OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested [Archive]

Slynky

December 14th, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
Oh come on you fools. Obivously this is just American propoganda! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

(yes I am kidding. just waiting for the stories where people start saying this) Hehe, David, you must be one of the ones who believe the "moon walk" pictures were faked (too)... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>What..? Michael Jackson faked that?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif <hr /></blockquote>LMAO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

General Woundwort

December 14th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Karibu:
Go and Look (http://news.bbc.co.uk/). I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president. Cheap at the price. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My big question is, where do we try him, in Iraq (my preference) or back home? Or give him a few months in Club Gitmo to soften him up first?

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
One SOB down and one bigger SOB to go!Bigger SOB = UBL?

Arkcon

December 14th, 2003, 04:16 PM

Post deleted by Arkcon

tesco samoa

December 14th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Good news. Now put him on trial. International court system. Lets get to the bottom of these WMD'S

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 04:42 PM

He looks a lot like that mad scientist from the Black Hole. You know, the one who killed the crew and turned the survivors into machines then plunged the Cyngus into the black hole thus destroying her.

He had a gun, with bullets, and was taken alive, what a fricking coward. *shakes head*

Good job to our military guys and the Iraqs who helped nab this SOB.

Loser

December 14th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Karibu:
I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president. What a shame http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <hr /></blockquote>You didn't think the Democrats had a chance anyway, did you?

Their current frontrunner is banking heavily on the Bush-hatin', which does great things for his chance at the democratic nomination. But he doesn't need to sway the loyal Democrats, which is what 99% of the Bush-haters are anyway. And he doesn't need to sway the youth. Despite what you may have heard in popular media, the 'youth vote' has never made a difference.

He needs to sway that oh-so-important undecided 20%, and he's not going to get them with a straw-man baddie. The only way the Democrats have a chance at the next election is if something unexpected and terrible happens in the next year. Something that make Bush look even worse than he does now, and that might take some serious doing.

The smart Democrats should be positioning themselves for 2008, which might be what Gore is doing. Personally, I'm hoping for the chance to vote for Liberman, which I almost certainly won't be getting in 2004. Unless of course Dean finds himself in a Gary Hart situation.

Of course, once Bush is unable to run again I might get the chance to vote McCain. Or maybe some other decent Republican, 'cause Cheney won't be running.

As for Saddam's trial, I'll allow that the World Court might have a better claim to him that the U.S. Government. But I'd like to hear good reasons for the World Court having more of a right to try him than the Iraqis.

Whoever it is, I hope he doesn't get death. I just don't think that will work out especially well.

*Loser looks forward, especially, to replies from Rex, Oleg, and The Primitive One.*

SamuraiProgrammer

December 14th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Let's not equate capturing Saddam with winning the election! Let's not equate failing to capture Saddam with losing the election!

You see, if we do, it starts to imply that there are Americans that are sad Saddam got caught because it might mean their party might not win.

Any American who is sad (in any way) about Saddam getting caught needs to have a proirity check! Soon!

When the political party system gets in the way of unity as a nation against someone who has the undisputed history of murdering his own people, then partisan politics has gone tooooooo far!

I predict a hot period of suicide attacks in Iraq followed by peace at Last!

WOOHOO!

Merry Christmas!!

dogscoff

December 14th, 2003, 05:04 PM

I wonder if they'll treat him as badly as their captives in camp X-Ray. And if they treat him better than them, I wonder whether anyone will ask why those 'suspected terrorists' are being treated so badly when this guy who is undeniably responsible for untold misery gets proper treatment.

But all the same, good to have the old bastard behind bars.

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Dan Quale 2008 all the way! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

December 14th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I wonder if they'll treat him as badly as their captives in camp X-Ray. And if they treat him better than them, I wonder whether anyone will ask why those 'suspected terrorists' are being treated so badly when this guy who is undeniably responsible for untold misery gets proper treatment.
The suspects in camp X-ray aren't being treated badly, beyond the simple fact that they are being held indefinately which I will allow is wrong by itself and needs rectified. Perhaps compared to a standard US prision they have it rough, but by international standards they are being treated quite well. There have been some restrictions on their free expression of their religious beliefs, but that would not be a punishment for Sadaam as his adherance to Islam has never been more then for his own polictical benefit anyway.

Geoschmo

primitive

December 14th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

*Loser looks forward, especially, to replies from Rex, Oleg, and The Primitive One.* Thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Congrats on catching him alive, well done.

You don't have me down as a Saddam lover, do you ? He is a SOB and a war criminal and deserves everyting he got coming.

