1,352 Forum Posts by "Commander-K25"
What is this "Politics Council"? What will it do?
They say that the war is about oil. Perhaps it is....
You know, the UK report in Iraqi atrocities has been very overlooked...
At 3/15/03 10:54 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The bottom line is, do you want a bunch of crack babies running around stealing your car? I didn't think so.
Do you want the value of human life reduced to an operation?
At 3/15/03 02:47 AM, thenark wrote: Not trying to steal evanauto's thread, his was better. But it seems to me that there is an alarming trend these days......Whereas, if the woman had gotten an abortion, she could have finished school, maybe gone to college or university, and get a decent job. Then have a child or two after she gets married and can handle the emotional and economic stress of having a child.
And whose fault is this?
So why is anyone opposed to abortion?
Why is anyone opposed to murder?
I can hear some people I know saying that "women have to take responsibility for their actions,
All people do.
and if they want to sleep around. They should have to suffer the consequences
You sow what you reap.
But according to my biology teacher, and I asked him, it takes a male and a female to cause a pregnancy. So tell me this. If the woman has to take responsibility and bear and raise the child, how come no such rule exists for the man who's semen caused the pregnancy?
There is. It's called child support.
It's not fair to punish women if you wont also punish men. But how could that be enforced? We cant just castrate anyone who gets a woman pregnant out of wedlock can we? So we look for an easier, less threatening solution. Man can sleep with whomever he so chooses with little or no consequences as to what his sperm does.
What a little gem of ignorance the above quote is.
However, Woman, is expected to sleep with no one until happily married and then have children with that man, and should she get pregnant without a husband, she should bear the child anyway and risk....who need no woman (or man as the case may be) to have a good time. So how can we tell a woman abortion is wrong in todays society, when you are an outcast if you arent sexually active after the age of 12?
This seems to be an anti-men rant. Are you a feminist by chance?
If a woman wants an abortion. She will have to live with that choice,
But more importantly, her child will NOT live with that decision.
it is her body, and her choice.
What about her child's choice?
And that woman will regret that abortion for the rest of her life. But is is her decision to make. Not some stuck up republican jerk-off who probably doesnt even have kids and probably date raped some women back in his college frat days.
And your final statement of meaningless slander shows your true bias and prejudice.
At 3/14/03 02:07 PM, Slizor wrote: Heh, in like a week or so I'm doing MUNGA (Model UN General Assembly)....I'm Iraq. Mwhaha!
That's somehow appropriate.
Let's see, what did I do? Well, I played BF1942 and fragged some Germans. Does that count?
At 2/28/03 04:13 PM, Slizor wrote: If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.
I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?
Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.
Or, in communism, greedy people put out crap and get away with it because they can easily exploit a large and cumbersome bureacracy, which any centrally planned economy must inevitably be. In Soviet Russia, pharmaceutical factory workers would water down drugs to meet and exceed quotas and thus get bonuses for their "extra work."
In capitalism, there is choice. If you make a bad product or do a bad job, you will go out of business or be fired. If you work well, you will be rewarded. In communism, it is easy for the greedy to trick the system and everyone else pretty much just gets lumped together and evened out, despite their talents or strengths.
At 3/14/03 11:53 AM, Slizor wrote: We we've been missing a topic on this for quite some time. Anyhow, a set of questions that should spark debate (their intention is the polarize views.)
1. Which side's fault is it for the lack of peace in the region?
2. Are suicide bombings an expression of hopelessness?
3. How old is Israel?
4. Do the Palestinians have any claim to the land?
NO, NO, NO, NO!
This is not a response to the questions, this is my reaction to the reintroduction of this topic. I ain't gonna do this again!
Well....maybe I will.
At 3/14/03 11:36 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: It's because they all wear berets! This should be a war on fashion, not facism, tearaways, not terrorism.
To wal-mart! Down with berets!
YES! We shall have no more of their crusty bread and fancy wines!
There is at least one informed young person out there. Check out these essays. (Note: Not suitable for the Marxist-minded)
At 3/11/03 12:55 PM, D2KVirus wrote: In a poll in The Times yesterday...
Ahhhh....The smell of unproven, unfounded ranting.
At 3/14/03 01:09 AM, implodinggoat wrote: We should resurect the Evolution Vs. Communism thread Commander. I had a great time demolishing socialist and communist idealogy on that one.
That one was fun!
Now where are Biseor and GameboyCC?
If anyone remember's me (Slizor, you out there?), I used to be a regular on here; I left, and am now back. Could someone fill me in on the Politics Crew, League of the Militant Godless, etc.
Also, this forum's better than when I left it. It's no longer left of Marx or long, vengeful posts. Hmm, on that note, I'll see if I can find my old Abortion thread or the Palestine/Israel one.
