General Hawley's speech - Page 4

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:24 PM

It's a good thing tho' cause I'm sure no one would ever say that Washington U. has an ultra liberal (read anti american) bias.

Incompetent · 2003-02-21, 05:27 PM

I just want to throw my money in with Nav and Unreg, i agree with just about everything they have said in this thread. and Silent, wait until you can grasp a little something called reality before you even think of debating with Nav, he is very, very good at it.

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:29 PM

Thanks Incomp, despite the many times we've been on opposing sides of arguements it never goes below the belt (For the most part, some belts are lower than others -

). Hmm. That actually made me smile. Thanks.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:29 PM

I agree with abbraxus, that there are no bad guys in war, and there are no good guys. War is to be won by any means necessary in my book (it's commandment number 10 in specwar, but I'm not listing those).

Does that make it right though? No. Are you really going to sit there, complaining about me justifying killing soldiers of war, and then turn around and justify nuking civilians to me? You claim ALL Japanese felt their emperor was God, and that they were all dangerous. From this thread, that sounds like how America looks at Bush. That is what is called prejudice though. I mean, ALL Japanese are crazy, and ALL blacks have big lips, right?

Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me if I don't see Saddam as that big of a threat. Excuuuuuuuse me if I don't have a vendetta against him cause he tried to kill my daddy. What really disgusts me is how America always claims everyone needs to disarm except them.

Let me put it this way, and to keep it on topic with the forum, I'll put it in PS terms. If I, a TR, were to come across a NC, and we both had our pistols trained on each other (yes pistols, the game isn't out and we're both only certified for em), and he told me I had to put down mine, would I? Hell no, cause then he's the one with the gun and I just get shot. If I was saddam, and I had weapons, I wouldn't disarm either. He's being told he's going to get attacked, you damn right I'd be hanging onto my self defence.

It's the U.S. that is talking about attacking first. They keep blabbing about a pre-emptive strike (how pre-emptive is a strike when it's been covered on CNN for a year?). If I was Saddam, I'd just attack first if I knew I was going to be attacked anyways. All you've done is corner a rat. Oh, and by the way, pre-emptive strikes aren't sanctioned by the UN. You are only to attack when attacked first. Ain't that a dilly of a pickle.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered
We are not talking about Viet Nam, or the actions of U.S. soldiers in that war, because you will not hear me saying that American Soldiers did not comit War Crimes durring that war.

Yellow River - was definatly an Atrocity commited by China. I'm still looking for the U.S. fualt in that one.

Your professors opinion hold no water when compared to Eyewitness accounts, and therefore should not be brought into a conversation based on facts.

Might help if you actually read it. There weren't any eye witnesses. All the reports were hearsay by WESTERN reporters. Or are you going to say those who were killed were eye witnesses? Funny how you think your opinion weighs more than that of a proffessor who has written two books on the subject.

As for going off topic, we ARE talking about the actions of the U.S. military in war. We started with the bombing of Japan. So now you try saying Japan was worse (how talking about the chinese was on that topic I don't know). So I switched over to some of the atrocities committed in Vietnam. Since you just got mad that I brought that war up, I'm guessing you feel U.S. was in the wrong there.

Airlift · 2003-02-21, 05:35 PM

Dropping an atomic bomb is a terrible terrible thing, but I agree that had we not dropped it, we may have never gotten a surrender out of Japan. China has been trying to invade Japan off and on since way before Jesus was born, and they have never succeeded.

Anyway, a shload more "innocent civilians" were killed in the Firebombing of Dresden than in Hiroshima. For those of you who don't know the significance of Dresden, it's principle export were porcelain figurines and its only strategic value was its proximity to the newly formed USSR. Germany was already beaten, and Dresden contributed nothing to their war efforts.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
It's a good thing tho' cause I'm sure no one would ever say that Washington U. has an ultra liberal (read anti american) bias.

*rolls his eyes* Great, so now Washington, your countries capital, is anti-american. That makes a lot of sense. I guess if someone doesn't share your opinion, you just won't acknowledge it.

Incompetent · 2003-02-21, 05:38 PM

silent, i have not been indoctrinated from the time i was able to speak that bush is god

Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me if I don't see Saddam as that big of a threat.

Get some glasses or contacts

What really disgusts me is how America always claims everyone needs to disarm except them.

Um, no, we just don't want people who get shits and giggles out of genocide with them.

Oh, and by the way, pre-emptive strikes aren't sanctioned by the UN

Do you know how many people have died from things that we can' do because of the UN

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-21, 05:38 PM

This thread is spiraling outta control

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:38 PM

Damn airlift, do I finally have an ally

So just out of curiousity, how many read my "If your happy and you know it" post from this morning?

Zatrais · 2003-02-21, 05:39 PM

Please do tell, what makes you think saddam is NOT a threat to the world. I'm sure all of us here would like to know why you put someone whose commited genocide as high as you do.

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-21, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Zatrais
Please do tell, what makes you think saddam is NOT a threat to the world. I'm sure all of us here would like to know why you put someone whose commited genocide as high as you do.

Sadam is not a threat , thats like saying a kitten has claws so it can hurt you . Saddam wouldnt attack the US not in a hundred years , but he would be generaly and ass in his home region .

Incompetent · 2003-02-21, 05:42 PM

Saddam wouldnt attack the US not in a hundred years

He would much rather pay someone else

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Incompetent

Get some glasses or contacts

This is one of those great arguments that were made earlier that is simply called scoring points, i.e. not actually making a point, but trying to kill the validity of others with petty insults and non-facts. I don't feel like looking up Socrates works on debating though to give you a quote from a man who has more validity on the subject than me.

So if the U.S. is sooooooo concerned for the Iraqi people, why haven't they lifted the embargo on Iraq which is keeping them from receiving medical support. Thousands of children have died or are dying from easily curable diseases, but the U.S. isn't helping them by giving them medicine.

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:44 PM

"Are you really going to sit there, complaining about me justifying killing soldiers of war, and then turn around and justify nuking civilians to me?"

Yes. You were attempting to make the Japanese out to be victims of a relentless warmonger, which was not the case.

"That is what is called prejudice though"

No that's not what's called prejudice. It's called a country composed of religious people who believed their country was divine and their emperor was also. Therefor, yes, they can all be considered combatants (you conviniently left out the part about how the civilians all armed themselves and tore down bridges to fight the oncoming army) Don't change the subject and try and call us prejudice or racist.

"What really disgusts me is how America always claims everyone needs to disarm except them. "

That would be the UN. THEY are the one's who demanded disarmament, and aftre 12 years, they are still bent over the barrel. After the knowledge of state sponsered terrorist being linked to Iraq, that combined with the decade long violation of terms of surrender was very, very good reason to begin looking into unilatteral options.

"If I was saddam, and I had weapons, I wouldn't disarm either."

So don't piss and moan, when you admit that you would hang on to the weapons. WTH are the consequences gonna be? He damn well knows them. It's called paying the piper.

"It's the U.S. that is talking about attacking first."

It's the U.S. that is talking about backing up the A) terms of surrender and B) the UN's wimpy little resolution.

"Oh, and by the way, pre-emptive strikes aren't sanctioned by the UN. You are only to attack when attacked first"

A) I personally hope we get out of the UN.
B) Why do we need countries like Belize, Mexico, or France to tell us when we can defend our selves?
C) The fact that you can't hit until your civilian population has been hit first proves how worthless the UN is.
D) Check the countries opposing the US. The major 2, germany and france both have personal - financial issues, and they both want to rule the EU. Look at how bad they pissed off the other 10 or so members of the who blatently said, we don't agree with them, we are going to support the war on Iraq.