact that Saddam really was worse than his neighbors. Perhaps ISIS is more vicious than Saddam was; the difference is that Saddam had the apparatus of a modern nation-state at his disposal. He might have been half as mean, but he was ten times more effective. And there was no way for the population to resist him without outside aid (e.g. the Kurds). In fact the Kurds are an excellent case study - here we have a group that has, with exemplary success, resisted and even made gains against ISIS, but which was so incapable of defending itself against Saddam that it was nearly exterminated as an ethnic group. Telling, no?


Is Saddam really much worse than Assad?

Yes. Two words. Al-Anfal.

The Saudis?

Again, its tough to tell, since the media is far less likely to investigate the Saudis and they have better media control of what goes on anyway, but I'll venture yes to this as well. The reports of what Saddam and his regime did (see above) far outstrip anything we've heard about from inside Saudi Arabia.

Khomeini and his puppets in Iran? Erdogan? El-Sisi (or Mubarak before him)? Heck, even Netanyahu is a murderous bastard who is brutally oppressing the Palestinians. And most of those schmucks are, if not all allies, people that we both tolerate and do business with. Saddam was an evil bastard, but you remove him and the predictable happens - he's replaced by something even worse.

At best, ISIS is no better than Saddam. Certainly not worse. Again... can't escape the genocide thing.

Which is all aside the point. None of this even requires a refutation. If Saddam was evil (he was) and gave us plenty of legal and ethical pretext for deposing him (he did), then what does it matter that we haven't acted against other players in the region, if if they are equally culpable? Its a false equivalency. Our decision to liberate one country from the rule of a brutal psychopath doesn't somehow require us to to do so everywhere else. It isn't all or none. One can easily cast aspersions on American realpolitik in picking and choosing who we help or harm, and I'll jump on that bandwagon for all of the above mentioned heads of state, but it doesn't negate the essential humanity of deposing Saddam.

Nazbaque
08-12-2015, 04:34 PM
Besides, from a "resources" standpoint, it makes more sense to commit to it all at once then face the prospect of a never-ending containment operation against Saddam's regime and, presumably, that of his sons. And I've already agreed the planning for post-Saddam Iraq was flawed... our expenditure in lives and dollars could have been vastly less.

Take such foul language off your posts or I shall wash your mouth with soap.

Kimon
08-12-2015, 06:42 PM
Yes. Two words. Al-Anfal.


I mentioned his war crimes against the Kurds. The Al-Anfal Campaign ended in '89. It preceded the First Gulf War, and was part of the reason why the No-Fly-Zones were put in place. It wasn't some new crime, nor were we failing to protect the Kurds. The No-Fly-Zone was working.


http://databank.worldbank.org/data//reports.aspx?source=2&country=&series=SP.DYN.CBRT.IN&period=

Not sure why my copy-paste gives only the link rather than your overwrite of the links (the first of which reads "More people have access to electricity now than under Saddam") , but all three that you provided link to the same page - a link to world birth rates per 1000 and covers the years 2009-2013. What does that have to do with electricity availability or to a comparison to how things were under Saddam?

GonzoTheGreat
08-13-2015, 04:19 AM
Its called genocide. Please don't skirt the technical term.
Repeal the The Hague Invasion Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). Sign up for the ICC. Perhaps then you might have some standing for talking about disapproval of genocide and other international crimes.
But as it is, your hypocrisy is too blatant to take you seriously on this topic.

Again, thank you for ignoring the important piece of evidence that the Duelfer Report came up with, which was that the members of the international community who continually objected to the invasion were all recipients of massive amounts of corrupt oil from Saddam.My own country was sort of a member of the Coalition of the Weasels. But Belgium was staunchly opposed to the invasion. Would you care to quote the evidence proving that Belgium was a recipient of massive amounts of corrupt oil?

This is, again, demonstrably false, both in the underlying assumption that they couldn't have fought ISIS and that fact that no one would help. The Kurds have very successfully resisted ISIS, and have been helping carry that fight into non-Kurdish areas.And now NATO forces (the Turkish air force) are bombing them in punishment for their success. Which, of course, helps ISIS.

As for the remainder of the paragraph - the Sunnis were not "pushed aside" by the Shi'a government. They are a religious minority and thus could not expect to continue ruling the country in the way they wished when the majority group was given a proportional say. Their religious freedoms and political rights were protected, but of course they were going to see a drastic diminution of their political influence. That is the way federal representative democracy works.
Does that include the support for vigilante groups carrying out mass lynchings?
I thought that even the USA had given up on that peculiar institution. But the Shia have been carrying out quite a lot of mass murders on random Sunni, supposedly in return for the mass murders on random Shia by ISIS.

Saddam's regime was at least as bad, and by most reasonable estimates far worse, than ISIS.That is because ISIS does not yet rule all of Iraq. According to ISIS, Shia are apostates who should be executed. Suppose that ISIS does get control over all of Iraq and does carry out what they consider a divine command, would you then still maintain that Saddam had been worse?
How many millions of dead are you willing to accept in order to defend the lies of Donald Rumsfeld?

Nazbaque
08-13-2015, 08:13 AM
How many millions of dead are you willing to accept in order to defend the lies of Donald Rumsfeld?

Oh but Gonzo it is deeper than that. You see for Americans the only way to be good is to fight "evil". The death toll goes up and there is a new evil to fight and Americans get to be good. They actually can't even contemplate attempting anything to prevent the fighting, because they would then have no way to be "good". And so even their concept of good is ruled by evil.

GonzoTheGreat
08-13-2015, 10:01 AM
Oh but Gonzo it is deeper than that. You see for Americans the only way to be good is to fight "evil". The death toll goes up and there is a new evil to fight and Americans get to be good. They actually can't even contemplate attempting anything to prevent the fighting, because they would then have no way to be "good". And so even their concept of good is ruled by evil.
That's the "Satan wrote the Bible to encourage strife" idea, isn't it?
Very hard to argue against that one, I admit.

Nazbaque
08-13-2015, 10:08 AM
That's the "Satan wrote the Bible to encourage strife" idea, isn't it?
Very hard to argue against that one, I admit.

With the specific details removed to reveal the general formula yes.

Kimon
08-13-2015, 07:53 PM
That's the "Satan wrote the Bible to encourage strife" idea, isn't it?
Very hard to argue against that one, I admit.

Not that this discussion on whether the sidekick/rival of our abusive imaginary friend wrote the Bible just to mess with us isn't fascinating, but back on topic, here is some information on the availability of electricity and water in Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/iraq-electricity-services-protests-150803043651896.html

Thousands of Iraqis have demonstrated against the government over the lack of basic services across the country, as rampant electricity cuts exacerbate a sweltering heat wave.

On Sunday, hundreds took to the streets in the southern cities of Nasriyah and and Najaf to protest over poor living conditions, including power shortages, and urged authorities to fight widespread corruption.

About 1,000 people also rallied in the central town of Hillah, where many called for holding government officials accountable for poor public services.

A day earlier, large protests broke out in the cities of Basra and Karbala over the poor quality of water and frequent electrical blackouts.

In Basra, hundreds protested in front of the governor's office to demand a solution to the long-running problem of salty tap water.

And from another Al Jazeera article a few days earlier...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/iraqis-vent-anger-power-cuts-corruption-150801091552656.html

Iraq's infrastructure was severely damaged during the 2003 US-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein and the country has suffered chronic power shortages ever since.

The government has repeatedly promised an end to the crisis, compounded by fighter attacks since 2003, but shortages have continued and private generators flourished as an alternative.

Power from the national grid is on only a few hours a day in most of the country, making life deeply uncomfortable in the searing summer heat.

It is difficult to find specific numbers for what the availability was like prior to the wars, but this wikipedia article gives at least some information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iraq

History[edit]
Electricity entered Iraq for the first time in 1917 where the first electric machine was installed in "Khan Dala" building.[4]

1990[edit]
Prior to the Gulf War, the total installed generating capacity was 9,295 MW with a peak demand of about 5,100 MW. Approximately 87% of the population had access to electricity.[5] A combination of wars, sanctions, looting and vandalism has however, severely affected the entire power system infrastructure in Iraq.