However: I think catching him alive now is not a good sign for GWB. Dead it would have been a clean victory, alive he will only help bring the focus back to GWBs lying and cheating during the buildup to the war. I predict once the first celebrations are over, GWB will face renewed attention from the media regarding the missing WMDs and the big contracts awarded to his friends. Weather it's enough to throw the election or not; we can only hope (or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

BTW:
Feel free to throw this back in my face in 6 months time if I'm wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Loser

December 14th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
You don't have me down as a Saddam lover, do you ?Not at all. I can't think of anyone I know, RL or Online, I would put on that list.

It's your... how to put it... pronounced and well expressed disapproval of the recent course of actions taken but U.S. leadership that would bring something more to this thread. Not that I disapprove of pat-on-the-back content, but variety of opinion and contribution is what these threads great.

Also not that post so far have been strictly congratulatory or jingoistic (hates the word, so overused, like France-bashing, used to be cool but now everyone's doing it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), but I figured you'd have something to contribute that might not otherwise be noted.

And although I disagree with your belief that this event will bring more focus on the ... perhaps lies, perhaps misunderstandings (never assume malice where ignorance or incompetence are fine explanations (though I lean more toward the 'lie' side every month) that were used to justify the matter in the first place, it is a real possibility that I had not yet considered.

[edit: thems some bad sentances. broke a few rules there, I think)

[ December 14, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Loser ]

Cipher7071

December 14th, 2003, 06:03 PM

It seems there are a number of Iraqis who want to try Saddam in Iraq. Some of the of pundits say Iraq, some say in international court, some say both. In any case, trying him in the U.S. would be a big mistake all around.

Slynky

December 14th, 2003, 06:09 PM

Well, one thing is for sure (I think):

The Bush administration is enjoying the lack of attention there has been on the push for proof of WMD. I still mention it to my wife (a devout Bush supporter), though. I still remember all the aerial photographs before the "action" started with arrows pointing to places that housed the WMD. And when they got there, nothing. And nothing since. And the chief inspector in the country, from Germany, saying they had never found anything.

I think the US wanted to flex its muscle (given certain events) and I don't disagree that Iraq was a country gone awry (sp?). But, even in the US, it's illegal for a guy to go beat up another guy even if he is sure this guy will do some bad some day.

Slynky

December 14th, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Cipher7071:
In any case, trying him in the U.S. would be a big mistake all around. Not that the world is waiting on what I have to say, but I agree.

Cyrien

December 14th, 2003, 06:14 PM

My prediction is that the people of Iraq will get him. Several members of their provisional government have stated they want him. People are chanting for him in the streets, Tony Blair has stated that is what he would prefer. Several other Arab nations have stated that with the addition that the subsequent execution should be public. And the US is undecided on where he should be put on trial and only know that he should.

Cyrien

December 14th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Well, one thing is for sure (I think):

The Bush administration is enjoying the lack of attention there has been on the push for proof of WMD. I still mention it to my wife (a devout Bush supporter), though. I still remember all the aerial photographs before the "action" started with arrows pointing to places that housed the WMD. And when they got there, nothing. And nothing since. And the chief inspector in the country, from Germany, saying they had never found anything.

I think the US wanted to flex its muscle (given certain events) and I don't disagree that Iraq was a country gone awry (sp?). But, even in the US, it's illegal for a guy to go beat up another guy even if he is sure this guy will do some bad some day. But is it illegal to go and remove from a position to do so someone who has exibited repeatedly in the past the desire, and ability to do some bad to all his neighbors. Just putting the analogy in a more proper context.

Slynky

December 14th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Well, to put the analagy in proper context, I offer this:

A guy can say in front of witnesses that he is going to kill his wife. She can even complain to the police. But they can't arrest him, even though he certainly has the ability to beat her to death. An action has to be done before arrests can be made.

Cyrien

December 14th, 2003, 06:37 PM

I would offer that he has already beaten several wives to death in the past.

Thermodyne

December 14th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Karibu:
Go and Look (http://news.bbc.co.uk/). I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president. Cheap at the price. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My big question is, where do we try him, in Iraq (my preference) or back home? Or give him a few months in Club Gitmo to soften him up first?

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
One SOB down and one bigger SOB to go!Bigger SOB = UBL? <hr /></blockquote>Yep

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? I mean as I see it, he ended a system of government that was both corrupt and a threat to continued world security.

We all know that Saddam has sought after, and did have at one point, weapons of mass destruction.

