This is why I stay out of political debates. Some people just refuse to except other views that conflict with their own.

That's because the media is a bullying form of extreme fascism, hell bent on stirring us up into a state of patriotic fear, and in turn becoming fascists ourselves without really knowing it.

This war needn't be fought at all. No war needs to be fought. It's just a case of (some) Americans taking it upon themselves to, since their country is so young, physically afar, and historically famous for defiant victories, get into the heat of the action and ensure they don't lose face. So when things turn sour on a date which everybody remembers now (fancy remembering the dead by a mere number!), let's all jump onto the "We're going to war!" bandwagon.

It's to save our children. Not. Well, perhaps that is the intention, but such personal bias to 9/11 has clouded many people's judgements, made them disgustingly blood-thirsty, making them almost unhuman in their want of revenge (not justice, but plain, simple revenge). Saving our children may well be the purpose of flying over Iraq and dropping a few hundred bombs here and there and hoping it's going to end things. But it won't. Can't you see that? The world is in a mess and we're all responsible right now for screwing it up.

If war was the answer, this thing would have been over in a matter of weeks, like the media emphasised when we first declared war on all terrorist factions. Years, not weeks, later, and we've made absolutely no progress. Surely you can't think that war is still the right way to go about things. We're just stirring them up even more. Giving them more reason to continue in their spotlight-seeking revenge.

Without reason, nobody can effectively damage anything or anyone.

What's the bet that this post, as well as Patrick's more personal response, is ignored? What's the bet that the blinkers remain physically embedded onto the warmongers' eyes? What's the bet that this thing isn't over by this time next year? What's the bet that the media continues to stir things up by giving ridiculous amounts of publicity to a bomb going off somewhere in India? What's the bet that the unwitting fascists amongst us get all giddy and personal and uptight and patriotic and all the other things that make them despicably arrogant, foolish, embarrassing human beings after reading this post?

Or what's the bet that those same people flicked over this post, ignored the real points of discussion to be found here, and choose to jump on me for giving a heated, personal opinion on the one thing (that would be war) that's causing, when you get down to it, fellow-"goodies" to neddlessly quarrel with each other instead of being reasonable and humane, like humans should do.

Or you could just continue to be your usual patronising self and denounce my debating rhetoric as "getting old", as you do with Pat; sub-consciously hoping, as you write such nonsensical advice, that your political buddies are on the way to back you up and feel good about yourself.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Thanks for clearing that up, DC.

I thought the coalition invaded Iraq because of Sadaam's WMDs.

:p

Thanks for clearing that up, DC.

I thought the coalition invaded Iraq because of Sadaam's WMDs.

:p [/b][/quote]Your thinking was correct Plaw. They did go into Iraq to disarm Saddam from using his weapons of mass destruction. You know, the weapons that the United Nations gave him 9 years to move out of the country. They went into Iraq with the intent of Removing Saddam, finding any weapons of mass destruction that he may have not moved out of Iraq, and destroying all terrorists. You know, the terrorists from the same organization that met with Saddam before 9/11. Gee, you seem to be very forgetful thses days.


Don Cardi

So tell me something then Mick. After the USA was attacked on SEPTEMBER 11th 2001, that date, ( if you want I can provide you with many peoples names too) we weren't supposed to go into Afghanastan and destroy all the terrorists and their training camps? We shouldn't have taken out the Taliban, a government that harbored and supported terrorists and their training camps?

If we would have carpet bombed the region, then the war would have been over in three days. But we do not do things like that. Instead we try to protect the innocents from that region of the world, and our worrying about the innocents is what's made this a tough and long war to fight. And it is the way that this war should be fought. We are not mass murderers like those animals.

Believe me my friend, those people who were murdered on SEPTEMBER 11th 2001 are not people that are only remembered by a date! The memory of those people are very real to me and many other people that I know. Maybe to you it is just a date that represents their demise. But to me there are many many personal memories of those murdered.


Don Cardi

With all due respect to the 3000 Americans that were killed that September day.

But will that day in some way become another form of the "race card", played whenever one needs a good reason for something?

At times I am beginning to think so. And this bothers me.

Karl

An example?

Must be old age.

Either that, or the brainwashing I've been getting from the liberal media. :rolleyes:

:p

Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself......

And you know what they say: Laughter is the best medicine.