1991-2003[edit]
During the 1991 Gulf War the electricity system suffered severe damage. Several transmission lines were put out of service, substations were damaged. While some of the damage of the 1991 war was repaired and about 4,500 MW of generating capacity was available in 1999 when Iraq reorganized its electricity sector. The sector was separated from the Ministry of Industry, and the Commission of Electricity (CoE) was established on June 21, 1999. About 4500 MW of generating capacity became available by the end of 2002, power supply remained insufficient and unreliable. Programmed load shedding and unplanned power outages were frequent.[6]

Post 2003 war[edit]
Although the power system was not significantly affected by the last conflict, capacity was reduced to approximately 3,300 MW by a combination of further breakdowns, lack of spares and interruption of major maintenance cycles. The balance between generation versus demand as reported on 18/July/2004 by the PCO (Agency responsible for Coalition projects following the CPA, which completed its mandate as of 30/June/2004) is as follows:

Daily Electricity Demand: 6,400 MW
Daily Average Output: 4,470 MW
Summer peak demand 6,800 – 7,500 MW, 35 to 40% of the summer peak demand cannot be satisfied at present. This is a highly unacceptable situation considering the summer temperatures that exist in Iraq.
Lack of electricity tends to affect more severely the most vulnerable groups of Iraq’s society and increases their morbidity and mortality. Ongoing efforts need to be maintained and new actions to increase electricity supply need to be initiated. In addition, significant delays have been occurring in the reconstruction work that is underway and more security related bottlenecks are expected. Baghdad, a city of 6 million (representing 1/3 of Iraq’s population) is still subjected to programmed load shedding on a rolling basis (roughly 3 hrs on 3 hrs off). This is often exacerbated by unforeseen events. For example, on 2 June and 26 July 2004, segments of Baghdad were left without power for 16 and 21 hours, respectively. These events took place in weather that is exceedingly hot. In a country with 39.7% of its population under 15 years, these events don’t go unnoticed and the need to add generating capacity to the grid is most pressing.[7]

Prewar Baghdad had (16-24) hours per day and was favored for distribution, the remainder of Iraq received 4–8 hours per day.[8] Post war, Baghdad no longer has priority and therefore both Baghdad and the country as a whole received on average 15.5 hours every day as of February 2010.[9]

That last bit might just be outdated information, perhaps what the situation was like before we left, before ISIS began running amok and the countryside descended into chaos, disrupting an already fragile grid. Regardless, it is clearly contradicted by the reality on the ground as reported at present in the above article by Al Jazeera, which indicates that the situation at present is just a few hours a day in most of the country, and with frequent blackouts. What seems clear however was that the availability was high throughout the country under Saddam until the grid was crippled in the First Gulf War. The sanctions and the crippling of their economy never allowed a return to the status quo ante bellum, but Saddam prioritized Baghdad (a majority Shia city it should be noted), and did at least restore far more service to the countryside and the outlying cities than occurs now - not surprising considering that the country is now torn again by warfare.

Oh, and here are some other recent examples of just how brutal conditions are under ISIS.

Here's another article on their institutionalized use of sex slavery, used both as a recruitment tool, and as a tool of ethnic cleansing and degradation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html

QADIYA, Iraq — In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution. Interviews with 21 women and girls who recently escaped the Islamic State, as well as an examination of the group’s official communications, illuminate how the practice has been enshrined in the group’s core tenets.

The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.

A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year, and at least 3,144 are still being held, according to community leaders. To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts. And the practice has become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden.

New reports are also emerging of the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against the Kurds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33922493

German officials said Kurdish troops suffered breathing difficulties after an attack near the city of Irbil earlier this month.
They did not say what may have been used. US officials told local media they believed it was mustard agent.
IS has previously been accused of using chlorine gas against Kurdish fighters.

I find it very odd that some would still seek to defend a stance that Saddam was somehow worse than ISIS, but the more important issue here is a simpler one. Saddam was contained, ISIS is not. The threat they pose both to the region and to us is far greater than that posed by Saddam at the time of our invasion. To deny that is illogical.

Southpaw2012
08-18-2015, 03:02 PM
Former Pentagon official summed up the Iranian deal perfectly: "Embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, diminish our country." So very well said. Then again, we aren't following the U.S. Constitution anymore, but the Obama-way. What he says goes, and if there are barriers, he will find a way around them, because the liberal way is that we are a country of power hungry men who should be allowed to do what they want without any rules.

Southpaw2012
08-18-2015, 03:03 PM
Not that this discussion on whether the sidekick/rival of our abusive imaginary friend wrote the Bible just to mess with us isn't fascinating, but back on topic, here is some information on the availability of electricity and water in Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/iraq-electricity-services-protests-150803043651896.html



And from another Al Jazeera article a few days earlier...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/iraqis-vent-anger-power-cuts-corruption-150801091552656.html



It is difficult to find specific numbers for what the availability was like prior to the wars, but this wikipedia article gives at least some information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iraq



That last bit might just be outdated information, perhaps what the situation was like before we left, before ISIS began running amok and the countryside descended into chaos, disrupting an already fragile grid. Regardless, it is clearly contradicted by the reality on the ground as reported at present in the above article by Al Jazeera, which indicates that the situation at present is just a few hours a day in most of the country, and with frequent blackouts. What seems clear however was that the availability was high throughout the country under Saddam until the grid was crippled in the First Gulf War. The sanctions and the crippling of their economy never allowed a return to the status quo ante bellum, but Saddam prioritized Baghdad (a majority Shia city it should be noted), and did at least restore far more service to the countryside and the outlying cities than occurs now - not surprising considering that the country is now torn again by warfare.

Oh, and here are some other recent examples of just how brutal conditions are under ISIS.

Here's another article on their institutionalized use of sex slavery, used both as a recruitment tool, and as a tool of ethnic cleansing and degradation.





New reports are also emerging of the use of chemical weapons by ISIS against the Kurds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33922493



I find it very odd that some would still seek to defend a stance that Saddam was somehow worse than ISIS, but the more important issue here is a simpler one. Saddam was contained, ISIS is not. The threat they pose both to the region and to us is far greater than that posed by Saddam at the time of our invasion. To deny that is illogical.

Thank goodness Obama didn't threaten them with another "white line" or "red line" or whatever he "threatened" Syria with. We all know how that would have gone down.

Nazbaque
08-18-2015, 03:07 PM
Former Pentagon official summed up the Iranian deal perfectly: "Embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, diminish our country." So very well said. Then again, we aren't following the U.S. Constitution anymore, but the Obama-way. What he says goes, and if there are barriers, he will find a way around them, because the liberal way is that we are a country of power hungry men who should be allowed to do what they want without any rules.

It's actually kind of fun to watch you break your stupidity record. It's interesting how someone can keep getting even more stupid.

Kimon
08-18-2015, 03:57 PM
Former Pentagon official summed up the Iranian deal perfectly: "Embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, diminish our country." So very well said. Then again, we aren't following the U.S. Constitution anymore, but the Obama-way. What he says goes, and if there are barriers, he will find a way around them, because the liberal way is that we are a country of power hungry men who should be allowed to do what they want without any rules.

Which former official?

Don't get me wrong, a lot of men (and women) are former Pentagon officials, so doubtless you could find some who don't like the deal. That does not however mean that this nameless individual has an opinion on this matter that should be valued or judged as unbiased. How about Lawrence Wilkerson? He's a retired colonel and the former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell. If you have access to HBO, you could watch the most recent Bill Maher episode (from this past Friday), and find him supporting the deal. His exact words on the issue was that it was a "no brainer".

I tried to find the exact part of the show with this clip on youtube, but couldn't find it. They did have the section where he referred to the Princess Bride and remarked on the stupidity of starting a Land War in Asia however. Still amusing, but for his part on the deal itself you'll need access to HBO to see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEK22s6nv40

Southpaw2012
08-18-2015, 06:48 PM
Which former official?

Don't get me wrong, a lot of men (and women) are former Pentagon officials, so doubtless you could find some who don't like the deal. That does not however mean that this nameless individual has an opinion on this matter that should be valued or judged as unbiased. How about Lawrence Wilkerson? He's a retired colonel and the former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell. If you have access to HBO, you could watch the most recent Bill Maher episode (from this past Friday), and find him supporting the deal. His exact words on the issue was that it was a "no brainer".

I tried to find the exact part of the show with this clip on youtube, but couldn't find it. They did have the section where he referred to the Princess Bride and remarked on the stupidity of starting a Land War in Asia however. Still amusing, but for his part on the deal itself you'll need access to HBO to see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEK22s6nv40

Bill Maher is an idiot, but that's besides the point. Iran just released a new video discussing how the time is coming for when they will destroy Israel. Obama and his liberal army believe they are negotiating with England, Germany, Spain, etc etc... This isn't a civilized Western nation that we are dealing with. Iran isn't out for peace, they're out to conquer. They're out to destroy our single true ally in the Middle East, and now we've essentially put our only ally in a deeper corner than they were in before, and strengthened the world's enemy. It's common sense.

Southpaw2012
08-18-2015, 06:51 PM
We didn't even get our own hostages back! That's our disgraceful and weak we have become under this regime. A real leader, such as a Reagan, would have demanded not only as much in return for lifting sanctions, but more than we were willing to give. Instead, we hardly got squat.

