Alright, i've been a little busy to come on here a lot - dancing around with real estate agents'll do that to you!
Before I get to the personal stuff, let me just say that i'm a proud Australian, and even prouder member of a family with such a strong military tradition. I've lost relations in WW1 and Vietnam. My dad is former SAS-R and, before that, Commando. Both my uncles served in Desert Storm, my dad's dad was a machine gunner at Tobruk and his dad was at Anzac Cove before being killed at Fromelles, and lastly, before my Mum's family came here, her mother lost her whole family in Treblinka (being Jews). I'm not anti-Australian, i'm not anti-American, and i'm most definately not anti-Israel.
What I _am_ is anti-fallacious wars, and anti-ignorance (Hello Terminator!).
Terminator said:
Whats worrying is that people like Alex28 and BluesBreaker except everything Moore says without even questioning it, its like they want to believe no matter what, their truly brainwashed, too much e and pot probably, their brains have sadly become like mush.
I will debate you under the table about ANY aspect of politics, you ignorant f**k. Yeah, my brain's turned to mush, just try me
![Smile :) :)](/data/emoji/263a.png)
. Don't you dare talk about me like you have ANY idea. You're getting torn apart by Alex28, and _you're_ the one who's brainwashed here, clown.
I did _not_ say I accepted what Moore said, but arguing semantics like Millersnose is is not an example of Moore lying. Did Condalezza Rice delibaretely mislead us for her Fuhrer's own gain? Yes. _How_ she did it is totally f**king irrelevant. It's all about implications.
The bottom line is we went into a war over false pretenses. There is _no_ connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, there are no chemical weapons (the only WMDs that Saddam _ever_ had was the ones _we_ gave him to fight the Ayatollah and our on again/off again friends the Kuwaitis) and he was no threat to us. It's a complete f**king fallacy to even SUGGEST it had anything to do with human rights, especially considering the things we've ("we've" being the west) allowed to happen.
Think about Washington's treaties with the Iroquoi (which were all broken, and then the Iroquoi were forced to pay "war" repatriations), the fiasco that is Guantanamo Bay, the British response to the Boxer Rebellion in China, hell, even Australia and our treatment of the Indigeneous population, not even mentioning illegal migrants. Bottom line is, if you want to act like the world police, you damn well better have a clean recent record of Human Rights.
But that's a tangent. Anywho, I don't necessarily believe the invasion has anything to do with oil, more I think it's punishment for Saddam thumbing his nose when he is supposed to be the oppressive puppet-dictator that the west can control. Hell, the West is supporting Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Sudan to name a few. The only time we seem to care is when these people _we_, more often than not, put into power decide to tell us to mind our own business. Think about your history. Countries like Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, Panama, Romania, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, Afghanistan, Zaire, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Libya. I could go on all night about how it's a cycle that's continually repeating - with examples - can you do the same about threats to our way of life without mentioning the people we've helped to put in power or helped fund at some stage? Of course you can't, because you don't have any f**king clue
![Smile :) :)](/data/emoji/263a.png)
.
Here's some little gem's i've collected along the way
![Smile :) :)](/data/emoji/263a.png)
.
Terminator said:
Maybe, but Im not going to back Moore even if most of what he says is true, because its not in my best interests too.
That is a super quote, really shows how much you care about the Iraqi's and their plight. *snort* Typical Liberal, "Oh, the poor Iraqi's, we just wanted to help you guys! ... What, no, it's not in _our_ best interests anymore, even if we did put the 'evildoer' into power!"
Terminator said:
... probably adopt a Isolationists policy
I've noticed how you like throwing words around you don't really know anything about. America very much HAS an isolationist policy. Sure, not as "isolationist" as the US used at the beginning of the WW1. But unless the US have vested interests, they do NOT go liberating countries. Who uses Veto more than all of the other members combined (excluding Britain - who votes with them anyway)? The good ole US of A! Who CONTINUALLY undermines the UN, dating from its inception and the Iranian affair in 1953 through the bombing of Nicuragua in 83 all the way to Iraq in 2003? I'll let you guess.