In that case, it's becoming a bit of a shambles, embarrassment, humiliation, mess, whatever; but that's a moot point, as I'm sure you'd agree with me that the war now is no "war", but a chore, where, like I said, nobody wants to lose face and admit to their mistakes.

Your use of the word innocent is erratic and volatile to say the least, Cardi; it pops up whenever you try to justify this war, as if it's your protective shield. Innocents were killed on September 11th! Oh no! "Innocent" people, in the way you claim them to be, are killed everyday. Imagine if everybody was as bloodthirstily avengeful as you...

I admire anybody who stands by their own beliefs in a respectful way, as indeed you, for the most part, tend to ("I'm older and therefore wiser than thou" digs at Patrick notwithstanding). But you also tend to contradict your own views a lot, too. You don't carry through your beliefs in any kind of consistent truth. How can we be claim to be different to animals by being careful enough not to use carpet bombs, and then claim we wouldn't give a terrorist any kind of appropriate hospitality? Because, you'd claim, "Osama bin Laden is not a human being". Even so, there are some vegans, then, who would protest against the killing of this "animal". I'm getting off point.

There's an argument in there for another thread, about what constitutes a human being. But I'll say this; Being a "bad", morally vile person doesn't make you an animal in the technical sense, just in a metaphorical one. You're still human. Just a(n arguably) "bad" one. But perhaps your argument stems from a different perspective to me, driven by a geographically afar want to prove oneself to the whole world that you are the best and that's that; anybody who gets in the way, Die die die! Unless you're innocent.

And innocent, as I've posted before, is such an iffy, subjective term. Innocent of what, exactly?

But yeah, I get what you mean; nobody in the Twin Towers deserved to die the way they did and for the arbitrary reason they did. Does that make them innocent? Probably not, I'd argue.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Where in my post do I thirst for blood?

If I were trying to justify the war and was the bloodthirsty human being that you claim that I am, then I wouldn't have made this statement in my post :
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
"we try to protect the innocents from that region of the world, and our worrying about the innocents is what's made this a tough and long war to fight. And it is the way that this war should be fought. We are not mass murderers like those animals."

Where is that a contradiction? If I was the bloodthirsty vengeful person that you called me then I would have said that we need to carpet bomb the region to get our revenge.


My statement of being careful enough not to carpet bomb was meant for those in the region who are innocent of terrorist activities. It was not meant to be careful not to carpet the terrorists themselves. I have absolutely no qualms about blowing Bin Laden and his terrorists to Kingdom come. But I do not believe that we should kill "innocent" people that would happen to be in the same area as Bin laden and his terrorists. So you've either misconstured my original post as it meaning that we need to be careful not to carpet bomb the animals or your thinking is that we should just bomb the whole region and kill those who are not terrorists in order to take out the terrorists around them. Again, I'll reiterate what my original statement meant; I was saying that we should never look to carpet bomb that region because there are people from that region who are innocent of the acts of terrorism. Unfortunately the terrorists hide in those same regions, so it is hard for us to fight the war in a quick manner.

You're making a play on words. Of course no human being is "innocent" of wrong doing. No one, except a child is really innocent of anything. But again your play on that word is cute. Common sense tells you that I use the word innocent in the context of being attacked, it is exactly that, the people going to work on a train that's blown up or going to work in a building that's hit by a plane are "innocent" victims of those kinds of attacks. They are not soldiers or fighters that one would expect to face the chance of being killed by an enemy. They are everyday working people, who may be the biggest corporate thieves in their business, or the biggest crooks in the business, but they are still "innocent" in the context of the issue that we are talking about. The corporate president,who may have been swindling money from his company, innocently kissed his wife and kids goodbye that day and went to work, maybe expecting that this is the day that they come and arrest him, but never expecting to be blown up riding that train, or burned to death due to the intentional act of driving a plane into his building.

That is the context of how I use the word innocent.

BTW, with all that you wrote in your post above, not once did you bother to answer my original question. So I'll ask again :

Are you saying that after the USA was attacked on SEPTEMBER 11th 2001, we weren't supposed to go into Afghanastan and destroy all the terrorists and their training camps? We shouldn't have taken out the Taliban, a government that harbored and supported terrorists and their training camps?