Kimon
08-18-2015, 08:04 PM
Bill Maher is an idiot, but that's besides the point.

True, as it was Wilkerson's opinion that I was pointing to, not Maher's.

Iran just released a new video discussing how the time is coming for when they will destroy Israel.

Two points. First, again, you really need to get in the habit of providing links, so that these assertions can be independently verified. And, second, so what? It's propaganda. It's designed for public consumption for the hardliners. OUr own hardliners make similarly outrageous and belligerent statements quite frequently. So does Israel. Why is it okay when Israel threatens to bomb Iran? Why is that self-defense, but Iran wanting a bomb to defend itself against Israeli aggression is not self-defense? One of the two (indeed one of the two current leaders) has a history, even a recent history, of belligerent acts and war crimes against their neighbors, and it's not Iran.

We didn't even get our own hostages back! That's our disgraceful and weak we have become under this regime. A real leader, such as a Reagan, would have demanded not only as much in return for lifting sanctions, but more than we were willing to give. Instead, we hardly got squat.

There is a reason why only one of those four is mentioned much. Jason Rezaian is being unjustly held. The case against him may have been meant as potential leverage in the negotiations, but it is more likely just intimidation of journalists. Similar to another case of dual citizen Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, who also was arrested on ridiculous espionage charges in Iran. She was arrested in April of 2009, and released in May of 2009. Are these types of cases good signs for press freedom and freedom of speech in general in Iran? Obviously not. But Iran is hardly an isolated case here in the middle east. There is another famous and recent case from El-Sisi's junta in Egypt. They arrested three Al Jazeera journalists back in December of 2013, charging them with false reporting and collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood. Charges which were all nonsense, and like the cases of Saberi and Rezaian merely intimidation of the press. We work iwth el-Sisi. We may not like him or his govt. But he's useful in the region, and better than what would likely replace him. Same is true of Iran. For all the talk of how evil they are, they are probably the safest, stablest, and best place to live by far of any of the countries in the region. And their govt, all of our silly propaganda aside, is far less criminal than all their neighbors, all of whom we have normalized relations with. This strife, like Cuba, is an anachronistic relic and a stupid policy that was long in need of rectifying.

Oh, and as for those other "hostages"...

-Robert Levinson

He was arrested on suspicion of espionage back in 2007. Unlike the journalists, he was ex-FBI, and the Iranians are probably right on this one. Also uncertain if he is even still alive. If he is this one will be a harder sell for release.

-Amir Mirza Hekmati

He's former US Marine and then Mercenary Defense Contractor focusing on Arabic and Persian languages. Probably a real spy. Even if not, like with Levinson, hardly surprising why the Iranians would be suspicious.

-Saeed Abedini

He was not only a missionary, but a Muslim who had converted to Christianity. He should have known the danger he faced. I'm least sympathetic on this one.

The opponents of negotiations that bring up Rezaian and these others are simply using them as another excuse. Including them in the negotiation would have only undermined the ability to reach a deal, which, once in place, and with more normal and regular diplomatic links in place will allow for further dialogue and discussion on these types of issues. I don't particularly care about the other three, but Jason Rezaian should be released, and regularized diplomatic relations will help facilitate that. The two spies on the other hand might require an exchange. The missionary I wouldn't waste any effort on. Best to make clear to other potential missionaries, whose presence in Muslim countries only hurts our standing in the region, that their actions are unwanted, and if arrested, they will not be helped by the State Department. If this guy had been an aid worker or a doctor, he'd deserve help, of course had he just been an aid worker, and a Muslim rather than a converted Christian missionary in a Muslim country, we'd hear his name as often as Rezaian's. Only one of these three has a legitimate claim of false imprisonment - Rezaian.

GonzoTheGreat
08-19-2015, 03:31 AM
The opponents of negotiations that bring up Rezaian and these others are simply using them as another excuse. Including them in the negotiation would have only undermined the ability to reach a deal, which, once in place, and with more normal and regular diplomatic links in place will allow for further dialogue and discussion on these types of issues.
Possibly, possibly not.

The USA could, of course, settle this "maybe they are spies" business by the simple expedient of opening up all it's files from the CIA and similar organisations that even touch on Iran. If they do that, then it would be possible to check whether or not the allegations are justified.
For some reason, though, Obama doesn't seem that intent on openness, and so far I haven't heard any Republican argue that he should do this kind of thing. Strange, isn't it?

Southpaw2012
08-19-2015, 10:25 PM
The insanely stupid and pathetic UN helping the enemy win... Again

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/19/leaked-document-details-of-the-secret-agreement-between-iran-and-un-agency-that-not-even-congress-is-allowed-to-see/

Kimon
08-19-2015, 10:50 PM
The insanely stupid and pathetic UN helping the enemy win... Again

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/19/leaked-document-details-of-the-secret-agreement-between-iran-and-un-agency-that-not-even-congress-is-allowed-to-see/

You'd prefer no inspections and no sanctions? Or war?

Certainly if we back out as the Republicans wish, what need would the Iranians have to return to the table? China and Europe are unlikely to back out with us, and it is those two economies that Iran needs access to. Those sanctions that they need lifted. Not ours. And we need them for the war against ISIS. Republicans really need to be more pragmatic and narrow their list of enemies. Top of that list should be stable, useful, and mostly harmless regimes like Iran. Sometimes our interests should supersede Israel's paranoia.

Southpaw2012
08-19-2015, 11:45 PM
I'd rather we strangle them with sanctions until they get the message, or negotiate from a point of strength where we control. They steamrolled us in every possible way. This is the world's greatest supporter of terrorism and Islamic terror, not including terrorist organizations such as ISIS, and we are giving them everything they want. It's treacherous, honestly.

Southpaw2012
08-19-2015, 11:49 PM
You'd prefer no inspections and no sanctions? Or war?

Certainly if we back out as the Republicans wish, what need would the Iranians have to return to the table? China and Europe are unlikely to back out with us, and it is those two economies that Iran needs access to. Those sanctions that they need lifted. Not ours. And we need them for the war against ISIS. Republicans really need to be more pragmatic and narrow their list of enemies. Top of that list should be stable, useful, and mostly harmless regimes like Iran. Sometimes our interests should supersede Israel's paranoia.

Israel's paranoia? Iran has stated time and time again that they will destroy Israel. This puts them one step closer. We know, know, that Obama is not a friend of Israel and this deal should make any rational person question whose side he's on. Iran has always been an enemy, and always will. We aren't negotiating with a country who was our ally 10-20 years ago. Unless you're Jimmy Carter who lost hostages to Iran before Reagan came along and actually did the job. There is zero reason as to why this deal should've happened, except the twisted logic of liberals who believe we should help everyone in the world who "struggles" despite their grand desire to burn us to the ground.

Terez
08-19-2015, 11:54 PM
I'd rather we strangle them with sanctions until they get the message...
We tried that already, and it allowed them to come to the brink of producing nuclear weapons.

...or negotiate from a point of strength where we control.
How does that work?

GonzoTheGreat
08-20-2015, 03:22 AM
... or negotiate from a point of strength where we control.
How does that work?
Seems simple enough: do not invade Iraq in 2003, then you won't have blown your credibility in making military threats.

I'm not quite sure how Southpaw intends to do this, but he undoubtedly has a cunning plan which cannot fail.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:54 AM
Seems simple enough: do not invade Iraq in 2003, then you won't have blown your credibility in making military threats.

I'm not quite sure how Southpaw intends to do this, but he undoubtedly has a cunning plan which cannot fail.

Now Gonzo we have talked about making hasty assumptions. Do you have any indication whatsoever that southpaw can reach the Baldrick level logic necessary for cunning plans.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 04:24 PM
I'd rather we strangle them with sanctions until they get the message, or negotiate from a point of strength where we control.

We can't. It was the sanctions imposed by the Europeans and China that was hurting their economy. It is similar to the situation with Russia. The European sanctions hurt, ours are mostly symbolic by contrast, as we just don't do enough business with either (Iran or Russia) to have a devastating effect. If we withdraw from the deal we our weakening our position, not strengthening it. We've already extracted as much in terms of concessions as could realistically be hoped for from Iran. Short of war and an unconditional surrender nothing more realistically could have been achieved. And war would mean trillions (and that's not hyperbole, look at how much Iraq has cost, and still costs) spent in fighting and rebuilding Iran, and recent history offers numerous examples of how bad we have been at nation-building since those rare successes of the 40s and 50s (Germany, Japan, and S Korea). Everywhere else our attempts have been both costly and ineffective. That's a lot of money, and likely hundreds of thousands of lives (we wouldn't lose anywhere near that, but civilian casualties amongst the "enemy" should matter too) to achieve at best slightly more than what we've achieved cheaply through diplomacy. And if we fail? Another chaos-ridden failed state that is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Oh, and on that point...