If we would have left him alone, and not gone in when we did, what do you think would have eventually happened?

Do you think Saddam would have continued to seek after these types of weapons? Continue his reign of evil over the Iraqis people? Continued to support terrorist Groups and funding of terrorist activities?

If Saddam did get his hands on a WMD, do you think he would have used it himself, or either sell it or given it to a group that would have used it?

We all can agree that Saddam had, abused his powers as a leader of his country to both kill innocent people, and line his own pockets with gold. He did not want wealth per say, what he wanted was power.

We know that Saddam attempted to have GB senior killed. Could this have been motivation for GWB to go in?

What I know is that nearly everyone felt that Saddam had to go. He was an evil man, a man who sought after, and more than likely would have gotten, a weapon of mass destruction.

If Saddam had gotten his hands on a nuke, I have no doubts that he would have sold it or given it to a terrorist group who would have used it against either Israel or the another target.

I do not think that not finding weapons of mass destruction is a bad thing. I think it is a horrifying thing. If Saddam did have them, where are they now? If he did not have them, then did he destroy the ones he did have or did he just sell them off?

The end result is: Saddam is no longer in power, a source of funding and support for terrorism has been severely curtailed, and a source for weapons of mass destruction has been removed. The Iraqis people have their freedom, albeit a bit confused and chaotic at the moment, but they do have it. Saddam is now in custody and will stand trial for his crimes.

I think that GWB did what needed to be done in order to make a better place for us all to live. I think he saved a people from a tyrant ruler and his thugs. I do not believe that GWB lied to the world, I believe he honestly felt that what he was saying was true and accurate. Never the less, world opinion on this subject will always be that he lied. One thing to keep in mind though, these are the same people who protested the war in the first place, who wanted to keep Saddam in power. They wanted Saddam�s rule to continue, and the suffering of the Iraqis people to continue unabated.

These are also the same people who stood by and let millions die in the Yugoslavian civil wars. I have to be honest with you all, I really sincerely question the reasoning of these kind of people.

But they have their reasons, their information, and way of life. I have mine, and I am not above saying that I don�t know all the facts, and that truth is something that a Government seldom tells its people regardless of Government it is.

We should never stand idle when human rights are being violated, and people are being appressed. There is no such thing as an acceptable tolerance to human suffering. Going into Iraq and taking out Saddam was something that should have been dealt with back in 91. But politics being politics, and the worlds opinion mattering, he was left alone, as were the Taliban. Look where that philosophy has taken us all.

In my humble opinion, we as a whole, all of us, not just the USA, but all nations, should stand together and say enough is enough. No excuses, no more terrorism or violation of human rights. If you support terrorism, or violate the sanctity of humanity, then you will be dealt with.

If not for the USA, France, Great Britain, and god know how many other countries would have been forced to endure the horror that was brought to them by Adolf Hitler. I really see no difference here. Saddam, if left alone, would have continued his quest for a nuclear weapon and eventfully would have obtained one. And then the world would have changed.

geoschmo

December 14th, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Well, to put the analagy in proper context, I offer this:

A guy can say in front of witnesses that he is going to kill his wife. She can even complain to the police. But they can't arrest him, even though he certainly has the ability to beat her to death. An action has to be done before arrests can be made. The anaolgy is NOT correct. To use your terms and have the analogy correct you would say Sadaam was convicted of beating his wife, not simply suspected or threatening to do so. He was put on probation and the terms of his probation were that he attend regular counseling (weapons inspections) to make sure he does not go back to beating her. Whether or not he is actually beating her (has weapons of mass destruction) is important to know, but the simple fact that he is skipping the counseling (interfered with the inspectors) is a violation of the terms of his probation and enough to get his butt put in jail.

Geoschmo

Slynky

December 14th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
I would offer that he has already beaten several wives to death in the past. I'm talking about international crimes and analagies. If the US were appointed the international police and were allowed to invade countries based on the civil crimes done by their leaders, we'd have to be just about everywhere.

My analagy was: Just as one doesn't have the right to beat up on a guy because he might (or even probably) will do something bad in the future, the US can't go beating up on countries just because they might do something bad in the future. There has to have been an offense already committed.

Cyrien

December 14th, 2003, 06:44 PM

Apparantly after some questioning about what he did he was belligerent and viewed himself as a kind but stern leader and called those he killed nothing but thieves.

If such reports are accurate it seems that there will be little difficulty in proving he is in fact Saddam.

Thermodyne

December 14th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:

*Loser looks forward, especially, to replies from Rex, Oleg, and The Primitive One.* Thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Congrats on catching him alive, well done.

