S1867 approved by the Senate

Discussion in 'World Events' started by S.A.M., Dec 3, 2011.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not worried SAM
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Obviously not. You're absorbed with the "threats" 6000 miles away


    Each star represents a US military base, but Iran is the threat. :roflmao:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah, Iran has really LONG RANGE missles already SAM.

    As to your picture, are you claiming Iran has no Military bases?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    In the words of the most eloquent Graham Simmons:

     
  8. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Iran is such a big threat as to justify all those bases. :roflmao:

    SAM, if you don't think that Iran is trying to gain more military power then your obviously far less intelligent then you've tried to make yourself look over the past few years.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I don't think anyone is under any illusion as to exactly how scared Americans are of Iran. Yes?

    How much more? How much did they spend on their military this year? As % of GDP and in dollars?
     
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    You do understand that the piece is a critique of Western media distortion/bias?
    "Tenuous" ?
    And good work it is - as they point out the abuses of the TNC as well.
    If this stuff was widespread - as hyped via Western Media - there would be ample evidence.
    The guy was no angel. But he did, undoubtedly vastly improve the education, health and standard of living of Libyans - now reset to trashed.
    Once NATO committed to taking sides, regime change was the agenda (illegal) and the flaming of the fires of civil war has led to the destruction of infrastructure, services and the unnecessary loss of civilian life. How this is morally acceptable is beyond me, particularly given the fact that the NTC has committed arguably worse human rights abused than was pinned on Gaddafi.
    No, human rights abuses are never OK and should rightly be abhorred and exposed by the media. Of course both sides should be exposed in even measure and to even revulsion...
    Gustav is voice of reason around here.
     
  11. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Here`s a test for the intellect... When militarily surrounded by a know serial aggressor via countless US and NATO military bases, and accustomed to decades of threatening WesternUSrael rhetoric - is it logical to arm oneself or disarm oneself? Should be a cinch for you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Self defence legislation specifies that shooting somebody in self defence is not a crime, whereas breaking + entering, trespassing on somebody's property and then shooting them dead qualify as three crimes. Tell me, which one of those sounds like the US war machine, and which side sounds like the citizens of various middle eastern countries?


    I'd say that breaking and entering into a cockpit of three airliners and killing the pilots and then flying the planes into buildings is pretty much in the LATTER catagory SAM.

    Self Defense is when you make sure the assholes who plan that shit can't do it again.
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    They are critiques of various media outlets that are Western, yes. But they are not critiques of "Western media distortion" writ large - they are themselves major pieces of the Western media, doing the criticizing there. The criticism is of a certain subset of media which is sensationalist and toadies to in-group authority. The implication being that Western media, writ large, is a multi-faceted entity with various factions existing in tension with one another. Some of them represent enlightenment ideals about objectivity and speaking truth to power, some are craven political arms of various ideologies and interests, some are rejectionist radical left outlets, other are crank conspiracy media, etc.

    The point being that the podium-pounding bullhorn slogans about "the evil Western media and their lies" don't represent insightful analysis. Like most political speech rendered in such broad-brush terms, it amounts to pro-conflict propaganda. We don't end up with an improved understanding of which media sources are unreliable, nor what their motives are, nor do we empower the other media with visibly superior reliability and transparent motives. Instead, we are invited to write off the West, writ large, as a violent authoritarian conspiracy which employs pervasive media brainwashing to control a docile, sheepish population for nefarious ends. The program of response implied by such a dark, conspiratorial ideation is troubling. The program of response implied by the alternative ideation - the West as a multi-faceted, democratic society with many different competing currents - is entirely different and less ominous. The irony of your depending on Western media to make your case is pretty much fatal to your attempted point.

    That's correct. What AI has said is "well, we don't know if that is true or not." You have leapt from that, straight to "AI discredits XYZ."

    Now if you want to criticize people for making hard accusations without solid evidence, and for political ends, then you can of course go right ahead regardless. Even if the accusations end up being correct, those people had no way of knowing at the time. But to do that, you'll first have to stop trafficking in hard accusations absent solid evidence, for political ends, youself.

    Indeed. And this visible even-handedness and remove boosts their credibility on questions of fact, no? In which case, it becomes difficult to deny that Qaddafi's regime was guilty of all manner of crimes against humanity. And likewise, Assad's, etc.

    And now that there is an actual investigation underway, we'll have the chance to discover whether such evidence exists or not. At least a few credible people have claimed to already possess such - including the ICC prosecutor threatening forthcoming charges for such crimes. Would be a pretty interesting day if he's shown to be full of hot air, no?

    Again, it is incongruous for you to make strong conclusions based on a lack of available evidence from what was until recently a warzone. If you are serving the truth here, and not just jumping to whatever politically-convenient assertion can plausibly be sustained by the data available today - something you are lambasting the Evil Western Media Distortion for doing - then you ought to simply wait until the relevant investigations are completed before taking a position, no?

    But, are they? Libya is still pumping plenty of oil - where can we find objective documentation of the damage to Libya's standard of living? All I can find on the internet are unsubstantiated anti-NATO rants making such accusations, but without any data. Seems awfully premature - shouldn't we wait until we have reliable information on exactly how this has shaken out, before leaping to categorical, strong, politically-loaded conclusions? And maybe even allow some reasonable time for acute war issues to dissapate, before we try to assess the long-term impact on something as systemic as the standard of living?