This is the world's greatest supporter of terrorism and Islamic terror, not including terrorist organizations such as ISIS, and we are giving them everything they want. It's treacherous, honestly.

This is pure propaganda, Southpaw. Think of who these so-called terrorists are. Assad - the Shia president of Syria. Shia, so an ally of Shia Iran. He hasn't been a good leader, hence the civil war in Syria - albeit it should be noted that all his opponents in that civil war are Sunni - the Kurds, ISIS, Al Nusra, Turkey. Assad is a warlord from a minority, indeed a minority within a minority as he is an Alawite Shia, ruling a majority Sunni nation that would prefer a Sunni leader. He is however by far the most secular of the forces in Syria. The other supposed terrorists sponsored by Iran are of a similar mold. The main group is Hezbollah - essentially Assad's shadow Shia army in Lebanon, born as a guerrilla force to defend Lebanon against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The Israelis call them terrorists, and because of that, we do as well. But are they? True, some or their tactics over the years have targeted civilians, but then the Israelis, as we saw just this year in Gaza, use the exact same tactics. Between the two, it is clearly Hezbollah that has the juster cause. If they are terrorists, then so to are the Israelis. In which case, we are just as much a sponsor of terrorism as is Iran. The only other "terrorist" organizations you could point to are the Houthi and the Shia tribal armies in Iraq. Those Iraqi Shia forces are supported by us as well. The Houthi? They were helping us fight Al Qaeda in Yemen until the Saudis got annoyed, because the Houthi are Shia, and insisted that we either help them hunt down the Houthi, or at least stay out of the Yemeni civil war. None of those Shia "terrorists" have attacked us.

Iran has always been an enemy, and always will. We aren't negotiating with a country who was our ally 10-20 years ago.

The Tea Party really should just call itself AmSoc, and Fox News is certainly nothing other than the Ministry of Truth. No Southpaw, we have not always been at war with East Asia. That anger that boiled over in 1979 was born out of our perfidy true, our illegal overthrow of Mossadegh and installation of our puppet, the Shah. But for nearly three decades under the Shah Iran was a friend, and not just its leader. Had we not exacerbated that existing suspicion by offering Pahlavi (the Shah) asylum we might have avoided that insanity. An insanity that was however of our own making. It is far past time that we repair that damage and offer restitution for our crimes, not to reinforce them with new mistakes.

There is zero reason as to why this deal should've happened, except the twisted logic of liberals who believe we should help everyone in the world who "struggles" despite their grand desire to burn us to the ground.

Even leaving aside your apparent inability to recognize hyperbole, you do realize that we are not Israel, yes? You do realize that it was Al Qaeda, a Sunni group of terrorists, that attacked us, and ISIS, another Sunni terrorist group that we are fighting? Iran is not an ally of Al Qaeda. Iran is actively fighting against ISIS. There might be a few nuts who hate us, but far fewer seemingly than the number of nuts here who seem to salivate at the thought of burning them to the ground. Orwell might perhaps find this both amusing and terrifying, certainly it is quite terrifying that our own Minitrue has been so successful in their manipulation of the masses.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 04:41 PM
And from another Al Jazeera article a few days earlier...


Isn't it amazing how someone can post propaganda word for word from Al-Jezeera without any intellectual curiosity? The same Al-Jezeera that Bin Ladin used to spread his messages and is a wing of the QATAR government. A organization that was thrown out of Egypt for terrorist ties.

Honestly, for supposed 'liberals' you guys aren't that intellectually curious at all.

Since we are naming names here,

Which former official?

Don't get me wrong, a lot of men (and women) are former Pentagon officials, so doubtless you could find some who don't like the deal. That does not however mean that this nameless individual has an opinion on this matter that should be valued or judged as unbiased.

Name the Iranian hardliners opposed to the deal.

I'll wait.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 04:57 PM
Hey dumbass...you do realize that Al Jazeera America is probably the least biased news source of the networks (NBCNews, CNN, Foxnews, etc)


Oh wait, you don't...you dumb fucking troll. How is it that a fucking troll like Southpaw needs yet another troll account to spew his bullshit?

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 04:57 PM
I really admire your stamina in the face of stupidity, Kimon, but you should adjust your scopes on this. There's a Finnish expression that we mostly use for certain types of movies but can be easily adapted for other things. It would translate as "yay, yay, yanks!". Independence Day is a very typical such movie. Southpaw has this kind of mind. He can't see anything American as bad. He may disaprove of the people running the country, but never anything about the country itself. Good and evil are defined by relations with America or opinion on America. In an extreme case of such mentality, and I wouldn't put it past southpaw, the person actually masturbates to the United States flag.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:02 PM
Hey dumbass...you do realize that Al Jazeera America is probably the least biased news source of the networks (NBCNews, CNN, Foxnews, etc)

First off, Fox is cable dumbass. Second, Al-Jazeera is known pure Islamic Jihadi propaganda. Everyone knows that but you I guess. Maybe you just don't see it because you enjoy the hatred and intolerance it provides you. Maybe you enjoy it because it makes you feel better about yourself as it puts down conservatives. Either way, it's a purposefully deceitful, and you fell for it.

Oh wait, you don't...you dumb fucking troll. How is it that a fucking troll like Southpaw needs yet another troll account to spew his bullshit?

Keep guessing, anything to avoid the FACT that you spew terrorist propaganda from people who hate Gays, Jews, Christians, Atheists, and anyone who doesn't submit to the will of Allah.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 05:03 PM
I really admire your stamina in the face of stupidity, Kimon, but you should adjust your scopes on this. There's a Finnish expression that we mostly use for certain types of movies but can be easily adapted for other things. It would translate as "yay, yay, yanks!". Independence Day is a very typical such movie. Southpaw has this kind of mind. He can't see anything American as bad. He may disaprove of the people running the country, but never anything about the country itself. Good and evil are defined by relations with America or opinion on America. In an extreme case of such mentality, and I wouldn't put it past southpaw, the person actually masturbates to the United States flag.

Southpaw is a perfect example of why I really wish 1984 was still on the regular reading list for high schools. It needs to come back out of retirement.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:07 PM
I really admire your stamina in the face of stupidity, Kimon, but you should adjust your scopes on this. There's a Finnish expression that we mostly use for certain types of movies but can be easily adapted for other things. It would translate as "yay, yay, yanks!". Independence Day is a very typical such movie. Southpaw has this kind of mind. He can't see anything American as bad. He may disaprove of the people running the country, but never anything about the country itself. Good and evil are defined by relations with America or opinion on America. In an extreme case of such mentality, and I wouldn't put it past southpaw, the person actually masturbates to the United States flag.

It's amazing to me that you can talk so much crap coming from Finland. Don't you have a debt crisis to deal with? Honestly, getting lectured from the next Greece is laughable. Your jealousy and hatred of the US is readily apparent.

So don't go crying to the US when Putin marches his soldiers over your border. It's not like Obama is going to save you.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:07 PM
Foxnews is just cable? They don't have a website too? Damn, I was so off. And I suppose CNN isn't cable and neither is Al Jazeera America? I know this is hard to grasp for someone with the mind of a 5 year old but all 3 platforms have both cable channels AND news websites. NBCNews is good old basic channels but their website is also available on the internet.

So making a comparison between Al Jazeera and the 3 major American news sources is fairly valid.

Also, if you had any clue, you'd know that Al Jazeera America, despite its scary scary Arabic sounding name was actually founded by a break off of BBCNews international divisions and is considered very non-partisan all around. Oh, and while we're on it, you are aware, of course, that your sacred rightwing Foxnews is actually owned partly by one of those same Arabs you hate so much (Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584557))

But keep it up, dumbass.

As for the rest...project yourself much? Aren't they looking for you over at Stormfront?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:09 PM
It's amazing to me that you can talk so much crap coming from Finland. Don't you have a debt crisis to deal with? Honestly, getting lectured from the next Greece is laughable. Your jealousy and hatred of the US is readily apparent.

So don't go crying to the US when Putin marches his soldiers over your border. It's not like Obama is going to save you.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/cf1a0fb923d1f89b98a6f26fdb885ae6/tumblr_inline_mtyasxJniM1r21fd3.jpg

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:09 PM
Southpaw is a perfect example of why I really wish 1984 was still on the regular reading list for high schools. It needs to come back out of retirement.

Maybe you need to bone up on it since Progressism is the Newspeak. Only the Progressives would run someone who destroyed Federal records for President. Or would accept a President changing his mind about immigration policy on a whim while the media covers his ass.