At 3/13/03 04:36 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Actually, a doctor in Iran has (as he calls it) proven that Saddam is already death. Saddam hasn't appeared in the media since 1999, and that's the year in wich french doctors predicted his death, because he was suffering form lymfe cancer. Now the iranian doctor has shown that the ears of saddam have changed over the years. Ears are like fingerprints: they are unique to every individual. The "Saddam" that is ruling iraq now is simply a counterpart.
interest thought, eh?
Actually it isn't so far-fetched. Saddam (real or not), is/was(!) known to have numerous look alike doubles that would be in various palaces and places to lessen the risk of assassination.
Another one we're waiting on is Castro. He can't have long to go and once he's gone all the Cuban exiles and refugees back from the original 50's exodus on will flood back and bring massive capital with them. Many have done quite well during their years in the US.
At 3/12/03 10:56 AM, OMGWhoIsIT wrote:
america going to war against iraq is stupid because inspection is working.
Then why isn't Saddam disarming?
"but saddam still has hidden weapons of mass destruction." as long as they are hidden they pose less of an immediate threat.
Did you hear what you just said!? If they are "hidden" he could be doing anything with them, selling them to anybody. And besides, are we going to inspect his country forever?
bush: send in the troops, lets get this fucker now.
saddam: I might as well go down fighting. time to dust off the womd's.
whereas if inspection is given time to work, saddam will have to bury his weapons deeper and make them more inaccessible.
currently, saddam is complying, albeit grudgingly. why? because he knows he has a lot to loose. whereas if US go against the consensus of the UN, he will have nothing to loose.
He has nothing to lose but his life. He knows that if he uses WMDs in a war, it will look all the worse at his war crimes trial.
on the matter of the UN, I know most people here see it as irrelevant, but doesn't the mere fact that it represents a consensus between all of the powerful nations in the world count for something? going against the un means the us would be going against other powerful nations, breeding ill will between this. ok, I know you're going to turn this back on france. but I feel their position is more logical than the us position. there's a saying: let sleeping dogs lie. I think that just about sums up the situation. it's not like saddam is an immediate threat. and with the increased scrutiny inspections bring, it also makes it harder for iraq to increase its war capabilities.
"Let sleeping dogs lie"?! Excuse me, but Saddam needs to be held up to the standards that were set after the Gulf War. Believe me, he is not "sleeping." A dictator like that does not just "sleep." He's doing something and I bet it involves WMDs.
america is not a popular country. it is a powerful country. it is an arrogant country. america reminds me of rome. rome was defeated by barbarrians. what are islamic terrorists? not meaning to be coarse, but they are barbarians. the reason rome was defeated by these barbarians was their methods, surprise attacks and what-not. eventually the roman empire disintegrated due to this.
how could this be stopped? well a good start would be to not give the "barbarians" any legitimate reason to harbour resentment against the US. going against the wishes of its allies within the region would definitely add to illwill against america. (it's my understanding that most of the countries within the region wish for inspection to be given more time)
Eventually, this will be true. Any "great power" falls. However, we cannot just become isolationists. The world is not like that anymore. We're all connected and international affairs are important.
I don't think the US will leave the UN any time soon, at least as long as the UN can maintain some semblance of importance in world affairs. Unfortunantly, that veneer of compotence and authority grows ever thinner. It is fast becoming the League of the United Nations.
During the Korean War in the early 50s, General MacArthur said that if we didn't go nuclear against them, we'd still be there in 50 years. Guess what? It's been fifty years; we're still there. Maybe he was right.
I think that we really could build an international "coalition" on the N. Korea issue as the evidence is hardly in dispute that they have illegal unclear weapons. But, this issue have to be handled after Iraq. The UN can't even handle one crisis. Two and Annan would have stroke or something.
A few quotes....
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
-John Stuart Mill
"I do not believe that the men who served in uniform in Vietnam have been given the credit they deserve. It was a difficult war against an unorthodox enemy."
-General William C. Westmoreland
"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
-General Ulysses S. Grant
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."
-Jose Narosky
At 3/12/03 09:11 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Yesterday the British were conducting a training mission involving paratroopers along the Irag/Kuwait border. When an Iraqi regiment saw this they assumed that the war had started and immediatley took the oppurtunity to throw down their guns, march across the border and surrender to the British.
Prior to this I felt that the Iraqi military might actually be willing to die for the benefit of their most glorius leader but now I am convinced that there is little threat of a war with Iraq turning into another Vietnam.
What do you think? Is this a good indication of the resolve and commitment of the average Iraqi soldier or am I jumping to conclusions?