    Regime change was the agenda before NATO took sides. There wouldn't have been distinct "sides" for a military alliance to take, in the first place, unless that was the case.

    Nobody except internet ranters and recalcitrant authoritarian governments has supported that contention, from what I can see. Where is your legal analysis of the relevant UN resolutions supporting this reading?

    Does "illegal" in the context of international law mean anything other than "the powers that be won't let you get away with it?"

    I've asked you to substantiate those assertions multiple times now. If you aren't going to do that, then don't bother trying to club anyone over the head with them. This whole line is very thin on facts, objectivity, and basic intellectual humility, for somebody presuming to lambast others on their failures at such.

    In addition to the simple calculus of what damage would have been done in some alternate scenario (which I haven't seen you even attempt yet, despite repeated requests for such), there is the issue of legitimacy and political freedom. Qaddafi was not legitimate, and there is a moral value to the establishment of legitimate governance in Libya, and which justifies paying some price in blood and treasure. Likewise, Qaddafi is not justified in expending any blood or treasure defending an illegitimate system. All of the damage he did in defense of his illegitimate system represents further, compounding crimes. The damage done by the rebellion, on the other hand, can be counted as just provided it was suitably proportionate.

    But I'm not going to go to the trouble to get into a detailed, complete analysis of that if you aren't going to bother substantiating your assertions in the first place. Plus, many of the most relevant factors may well not become clear until years from now. These considerations being rightly the province of historical study, exactly because of the need for remove and hindsight.

    That presumes that both sides committed equal crimes, in equal measure - something that you have not established.

    And it again seems to ignore the ongoing crimes of the Qaddafi regime over decades, not least his basic violation of the right to political self-determination of the Libyan nation. The two sides are not moral equals at the outset, so even if they did commit equal crimes that would still leave a moral differential between them.
     
  14. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    In the you, Esse it's all Mish-Mushkila. We don't need to extinguish distinguish Persians in this because they talk sorta like that, are brown, and have oil.

    We can dehumanize them just as we did the Japanese- google anti-japanese propaganda USA and substitute Iran for Japs, nips, gooks, etc. Stoopid IraqImeanIran don't know shit about nukular teknology. Don't listen to their talk about Islam forbidding unprovoked attack. They're a theocracy. They're clever, no they're not but they told us and our Chosen Ones to stay the fuck out of their country. A buncha religious nuts vying for office- Who do they think they are, America?

    This is the past repeating if we don't call it out, as in

    :mod hat:

    adoucette, would you please diagram or describe for us intelligently the connection(s) you are alleging or insinuating between the 9-11 attacks and Iran?
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No it's not.

    We were in a full out war with the Japanese, started by their unprovoked sneak attack on us, killing thousands.

    More to the point, the Japanese Military had already proven they were blood thirsty racists intent on killing damn near everyone who wasn't Japanese because they truly believed that they were a superior race that was destined to rule the world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

    They deserved every single epithet thrown their way, until they surrendered AND changed their ways.

    Arthur
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I didn't allege or insinuate that Iran had anything to to with the 9/11 attacks.

    BUT

    The 9/11 attacks made it painfully clear that we must not let ourselves be the victim of asymmetric warfare like that again.

    And so it is a legitimate form of self defense to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a country like Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
     
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    How can you compare tensions with Iran with 9-11?

    Please be specific.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    9/11 was an example of asymmetric warfare.

    Where a small group of fanatics with a bit of money, time and a place to plan managed to do great harm to us and the world in general.

    A nuclear weapon in the hand of Iranian fanatics is a much larger threat.

    More likely directly to Israel, but potentially to us as well.

    After all, you can deliver a nuclear weapon in other means besides a missile.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  19. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Let's see, a simple question for you sir:
    Who killed more people yesterday, last month, last year, decade century?:

    -Persia/Iran
    -The United States of America

    Take your time.

    For extra credit state the reason(s).
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    More than 100k dead non-combattant civilians. Millions hurt, impoverished, and displaced.

    Reason: A majority of USis felt Saddam Hussein complicit in 9/11 and determined to attack teh murka with Dubya MdS.

    And his sons were dicks to chicks.

    I have 100 Extra-Credit points.
    You have none. No points for stealing my superior reason (civil rights).

    TeamUSA we are not because we can't afford it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Apparently you don't care about the millions dead in the decade of wars leading up to kicking Saddam out, do you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

    Of course not.

    I guess it was ok for Saddam to kill, gas and murder his own people and those in neighboring countries?

    But HEAVEN FORBID if the US and coalition forces brings that long campaign of killing to an end.

    I mean what could be worse than getting rid of a BRUTAL dictator and for the first time EVER giving the Iraqi people the chance to write their own constitution and elect their own leaders?

    http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution.html

    What BS
    Saddam wasn't officially blamed for 9/11.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml

    No, you haven't earned one logic point yet.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Saddam was blamed for 9-11. Look back to 2003 and there was plenty of that going around. It / I doesn't have to be intelligent to be American.

    US played no small part in the Iran-Iraq war (different sides, but all profitable to LockMart).

    The killing (sadly) hasn't ended in Iraq (or AfPakIran for that matter).

    Hey, I called points. That means i tally them and you're down as low as your nation's defecant deficit.
     

Share This Page