Don Cardi

Whether or not you should have rushed into Afghanistan I do not know for sure. And I have no embarrassment in admitting so. Indeed, who does decide whether we were right or wrong? I do know that it was indeed rushed, unplanned, and used as a scapegoat, because, contrary to serving revenge cold, as one of our favourite fictional characters once pointed out, when America gets caught with its pants down, it lashes back with imprudent haste at whatever looks the most tasty, most vulnerable, most "easy" to get a victory back. Years later, and what has America, or indeed its British puppets, achieved? Really, what have we achieved?

You answer questions with questions, which would make Toby Esterhase proud, but makes me a little irritated. You sidestep my points with "find the evidence" replies. Nowhere do you openly say "I'm bloodthirsty." I wouldn't expect you to; you're not that dumb. It's to be found in the subtext, in the way you bloodthirstily post, rousing a rather violent disposition hellbent on avenging the murders of those you loved. It is natural for the body to crave vengeance where due, but as humans, we can draw the line at justice, surely.

It is common for you, I've noticed, to make a debate into a rather boring affair, based on nitty-gritty technicalities such as "you've misunderstood me; find the evidence for that" where indeed no evidence is needed, or indeed available, as it is implied, construed from logic which few can deny. Your defense mechanism here is employed often, but, I think, shows an underlying insecurity, of subconsciously realising you've hit a cul-de-sac, and, as patriotically American as ever, would never want to lose face.

In claiming to be careful enough to not drop carpet bombs, you're showing a bit of sense. Then in another thread you claim Osama isn't a human being. That's what I was getting at; I hadn't misconstrued you at all.

Thanks,
Mick

Mick, in my last reply the only question of yours that I answered with a question was when you called me bloodthirsty. Otherwise I replied to all of your other statements about me and accusations about me. Your "opinon" of me is that I am blood thirsty, that I have a violent dispostion, and you do have a right to your opinion. But it obviously shows that you really don't know me, and in reality how could you know me or I know you? It is very easy to misinterpret something that someone writes on a message board. It is very hard sometimes to express your true feelings when writing them because sometimes something that you say needs to be accompanied by physical motions and expressions.


But in this case I can read between the lines and I get the message of from your posts. It is very clear that you consider me dumb, not that dumb, but dumb. It is also obvious that I irritate you and therfore you feel the need to make personal attacks on my character when you really don't know squat about me.

So therefore in your opinion I am somewhat dumb, of a violent nature, bloodthirsty, irritating, vengful, and insecure. Did I forget anything else?

Unlike you, I don't try and hide my true feelings, be they about something or someone, inside a post with fancy words and slick writing. I don't need to conceal my feelings about someone by surrounding those words that describe my feelings with fancy writing or words. With me what you see is what you get.

Would I like to see revenge taken on someone like Bin Laden? You bet I would. Does that make me bloodthirsty for revenge? Not at all. If I were bloodthirsty I would be calling for the destruction of every region that he may be hiding in. But I have not done that. That would be seeking bloodthirsty revenge.

Look, I don't want to make this "debate into a boring affair." So rather than replying to your attacks on my character with a vengeful and bloodthirsty post, I will just move on as this is now on the road to becoming really ugly, and I rather that it not escalate any further.

So if my posts and debates bore you, then I think it best that you ignore my posts and move on to something that you do not find boring.


Don Cardi

You can't spell for shit. :p

I am sick of you degrading my country, attacking it almost every chance that you get. You do it alot Capo. Its one thing to have an opinion about something or someone but you go beyond giving an opinion, you get personal. Its something how people like you are tough with words because you are talking over the internet. For some reason I think that if you were sitting across a table from someone you wouldn't act so tough calling them names and degrading their country.


DS

That's okay, Don Cardi, take them as compliments! I do!

DJ,

One thing I've learned in life is that when someone, (speaking in general of course), that you are having a disagreement with or may be debating an issue with needs to resort to personal attacks on your character, then it only goes to prove that you've been successful in making your point. The person who resorts to such tactics has reached a cul de sac and therefore, like a cornered rat, they resort to an attack because they can no longer intellectualy continue to put of a valid arguement.

Personal attacks on someones character as a result of not agreeing with them or their opinions is just a display of sheer ignorance.