In the first Gulf War the Iraqis were surrendering to reporters and camera crews just so they could GET OUT OF THERE!
Remember that the average Iraqi soldier does not wan to be there. He is a conscript, drafted into the army. Only the "elite" Republican Guard are true professionals.
At 3/12/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote: "the problem with a smoking gun is that you dont see the smoke" donald rumsfeld. All this time and he still hasnt gotten the smoking gun metaphor right.
I think it was something more along the lines of "The problem with a smoking gun is that you dont see the smoke until its too late."
The Tinderbox of Europe for a reason.
About the "smoking gun..."
I "love" how certain phrases seem to catch on in the media and among politicians. One we've seen a lot of recently is "smoking gun." People keep saying that one must be produced or discovered for Iraq to be declared non-compliant. However, this is not the case.
This "smoking gun" does not need to be produced because we know Saddam has it held "under the table," so to speak. We discovered it, i.e. biological/nuclear weapons and weapons programs at the end of the first Gulf War. We ordered him to get rid of them in plain sight so that his compliance could be documented. He hasn't done that. Therefore, if he had the gun twelve years ago and hasn't lain it on the table as we have asked, then he must still have it hidden. It's a simple process of elimination and logic.
At 3/11/03 12:01 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
Unbelieveable....
That's like the erasing of the WTC out of pictures that occured after 9/11.
At 2/28/03 02:59 PM, SolarisDX wrote: I got passed this link by a friend. It's a brief test to gauge your political beliefs.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Oh, not this again...
And yes, I answered honestly.
Power? Well, that could mean many things.
I would nominate Col. Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, commander of the Imperial German forces (the Shutztruppe) in German East Africa during World War I. Throughout the war in which he was beseiged by British, Belgian and Portuguese forces that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. He never commanded more that about 14,000. From 1914 to 1918 he conducted a brilliant fighting withdrawal in the face of these odds and thus tied up massive amounts of the Allies' resources on one German colony. During the last year of the war he stripped his force down to 2,000 his most experienced, veteran soldiers and led what is perhaps the most well executed guerilla war in history by invading Portuguese territory (today, Mozambique). He never surrendered and never lost a single battle, the only German general of the war to do so.
Not only did he conduct and effective war, he fought an honorable one. His force was mostly native, black askaris (native troops). Unlike most European officers of the time, he did not treat them as inferior. They were well trained with the same Prussian discipline and skill as his German troops. He did not discriminate; White and black fought side by side. He was also merciful toward his enemies. In Battle of Tanga in which the British badly botched an amphibious landing and allowed their numerically superior force of Indian colonial troops to be broken by a small but skillful force of Vorbeck's Shutztruppen. Afterwards he allowed the British to evacuate their wounded and leave the coastline peacefully. He even met and had tea with the British officers to discuss the battle. In the years to come, the British repaid him with acts of treachery such as visiting a harbor under a white flag and then attempting to saboatage ships while their officers spoke.
Vorbeck finally voluntarily turned his force in after learning of the Armistice. He and his officers were allowed to leave for Germany with their swords.
After the war he led the Freikorps in attempt to stabilize a turbulent and chaotic, post-war Germany. He was a staunch believer in German nationalism and the Empire but actually led opposition to Hitler in the Reichstag during the early 30's. He was a hero to the German people and too famous to be killed so he was simply forced out of any political power during World War II.
After WWII he was bankrupt and in despair. Such was his former enemy's respect for him, that Jan Smuts, leader of the British forces in German East Africa, actually arranged for a pension to be paid him and the two became good friends. Vorbeck died in the early 1960s.
At 3/8/03 07:11 AM, Slizor wrote: Commander! Decided to come back for good? I've been missing some decent opposition.
Perhaps. This forum irks me greatly but I can't resist.
Sad as it may be, war often does foster innovation and economic growth.
As for whether anyone "wants", certainly not. Nevertheless, it will most probably come anyway.
Human shields? Saddam loves those people. One group that moved in to "protect" a school was shocked to discover that an Iraqi army regiment was then billeted in their location. Saddam is counting on us not to shoot at the "human shields".
At 3/7/03 04:24 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if the average European is more informed than the average American, and I'm sure that many of them are passionate. I was just saying that there could be some people who are apathetic. I'm not saying that Europeans in general are unpassionate and uninformed; I was just trying to make the point that poll data isn't always 100% reliable.
Not only unreliable but easily manipulated. If you ask the right questions to the right people and spin the results the right way, you can 'prove' almost anything you want.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Mark Twain
At 3/7/03 10:59 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: The combined might of the Poltics BBS has come to bear on Panik, and he can't stand up to the withering firepower!
The mighty, overbearing weight of the ignorant?
The withering firepower of blind leftism?