Terminator said:
Your [sic] too Anti US and Anti Bush to be taken seriously,
No one's taking you seriously anyways, you're too anti... Well, intelligent discussion for one (You, Marge Simpson's uncle and Pol Pot would've been top mates i'd imagine. They shared some of your ideals, shoot em all and let god sort em out! YEE HAW), anti-muslim for another, for anybody to listen, short of having a good chuckle at your posts.
Terminator said:
if the WMDs were found in Iraq, the first thing Moore would say was they got planted by the US, and you would agree with him.
Absolutely Irrelevant argument. I guess I forgot how you were "psychic Terminator - the amazing man who can forsee things that never f**king substantiated!". Allow me to apologise!
Terminator said:
His country was hit in an unprovoked attack, and he responded, would Iraq have been invaded if 9/11 hadnt happened?
... That had _absolutely no_ connection to Iraq. And my brain is the one that's been turned to mush :roll:.
Terminator said:
But thats not the point Alex, the point is nobody in the public cared, about the Iraqis until their governments sent troops into the middle east, and then their all of a sudden their incredibly concerned for the health and well being of the Iraqis.
I tend to believe that people speak for the circles they're apart of. That explains why no one cared around you, because you're a right-wing nutjob
![Smile :) :)](/data/emoji/263a.png)
. But anywho, on the contrary, Clinton placed Trading embargos on Iraq, which slowly strangling their economy further after the devastation of the Iraqi-Iranian war. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have been on Iraq's case ever since old Saddam gassed some Kurds. The Human Rights section of the UN (name eludes me right now) has done the same thing.
Terminator said:
but now he is attacking his own government at a really bad time, which says he's only trying to make some money,
That's the most interesting jump i've ever seen. Questioning things is part of a healthy, functioning democracy. The blind following of governments is completely f**king idiotic. Ask a Jew a little bit about that if you get the chance
![Smile :) :)](/data/emoji/263a.png)
. However, I like how _you_ accuse _me_ of following Michael Moore blindly (even though I can tear any argument you put up apart), yet you go and say something downright stupid like the above. I guess the Government is allowed to be followed "blindly", but heaven forbid someone do the same to a writer, especially if they write about the other side (You have no proof of me saying I followed what Moore said "blindly"). Ever heard of Salman Rushdie? Good show Termy, good show. :lol:
Terminator said:
... dont forget the US put Saddam up there in power back in the seventies. [sic] And if you make a mistake you should clean it up.
Uh oh, the Americans have some work cut out for them!
Terminator said:
Good thats where they should [sic] attacking, starting with a nuclear attack on mecca next ramadan.
Bahaha, you're a complete f**king nut-job. You're the flipside of those evil terrorists who want to kill all non-muslims, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION FROM 4 PAGES AGO! Nothing else needs to be said to an ignoramus.
Nuffy, I respect your intelligence, because you obviously have put some research into your topics of choice. However, I do believe you have to take everything into consideration here as well. Also, sometimes i come across being a lot more aggressive than I mean to be, don't think that, because that's not how I see what you're saying.
Libya is out of the terrorism business (What evidence is there to support this claim anyways? Qaddafi supported Arab organisations that wanted a united homeland, how is this any different than, say, our friends in Israel?), whilst their next door neighbours - Our old mates the Sudanese, who Reagan used as an excuse to go after Qaddafi - "terror"ise their local population mercilessly.
By the way, why was Reagan so upset at Qaddafi anyways? Oh yeah, because he supported Iran in the Iraq/Iran conflict! That was when our friend Saddam was doing as he was told though.
Iran is "open" in the sense that our oil companies have sweet deals. Not particularly "open" to anyone else. This has been since we removed the democratically elected Mosaddeq in 53 (barring a brief period with the Ayatollah Khomeini running the show), has sweet f**k all to do with Saddam.
North Korea has continued its nuclear weapons program. Certainly a huge back down there *grin*.