That is 1984 alright, you're just on the wrong side.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:10 PM
http://38.media.tumblr.com/cf1a0fb923d1f89b98a6f26fdb885ae6/tumblr_inline_mtyasxJniM1r21fd3.jpg

That was 75 years ago, I'm so glad you are up on the latest weapons. :rolleyes:

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:11 PM
Maybe you need to bone up on it since Progressism is the Newspeak. Only the Progressives would run someone who destroyed Federal records for President. Or would accept a President changing his mind about immigration policy on a whim while the media covers his ass.

That is 1984 alright, you're just on the wrong side.

What color is the sky in your world?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:13 PM
That was 75 years ago, I'm so glad you are up on the latest weapons. :rolleyes:

Its cute that you're dumb enough to think Russia could actually sustain an invasion outside of its country. They can barely keep the lights on and they can't even beat Ukraine in a proxy war...but yeah, keep being chickenshit scared of the big scary Putin.

Do you masturbate to shirtless pics of Putin? I bet you think he's a big strong true leader unlike that weakling Obama. I bet you get your rocks off to Dubya wearing a flight suit too.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 05:13 PM
Southpaw is a perfect example of why I really wish 1984 was still on the regular reading list for high schools. It needs to come back out of retirement.

Well that one is more of an anti-Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany novel. Pretty much everything in it is about the single party system. A mind like southpaw's could never pick up on the subtleties that are adaptable to all types of fanatical support and oppressive law making.

Kimon
08-20-2015, 05:18 PM
Well that one is more of an anti-Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany novel. Pretty much everything in it is about the single party system. A mind like southpaw's could never pick up on the subtleties that are adaptable to all types of fanatical support and oppressive law making.

Heck it was also re-purposed as an brilliantly evil business strategy. Think of how much money Rupert Murdoch and Robert Ailes have made by using it as a template.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:19 PM
Foxnews is just cable?

You said networks.

ey dumbass...you do realize that Al Jazeera America is probably the least biased news source of the networks (NBCNews, CNN, Foxnews, etc)

So looks like you're the dumbass since you didn't even know what type of channel it is.

They don't have a website too?

You hear that sound? It's the sound of goalposts moving.

Also, if you had any clue, you'd know that Al Jazeera America, despite its scary scary Arabic sounding name was actually founded by a break off of BBCNews international divisions and is considered very non-partisan all around.

"very non-partisan all around"

That's hilarious. It's amazing how much you know. Who did you sample? Was it conducted scientifically? Or do you just go on your little group of Stepford heads who nod at everything.

No one considereds Al-Jazeera unbiased, even those that own it. It's a network designed to spread propaganda, and you love it! And it's widely known as Anti-Semitic too.

'Israel supporters should die a fiery death': Vice president of Al Jazeera America sued for $15million over 'repeated anti-Semitic, sexist and anti-American remarks'

Matthew Luke began working for Al Jazeera in New York in early 2013
Says Osman Mahmud was promoted above him despite lack of experience
Claims Mahmud then asked him to replace women on projects with men
Also tried to have Israeli cameraman replaced with Palestinian, he says
Mr Luke says he was fired after complaining about Mahmud's behavior

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3062142/Israel-supporters-die-fiery-death-Al-Jazeera-America-vice-president-sued-15million-repeated-anti-Semitic-sexist-anti-American-remarks.html#ixzz3jOd6P1KL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

We could go on all day long, but claiming Al-Jazeera is unbiased? That's just too goofy for even this forum.

Oh, and while we're on it, you are aware, of course, that your sacred rightwing Foxnews is actually owned partly by one of those same Arabs you hate so much (Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584557))


Actually, a good deal of conservatives hate Fox News because it's too corporate establishment, such as me.

I'm at least willing to look at my own media objectively. How come you can't?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:19 PM
Well that one is more of an anti-Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany novel. Pretty much everything in it is about the single party system. A mind like southpaw's could never pick up on the subtleties that are adaptable to all types of fanatical support and oppressive law making.

Many years ago, I wrote a great paper on the themes of 1984...it was a very fun deconstruction of the novel really.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:25 PM
Well that one is more of an anti-Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany novel. Pretty much everything in it is about the single party system. A mind like southpaw's could never pick up on the subtleties that are adaptable to all types of fanatical support and oppressive law making.

Actualty, it's an anti-Facism book, as it was gleened from George Orwell's coverage of media in Spain. It's amazing how the current media works much like the media in the book- cover up Obama's mistakes and changes of heart.

Oh no, he was never for going it alone with executive action on immigration reform! He never said your health care bills will go down by 2500 dollars! Not Obama! He never said that.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:28 PM
CNN=Cable News Network

Its literally IN the name. But you knew that. I love when idiots think they are smart but are really dumb.

The main reason for that is that dumb people don't know that they are dumb. They think they are just as smart as anyone else. That's part of being stupid, of course. You cannot comprehend that there are smarter people out there. This is much the same reason that many criminals get caught because of very obvious (at least to the outsider) mistakes...they don't even realize it is a mistake because they think that they themselves wouldn't ever catch it and therefore, no one else could either.

Dumb people also tend to key in on some minor typo or mistake in someone's statement and then discard an entire statement during a discussion or argument. Its not a surprise that children also tend to do that. An example would be saying "That was 20 years ago" and someone would say "No No, it was 21...you're an idiot, haha, nothing you say is accurate!!!" This is typical of internet trolls too...but again, not a surprise since the average internet troll has the mindset of a 5 year old.

Also, you do know that the Daily Mail is considered to be a tabloid in the UK, right? It's not a legitimate source of anything at all. Most of their stories are completely made up fictions.

As for their bias...go look at their website...if it is OPINION, its marked as such...their straight news articles are just that, news. They report the facts and don't go into "This is good or this is bad". Its straight old-fashioned reporting. IF its an opinion article, its clearly marked. None of the other 3 networks mentioned do that anymore.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:31 PM
Actualty, it's an anti-Facism book, as it was gleened from George Orwell's coverage of media in Spain. It's amazing how the current media works much like the media in the book- cover up Obama's mistakes and changes of heart.

Oh no, he was never for going it alone with executive action on immigration reform! He never said your health care bills will go down by 2500 dollars! Not Obama! He never said that.

One of the major themes is anti-totalitarianism, not anti-fascism by itself. Stalinism and any one-party dominated system would fall under that. That isn't the only theme of the novel, but it is one of them. Thought repression through the reduction of even words to express those thoughts is also another major theme as is behavior control patterns that stem from the idea that sacrificing personal freedoms for the good of a cause is the most important form of patriotism.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 05:35 PM
It's amazing to me that you can talk so much crap coming from Finland. Don't you have a debt crisis to deal with? Honestly, getting lectured from the next Greece is laughable. Your jealousy and hatred of the US is readily apparent.

So don't go crying to the US when Putin marches his soldiers over your border. It's not like Obama is going to save you.

What crap? It's a true thing. We have an expression for movies and other stuff that was made in order to metaphorically suck on America's ego-dick. There's plenty of good things about America, but also a lot of bad things. I abhor the kind of mentalities that willfully shut their eyes to anything. In this case anything bad about one's own country. It's a cowardly thing to do.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 05:41 PM
Actualty, it's an anti-Facism book, as it was gleened from George Orwell's coverage of media in Spain. It's amazing how the current media works much like the media in the book- cover up Obama's mistakes and changes of heart.

Oh no, he was never for going it alone with executive action on immigration reform! He never said your health care bills will go down by 2500 dollars! Not Obama! He never said that.

You really can't see that both the Republicans and Democrats could be wrong in someone's mind do you? Or did you just start ranting midparagraph?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:41 PM
Its cute that you're dumb enough to think Russia could actually sustain an invasion outside of its country. They can barely keep the lights on and they can't even beat Ukraine in a proxy war...but yeah, keep being chickenshit scared of the big scary Putin.


It's funny that you didn't realize that Russia already invaded Crimea and is currently pushing into Ukraine. It's also ironic how similar your comments are to the French's before WW2.

It's impossible!

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:43 PM
CNN=Cable News Network

Its literally IN the name.

So what? 'The Networks' refer to the networks before cable news. Even little kids know that.

If you don't know the meaning of the words you use, don't use them, ok moron?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:45 PM
What crap? It's a true thing. We have an expression for movies and other stuff that was made in order to metaphorically suck on America's ego-dick. There's plenty of good things about America, but also a lot of bad things. I abhor the kind of mentalities that willfully shut their eyes to anything. In this case anything bad about one's own country. It's a cowardly thing to do.

How do you know, you're in Finland? It's not like you live here, work here, do business here ... you just go off what you read. 3rd party evidence.


Why don't you keep your Xenophobic non-sense to yourself. Doesn't your broke ass country have it's own problems to worry about?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 05:47 PM
Hey Naz, I'm trying to call your Nokia with my iPhone, but it's not picking up.