Don Cardi

Last I checked, Capo's country was one of the few still giving full support to Bush. Actually, they're the only country with a government giving full support to Bush. And by all means, we have dragged the US down the gutter with this war and have taken GB down with us in the eyes of every other country in the world. He has as much of a right as I do, if not more, to criticize our country or government.

Edit: I'll open and end with two very different questions. Is it possible to attack somebody without getting personal? Is it possible to have an opinion without getting personal? "Personal", as subjective a term as innocent, relies on the consumption of the attack from the audience, not the attack itself. Just like an offensive joke is only offensive if the audience deem it so.

My "fancy" posts are such due to the syntax, not lexis. I've just re-read my posts, and it's the word order, or sentence structure, which some may find difficult; the words themselves, as all words are, meaningless.

You're right, Cardi. I don't know you. Take my "personal attacks" as an opinion on how you come across on the board, not you as a person. I'd make apologies if I had got personal, but you see, I'm one of the very few on this board who never gets personal, in a negative light; who always stays out of these debates because, frankly, they do bore me, as people go into them to prove others wrong, and not themselves right (there's certainly a difference: look at all the muckraking posts about Kerry pre-election, and not pro-Bush). I entered this thread because I found it of some interest, and wanted to give my thoughts. You've taken my posts personally, when in fact my first post in this thread didn't have anything to do with you in particualr, not one direct reference to "Don Cardi", but rather was a reference to everything you and your kind (political buddies on the board) stand for. Not you personally.

Smitty, you're wrong. I see many things wrong with America. In fact, it is the epitome, in many ways, of a social hypocrisy which has, thanks to Hollywood and the way it projects itself onto the world, escalated to Britain too. But I have nothing against Americans as individuals. If I did, I'd be in the wrong place on this board.

Another thing, Smitty: my words aren't tough. They are a projection of my thoughts. My thoughts aren't tough. They're frustrated, curious, in need of a challenge, and craving intellectual development. I'm far too young to act tough. If you were sitting across from me at a table, I'd tell you exactly the same thing. In fact, I'd prefer it if we talked eye-to-eye, because on here I'm relying on mere words, and, as Don Cardi rightly said (that wasn't a personal attack; note it down!), it's difficult to express your thoughts with only words as your way of communication.

To end this post in as little a personal way as humanly possible, I ask the question I asked a post ago, which is still standing lonely waiting for a reply: Really, what have we achieved since invading Afghanistan?

Mick

Looks like we have been down this same road before.
We may need some new thoughts around here.

Then feel free to give some...

Maybe you would like to try and contribute some. That's if you have anything to contribute.


Don Cardi

I'll jump in when I feel the need. I think I made a good point in my last post. It sometimes take a clear mind to see the meaning in others members posts without the tinted glasses blocking the view.

Karl

What's wrong? Don't want to jump right in like Father's Sonny normally would? Waiting for Pop to advise you?


Don Cardi

I don't understand some things, DS. Every time someone has a anti-American point of view, you attack that person with "I'm sick of ... my country...", and you use it more when non-Americans criticize the USA, than when Americans criticize the USA. Why? Don't I, or anybody else, have the right to criticize the politics the USA are doing?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statements, but you make it seem that criticizing the American foreign politics is wrong, and not-done.

I don't have anything against the USA in specific, I even love the country. But I'm against Bush and his religious-right politics, and that's because I'm agnost and leftwing. Then why am I not criticizing any other religious-right country, you may ask? Of course I can start attacking Argentina, but since Don Pappo is the only Argentinian here, he's the only one who would listen.

Sorry for the intermezzo. Now, go one debating.

Hand over to who?

Hand over to who? [/b][/quote]Interpol? Maybe for prosecution in the International Court of Justice?

Although this thread has digressed very far from its original topic, I would like to know your views on Pakistan in the context of the points raised by you as quoted above. India has been maintaining all along that the terrorists(including the group responsible for this attack) in the state of Kashmir at the Indo-Pak border are actively trained and funded by Pakistan. Let us, for the moment, not discuss whether this official Indian position is true or not. Assume it anyway you wish. But the reason I ask your view on pakistan is that US has been an long time ally of pakistan. What distinction do you think Pakistan has that separates it from other Islamic nations. And what are your thoughts on the leader of that country and the form of government there?

Thanks,
svsg

Interpol? Maybe for prosecution in the International Court of Justice? [/b][/quote]The Den Haag Court?