Am I doing something wrong?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:49 PM
It's funny that you didn't realize that Russia already invaded Crimea and is currently pushing into Ukraine. It's also ironic how similar your comments are to the French's before WW2.

It's impossible!

Russia blew through all of Ukraine then? Last I checked, they were bogged down in a very messy partisan conflict in eastern Ukraine and they are basically about to go bankrupt because the bottom has fallen out of the energy industry which is their major revenue stream. They can't even afford to pay the interest on their debt let alone finance an invasion. Nor do they have the logistical capability to fight a drawn out war against a determined defender. Fighting in eastern Ukraine has been a massive challenge and they even showed the same logistical issues fighting Georgia and Chechnya...countries that are the equivalent of invading Rhode Island or Delaware and well within their historic sphere of influence.

Russia is a paper bear, nothing more.

If France and the UK had fought an offensive war in Sept 1939, they'd have crossed the Rhine and been in Berlin in 2 weeks. They completely outnumbered and outgunned the token force Hitler left on his western border while he focused on Poland. Fear of another bloodbath and a desire to fight the last war paralyzed the French high command and the Brits went along with it. Also, if you possessed more than a 5th grader's knowledge of that period, you'd be aware that Chamberlain was well aware that he couldn't trust Hitler at Munich and he was basically playing for time for both the UK and France as they needed to rearm after a decade of the Depression and nearly no spending on armaments. He wasn't naive enough to think it would end at Munich just like Stalin wasn't naive enough to think the Non-Aggression Pact would be honored by Hitler. Both were playing for time and in Stalin's case, Russian forces were caught so far out of position because they were about to invade Germany themselves and were thus forward deployed. Thus envelopments worked quite well for the Wehrmacht Panzer forces during the initial invasion.

Tactical mistakes were made by both, not strategic.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 05:50 PM
How do you know, you're in Finland? It's not like you live here, work here, do business here ... you just go off what you read. 3rd party evidence.


Why don't you keep your Xenophobic non-sense to yourself. Doesn't your broke ass country have it's own problems to worry about?

Doesn't your mom's basement need to be cleaned at some point?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:02 PM
BTW, that Crimean invasion has really worked out for them. -4.6% drop in Russian GDP and the Ruble has lost over 50% of its value against the USD from right before the invasion to today.

Great job! But at least they got a really nice peninsula that is a net negative economically. Hmm...Crimea's entire economy is tourism based and they have to buy water from Ukraine. Starting and continuing a war with Ukraine and ensuring no one wants to visit is a great way to do business. Oh, they did it for the Naval base you say? No, they already had a long-term lease and didn't need to invade. The rationale was to distract the idiotic Russian people form growing domestic problems...and it has worked for now because all news in Russia is state-owned and they're massively xenophobic so when Putin tells them its all the evil West's fault, they buy it. Not a surprise given the history of Russia when it comes to strongmen.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:02 PM
It's funny that you didn't realize that Russia already invaded Crimea and is currently pushing into Ukraine.

Russia blew through all of Ukraine then?

All =/= pushing into.

Are you really that dumb?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:03 PM
All =/= pushing into.

Are you really that dumb?

Originally Posted by Sodas
It's funny that you didn't realize that Russia already invaded Crimea and is currently pushing into Ukraine.

ROFL...hi Sodas.


So, over a year in and they're still bogged down in the eastern provinces facing economic collapse...this is the country I should be scared of?

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:05 PM
How do you know, you're in Finland? It's not like you live here, work here, do business here ... you just go off what you read. 3rd party evidence.


Why don't you keep your Xenophobic non-sense to yourself. Doesn't your broke ass country have it's own problems to worry about?
Do you know what xenophobic means?
Hey Naz, I'm trying to call your Nokia with my iPhone, but it's not picking up.

Am I doing something wrong?

It's really pathetic that you try to attack my patriotism. I'm a Finn we are all unpatriotic. A few years back there was this news story about which country is the best place to live in and by a mistake in calculation Finland got the top spot. Before the miscalculation was revealed and corrected the publishers got a ton of complaints mostly from Finns along the lines "like hell is this the best place to live (insert complaint about Finland)"

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:07 PM
ROFL...hi Sodas.


So, over a year in and they're still bogged down in the eastern provinces facing economic collapse...this is the country I should be scared of?

You all look like idiots for assuming it was Southpaw. Too funny. And highly indicative of your 'group think' mentality.

You guys do realize 'group think' is taught in college freshman sociology, right? lmao.

Russia's economy is going to get a huge boost thanks to the Iran Deal. Thanks Obama! He's going to have all the oil he needs for those tanks.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:09 PM
You all look like idiots for assuming it was Southpaw. Too funny. And highly indicative of your 'group think' mentality.

You guys do realize 'group think' is taught in college freshman sociology, right? lmao.

Russia's economy is going to get a huge boost thanks to the Iran Deal. Thanks Obama! He's going to have all the oil he needs for those tanks.

Opening up Iran will actually flood the world with even more oil/energy which will further depress the Russian economy...but you knew that.

Selling military hardware to Iran (something they've done under the table for decades anyway won't save them).



BTW, how pathetic are you really? You are already a pathetic troll here and spouting off your gibberish on your sad little blog but you actually took time to create another troll account to post even more filth and engage in pointless personal attacks. I mean, did you get broken up with today or something? I mean, that's a whole new level of just sadness there.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:11 PM
Do you know what xenophobic means?

I looked it up in a dictionary and it had your picture in it.

It's really pathetic that you try to attack my patriotism.

Not really, I don't care if you love your country or not. I am, however, pointing out your country is going bankrupt because of socialist socio-economic policies, and you're trying to spread them here.

Keep your crap economic systems to yourselves. No American wants to listen to failed bs.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:12 PM
Opening up Iran will actually flood the world with even more oil/energy which will further depress the Russian economy...but you knew that.

S300 nuclear defense systems cost money.

Iran pays Russia.
Russia's economy has more money.

Hence, you don't know wtf your talking about.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:12 PM
What you mean to say is "No REAL American..." right? Just like your idol Palin. Us REAL Americans from small-town America (ignoring most Americans live in urban areas) are the only true Americans. Blah blah, trickle down, supply side, fuck the poor XENOPHOBIC racist filth as usual from the Right.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:17 PM
S300 nuclear defense systems cost money.

Iran pays Russia.
Russia's economy has more money.

Hence, you don't know wtf your talking about.

How many S-300s would they have to sell to regain 5% of their GDP? I'm guessing that many don't exist. And that'd just recover what they lost last year...not what they're projected to lose going forward. Their only major export is energy (oil and gas). Their entire budget is based on the price of energy, not military hardware. Iran buying a handful of S-300s isn't going to save them or even slow it down. It's a meaningless drop in the bucket. Its something idiots like you and Foxnews latch on to as definite PROOF that this deal must be awful and it will lead to nuclear war somehow. Even though not making the deal means Iran will certainly move forward with developing nukes as they have nothing left to lose at that point and already have all the material they need. Doing nothing guarantees they go nuclear. Making a deal makes it possible they won't just like countries like Taiwan and South Africa gave up their nuke programs back in the day.

And when they get nukes, Saudi Arabia will 100% develop them too as they aren't about to let the Shiites have nukes and not have them themselves. So that'll help us out. That's the GOP plan...put their head in the sand and/or a full out invasion of Iran. I mean, what could possibly go wrong there? Land wars in Asia are ALWAYS a great idea as Dubya proved decisively not once but twice in the past two decades.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:21 PM
What you mean to say is "No REAL American..." right? Just like your idol Palin. Us REAL Americans from small-town America (ignoring most Americans live in urban areas) are the only true Americans. Blah blah, trickle down, supply side, fuck the poor XENOPHOBIC racist filth as usual from the Right.

I notice how you have to attack someone else, not even relevant to the conversation, instead of debating the subject at hand.

Sad.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:23 PM
Still waiting to hear how selling a couple of S-300s for $115 Million a piece (their cost) will cover down on the $200 BILLION they lost economically in GDP in the last year.


Guess you don't have a legit answer as usual.


Also, that is an accurate description, not an attack.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:25 PM
You all look like idiots for assuming it was Southpaw. Too funny. And highly indicative of your 'group think' mentality.

You guys do realize 'group think' is taught in college freshman sociology, right? lmao.

Russia's economy is going to get a huge boost thanks to the Iran Deal. Thanks Obama! He's going to have all the oil he needs for those tanks.

All? Since when is Dav all of us? Okay Kimon said it should be southpaw because you posted so soon after him, but I would say that was just speculation. Then again I've once or twice thought that southpaw was another of your alts, because your opinions were so similar, but I wasn't ever convinced or bored enough to make the accusation. If that idle thought was on the mark, then Dav got it right.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:28 PM
All? Since when is Dav all of us? Okay Kimon said it should be southpaw because you posted so soon after him, but I would say that was just speculation. Then again I've once or twice thought that southpaw was another of your alts, because your opinions were so similar, but I wasn't ever convinced or bored enough to make the accusation. If that idle thought was on the mark, then Dav got it right.

Like it matters, he's just a troll anyway. A normal person would actually produce facts and have a rational argument. He starts off with partisan attacks and idiotic talking points lifted straight from fringy Far Right wing websites and then ignores it when proof is shown to disprove his easy to disprove supposed points.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:30 PM
BTW, still waiting on that evidence that Russia selling a couple of S-300s will make up for over $200 billion in lost GDP. BTW, that would roughly be 1,700 S-300s they'd have to sell. I assume that's how many Iran is buying just to cover last year, right?

Oh, and what do they plan to sell to make up for their projected MASSIVE deficits moving forward...especially if oil does drop all the way to $20 a barrel as some analysts are predicting for this Winter?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:30 PM
Doing nothing guarantees they go nuclear.

Hi Moron, in case you didn't notice, we aren't doing nothing. We currently have sanctions, which, as the Adminstration admits, brought Iran to the table. It's because of our crippling sanctions that we brought the World's leading sponser of Terrorism to that table.

More so, it's easy to see you repeating the Administration talking points.

"it's either this or war"
"they are all warmongerers"

That's non-sense. You can get a better deal, increase sanctions, even promote regime change before even starting a war. Let alone, a ground war with troops for an occupation- something that NO ONE ON THE RIGHT IS TALKING ABOUT.

Bottom line, it's not within the President's power to do this alone. The Treaty clause of the Constitution requires Advise and Consent of the Senate because matters of international security requires the people's approval.

But this administration doesn't care. It's the one that rush this to the UN the monday after the agreement. And it's the administration that has allowed Iran to make secret side deals with the IAEA that the American people will not be able to see - which is directly against the Law Obama signed himself.

Why don't you progressives just admit that Obama has gone full dictator and you're ok with it? So long as everything is progressive, who cares?

It's not like Jacobinism hasn't gone wrong before.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:32 PM
All? Since when is Dav all of us? Okay Kimon said it should be southpaw because you posted so soon after him, but I would say that was just speculation. Then again I've once or twice thought that southpaw was another of your alts, because your opinions were so similar, but I wasn't ever convinced or bored enough to make the accusation. If that idle thought was on the mark, then Dav got it right.

Waaa waaa waaa.

You all look like morons who jump to conclusions. It's pretty clear.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:32 PM
Like it matters, he's just a troll anyway. A normal person would actually produce facts and have a rational argument. He starts off with partisan attacks and idiotic talking points lifted straight from fringy Far Right wing websites and then ignores it when proof is shown to disprove his easy to disprove supposed points.

This is mental martial arts Dav. It's true that his power level is barely above 0, but it won't be any fun at all if I go straight to 9000 without toying with him first.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:34 PM
This is mental martial arts Dav. It's true that his power level is barely above 0, but it won't be any fun at all if I go straight to 9000 without toying with him first.

Since when does martial arts have power levels, or do you like living in Dragonball Z land? It would make sense, you are THAT delusional.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:35 PM
We've already sanctioned pretty much everything and have done so for years...and they have the material and parts they need to build the bomb. So doing nothing (i.e. staying the course there) does NOT prevent them from getting the bomb and only encourages them to do so.


Full Dictator? That's rich. I guess this is the week that the Right is calling him a dictator instead of an empty suit weakling.

The sanctions were already as strong as they were ever going to get and going it alone (the other major powers think its a reasonable deal) affects nothing. It doesn't help us and basically it becomes another Cuba situation where our sanctions are meaningless and the vestige of a situation we created with our previous idiotic foreign policy in the first place. So...again DOING NOTHING and staying the course will not prevent them from getting the bomb. Other than trying this deal, the only option would be an armed conflict and that's what the GOP has been begging for the last couple of years. Mainly because they are a bunch of gutless chickenhawks that also thought invading and occupying Iraq was the best idea ever.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:35 PM
BTW, still waiting on that evidence that Russia selling a couple of S-300s

Who sells just a couple of missiles?

Intellectually dishonest often?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:35 PM
Waaa waaa waaa.

You all look like morons who jump to conclusions. It's pretty clear.

Still waiting for that answer on the S-300s...I'm sure you're working hard on it, right?

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:36 PM
Waaa waaa waaa.

You all look like morons who jump to conclusions. It's pretty clear.

Awwww. Sad little man comes here to pick a fight, loses and starts calling us names. Poor poor man has so little in his life.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:37 PM
Since when does martial arts have power levels, or do you like living in Dragonball Z land? It would make sense, you are THAT delusional.

You actually took that seriously?????

LMAO

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:38 PM
Who sells just a couple of missiles?

Intellectually dishonest often?

Do you have any idea how big a system the S-300 is? Its not just a Manpad you carry around. Its a multi vehicle integrated air-defense system that costs at least $115 million per unit. So how many "units" are they buying then to make up for that $200 billion?

Iran has a TOTAL defense budget of around $14-17 Billion (with an high end estimate of $30 billion which is unrealistic given their GDP)...so again, how is a country with a total defense budget that is maybe one tenth of that number lost going to really help out Russia's economy?


How are you this intentionally stupid?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:40 PM
We've already sanctioned pretty much everything and have done so for years...and they have the material and parts they need to build the bomb. So doing nothing (i.e. staying the course there) does NOT prevent them from getting the bomb and only encourages them to do so.

No, it's a fact that they stopped developing and came to the table because of the Sanctions and threats of force. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.

And stop calling it "doing nothing." That's the most intellectually dishonest statement in a long list of dishonest statements you have made today.


Full Dictator? That's rich.

What do you expect from someone who has broken his own law in defiance of Congress and the American people? By not turning over the side agreements with Iran, he has broken his own law.

You know what makes a dictator a dictator?

The word dictate is at it's root. When someone dictates your reality to you, they are a dictator. And that's exactly what Obama is doing to you.

There is nothing you've said that didn't come directly out of his lying mouth.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:41 PM
Do you have any idea how big a system the S-300 is?

You're the fool who called it "a couple missiles."

So which is it? Can you make up your fool mind already?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:42 PM
I'm also lost as to how our deal with Iran has anything to do with Russia selling advanced weapons to Iran in the first place? Its not like they are doing it because of sanctions being lifted. We could put sanctions back or take them away and it doesn't affect Russia one way or the other. Russia is doing it to thumb their nose at the West, nothing more. So unless you think this deal somehow compelled Putin to sell them weaponry or that the would have somehow not have been able to sell it to them before, I'm lost on your imagined connection here.

You still haven't explained how this sale saves the Russian economy either...not that I expect you to.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:44 PM
You're the fool who called it "a couple missiles."

So which is it? Can you make up your fool mind already?

Hey kids, remember that thing I said about how idiots and trolls latch onto something they think is a mistake or typo and ignore the rest of the argument? This is a great example of that phenomenon. Notice how he's still not answering the question and instead just attacking what he thinks is an inconsistency despite everyone on earth other than him being able to understand my question in context.

Still waiting...

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:44 PM
No, it's a fact that they stopped developing and came to the table because of the Sanctions and threats of force. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.

And stop calling it "doing nothing." That's the most intellectually dishonest statement in a long list of dishonest statements you have made today.




What do you expect from someone who has broken his own law in defiance of Congress and the American people? By not turning over the side agreements with Iran, he has broken his own law.

You know what makes a dictator a dictator?

The word dictate is at it's root. When someone dictates your reality to you, they are a dictator. And that's exactly what Obama is doing to you.

There is nothing you've said that didn't come directly out of his lying mouth.

Directly from his mouth? Does that mean Dav is Obama?

Sieg heil! Mister President!

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:46 PM
Directly from his mouth? Does that mean Dav is Obama?

Sieg heil! Mister President!

You'd enjoy it consider how much you hate Jews.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:46 PM
No, it's a fact that they stopped developing and came to the table because of the Sanctions and threats of force. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.

And stop calling it "doing nothing." That's the most intellectually dishonest statement in a long list of dishonest statements you have made today.




What do you expect from someone who has broken his own law in defiance of Congress and the American people? By not turning over the side agreements with Iran, he has broken his own law.

You know what makes a dictator a dictator?

The word dictate is at it's root. When someone dictates your reality to you, they are a dictator. And that's exactly what Obama is doing to you.

There is nothing you've said that didn't come directly out of his lying mouth.

Constitutionally, the President has near unlimited power to negotiate with other countries and even start military action overseas...but again, you knew that.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:48 PM
You'd enjoy it consider how much you hate Jews.

Disagreeing with a far right Israeli gov't led by Netanyahu (guessing that's your justification here) means a person hates Jews now?


Damn...I had no idea.

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:48 PM
You'd enjoy it consider how much you hate Jews.

Hate jews? Since when?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:49 PM
Hate jews? Since when?

I hope you do...why else did we build that camp together for them to work at?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:50 PM
Constitutionally, the President has near unlimited power to negotiate with other countries and even start military action overseas...but again, you knew that.

But not to create, and erase treaties.

Dishonest argument is dishonest.

But again, you already knew that.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:51 PM
Disagreeing with a far right Israeli gov't led by Netanyahu (guessing that's your justification here) means a person hates Jews now?




Actually, it's every Israeli politician, not just Netanyahu.

Keep trying to spread the Obama lies. They aren't true. But maybe if you repeat the lie enough....

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:52 PM
But not to create, and erase treaties.

Dishonest argument is dishonest.

But again, you already knew that.

He absolutely has authority to negotiate and sign treaties...to ratify lies with the Senate but again, you knew that. And he can do whatever he wants within reason via Executive Orders just like every president before him has done. But again, you know that...or at least you should.

Just like he can ease travel restrictions to Cuba but CANNOT lift the embargo because that was a congressional act but the former was left within his sphere of executive authority. But again, you knew that.

Troll.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:53 PM
Actually, it's every Israeli politician, not just Netanyahu.

Keep trying to spread the Obama lies. They aren't true. But maybe if you repeat the lie enough....

Right...I totally remember that. Disagreeing with the far right Likud type parties is now ALL Israeli politicians.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:53 PM
Hate jews? Since when?

It's amazing how you, Naz, balk and complain when a Jew builds a home on his land, but when Palestinians in Syria are being slaughtered by Iranian backed Assad, nothing.

Hate Jews? It's pretty clear you do.

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:53 PM
It's amazing how you, Naz, balk and complain when a Jew builds a home on his land, but when Palestinians in Syria are being slaughtered by Iranian backed Assad, nothing.

Hate Jews? It's pretty clear you do.

The Palestinians that have lived there for generations might disagree with the whole "his land" thing...but yeah.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 06:54 PM
Right...I totally remember that. Disagreeing with the far right Likud type parties is now ALL Israeli politicians.

Herzog is really right wing, lmao.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was joined by left-wing Zionist Camp leaders Tzipi Livni and Isaac Herzog in echoing a polite but firm message to the 22 representatives, boiled down by journalist Akiva Eldar to: ”Anyone who backs this agreement cannot be considered a friend of Israel, but, of course, you’re fully within your rights to vote in favor of Israel’s enemies. Who am I to interfere in US domestic affairs.”

Herzog commented, ”I, too, am deeply critical of the deal with Iran. … I believe there’s great danger in letting the hungry Iranian tiger out of his cage and allowing him to roam the region and upset its balance of power. … The agreement legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state within 10 or 15 years, in a totally different way from today.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/16/israeli-leaders-unite-across-political-divide-against-iran-deal/

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:54 PM
I hope you do...why else did we build that camp together for them to work at?

But they are well fed and get proper education. Why in a couple of generations they'll be almost like real people and we can let them live next to the latinos or even the neg... oops sorry the "african americans" (most of whom have lived here in Finland from birth btw)

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 06:56 PM
It's amazing how you, Naz, balk and complain when a Jew builds a home on his land, but when Palestinians in Syria are being slaughtered by Iranian backed Assad, nothing.

Hate Jews? It's pretty clear you do.

When?

Davian93
08-20-2015, 06:56 PM
Herzog is really right wing, lmao.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was joined by left-wing Zionist Camp leaders Tzipi Livni and Isaac Herzog in echoing a polite but firm message to the 22 representatives, boiled down by journalist Akiva Eldar to: ”Anyone who backs this agreement cannot be considered a friend of Israel, but, of course, you’re fully within your rights to vote in favor of Israel’s enemies. Who am I to interfere in US domestic affairs.”

Herzog commented, ”I, too, am deeply critical of the deal with Iran. … I believe there’s great danger in letting the hungry Iranian tiger out of his cage and allowing him to roam the region and upset its balance of power. … The agreement legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state within 10 or 15 years, in a totally different way from today.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/16/israeli-leaders-unite-across-political-divide-against-iran-deal/

So to be a True American, we need to allow our foreign policy to be directed from Tel Aviv? That makes total sense. Should we run by all foreign policy decisions? Maybe we should just surrender en masse to Israel?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:00 PM
Just like a typical progressive, you conflate the two.

I stand by my statement, you hate Jews.

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:01 PM
When?

It's clear you care more about when a Jew builds a home.

Why do you hate Christians and Jews so much? How is that "tolerant?"

Davian93
08-20-2015, 07:06 PM
Just like a typical progressive, you conflate the two.

I stand by my statement, you hate Jews.

Good luck with that. I'd love to understand why you think Jewish settlers have more right to that land than the Palestinians that have lived there for centuries. If its because their ancestors 100 generations before MIGHT have lived there if you believe the Bible is 100% a history book, then that is just sad. I bet you think you own your house 100% rightfully though and not the First Nations people that lived there before Europeans came to North America. But that's somehow different even though that was a much less defensible seizure of lands from the rightful owner.

So is that it? Is it because your faith and the bible tells you that Israel used to be Judea and the homeland of the Jewish people that it must be so? Should the Jews not give it back to the Phoenicians/Philistines then? I mean, its not like Judea was empty when they arrived back from Egypt...as I recall, there was quite a bit of brutally violent murder, war and rape involved in them getting their promised land even in their version of the story.

The Unreasoner
08-20-2015, 07:06 PM
Wait...so is this Sodas? I don't have any data on Sodas's posting style, he never was that active when I was, so I never took any notes on him.

Whoever he is certainly has a lot of energy, huh? Seriously...

In any case...I've only skimmed through the recent posts, so I'll just ask Troll:

Do you actually have an opinion on the Iran deal? And, do you really think it actually made anything worse?

Also, maybe it's worth asking...
Are gholam constructs? I wouldn't put it past Southpaw to just bring in a 'ringer'...

Nazbaque
08-20-2015, 07:08 PM
It's clear you care more about when a Jew builds a home.

Why do you hate Christians and Jews so much? How is that "tolerant?"

Again when and where?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:13 PM
Good luck with that. I'd love to understand why you think Jewish settlers have more right to that land than the Palestinians that have lived there for centuries. If its because their ancestors 100 generations before MIGHT have lived there if you believe the Bible is 100% a history book, then that is just sad. I bet you think you own your house 100% rightfully though and not the First Nations people that lived there before Europeans came to North America. But that's somehow different even though that was a much less defensible seizure of lands from the rightful owner.

Centuries? The Jewish people have been there for over 3000 years. And that is not just recorded by the bible, but by archaeological evidence. Once again, you can ignore science, but that's on you.

So is that it? Is it because your faith and the bible tells you that Israel used to be Judea and the homeland of the Jewish people that it must be so? Should the Jews not give it back to the Phoenicians/Philistines then?

No, because those people where evil, murderers that also practiced infanticide, much like modern day Progressives who support Planned Parenthood's chop shop.

If you notice the history of Israel, you will realize that the Jews are the indigenous people of Judea and Samaria. In any case, they would have been happy to live side by side with the Palestinians in a two state solution from day one, but remember, that's when the Palestinians and their Arab allies attacked Israel. For them, as is under Sharia law, they can't allow a Jew to take any law that was ever under Muslim rule.

So, too bad. So sad, they lost. And did again in the Yom Kippur war, when they once again attacked Israel, only to lose Jerusalem which was under Jordanian rule(Not Palestinian).

I get it that you are upset that we are building homes on empty fields the 'Palestinians' don't use. But that is life.

More importantly, if you say you are for human rights, why aren't you protesting in the streets because Assad is using chemical weapons, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, on his Palestinian population?

The Unreasoner
08-20-2015, 07:15 PM
I get it that you are upset that we are building homes on empty fields the 'Palestinians' don't use. But that is life.
We?

Troll Destroyer
08-20-2015, 07:18 PM
Whoever he is certainly has a lot of energy, huh? Seriously...

I'll take that as a compliment.

Do you actually have an opinion on the Iran deal?

Yes, it's terrible. Not only because Obama is hiding the contents of the IAEA agreements, but because there is no true "coming clean" of past issues. I would be happy to go into this, but it's too bad everyone is too busy sniping at me, instead of staying on subject. That's not my fault.


And, do you really think it actually made anything worse?

Yes, because of how Obama rushed everything to the UN. Now Russia and China think it's ok to do business with Iran.

p.s. I honestly don't bite, I'm just sick and tired of the strawmen arguments and falsities.