You don't have me down as a Saddam lover, do you ? He is a SOB and a war criminal and deserves everyting he got coming.

However: I think catching him alive now is not a good sign for GWB. Dead it would have been a clean victory, alive he will only help bring the focus back to GWBs lying and cheating during the buildup to the war. I predict once the first celebrations are over, GWB will face renewed attention from the media regarding the missing WMDs and the big contracts awarded to his friends. Weather it's enough to throw the election or not; we can only hope (or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

BTW:
Feel free to throw this back in my face in 6 months time if I'm wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Dow is back over 10K; this will have more influence on the elections than catching Saddom. If the economy continues to improve and the recent trend of tech jobs returning to the states continues, then he will have a good chance of being reelected. If the problems in Iraq decrease, and the economy continues to improve, congress will turn to health care and reexamining free trade. A few changes on those fronts and he is again a tuff candidate to beat.

Thermodyne

December 14th, 2003, 06:53 PM

What Saddom has to say during his interrogation could disrupt the governments of several countries. If he is the man (coward) that I think he is, he will tell all. I doubt that France, Germany and Russia are looking forward to these revelations. They backed a despot and now they will probably suffer some tarnished reputations because of it. Germany and Russia will lay most of it at the feet of previous administrations, but it could cause a change of leadership in France.

Cipher7071

December 14th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Thermodyne is about right. People tend to vote with their wallets. What sort of factor Iraq is in next year's U.S. election depends largely on the length and size of the occupation.

Unknown_Enemy

December 14th, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? - Wasting the total and blind sympathy to USA after 09/11 toward worldwide antipathy today.
- Lying about the goals of the second Iraqi war.

In my book, that is enought to write him as an idiot. However, millions of humans who suffered under Saddam will praise this event and be right to do so.
So despite our political differences, let's just rejoice of the arrest of that human beast.

Unknown_Enemy

December 14th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What Saddom has to say during his interrogation could disrupt the governments of several countries. If he is the man (coward) that I think he is, he will tell all. I doubt that France, Germany and Russia are looking forward to these revelations. They backed a despot and now they will probably suffer some tarnished reputations because of it. Germany and Russia will lay most of it at the feet of previous administrations, but it could cause a change of leadership in France. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
No more that Rumsfield.

Geckomlis

December 14th, 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
He looks a lot like that mad scientist from the Black Hole. You know, the one who killed the crew and turned the survivors into machines then plunged the Cyngus into the black hole thus destroying her.LMAO. He does look like Dr. Hanz Reinhart! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

*Loser looks forward, especially, to replies from Rex, Oleg, and The Primitive One.* When Bush Lied people died.

[ December 14, 2003, 17:59: Message edited by: rextorres ]

General Woundwort

December 14th, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
When Bush Lied people died. How quaint. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Perhaps you could rack up what you believe are the deaths caused by Bush? (caveat, Gulf War II does NOT count as it was merely the wrap-up of Gulf War I, his father's war, and had to be fought under any circumstances)

Then compare that total to the millions of dead that are undisputably culpable to Sodamn Insane (Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Gulf War soldiers of all countries).

Game, set, and match for the Butcher of Baghdad.

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 08:28 PM

All I can say it's funny how some people - all of sudden - seem to care about the poor Iraqis.

Where were all these same people during Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo. They were busy criticizing Clinton for nation building.

As far as I know the war was about WMD. And not about gving my tax dollars to Cheney's chronies at Haliburton.

[ December 14, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: rextorres ]

oleg

December 14th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
*Loser looks forward, especially, to replies from Rex, Oleg, and The Primitive One.* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm happy he is caught. Once US started the war it is imperative to finish it as soon as possible and as few casualties as feasiable.

My critisism was always to the war itself that was illegal, unjustified and directly against US and Europe interests. Saddam had no WMD whatsoever and in fact was a bastion against islamic fanatics. I have no idea what will heapen in Iraq and really hope it will emerge as a secular and democratic country. However, it seems more likely to become a violent antiamerican theocracy.

[ December 14, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: oleg ]

Fyron

December 14th, 2003, 08:56 PM

Legality is not an issue related to declaring war... there is no such thing as a "legal war" or an "illegal war". There is right and wrong, but not legality.

[ December 14, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Fyron

December 14th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
All I can say it's funny how some people - all of sudden - seem to care about the poor Iraqis.

Where were all these same people during Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo. They were busy criticizing Clinton for nation building.Those that only care about partisan politics (such as you), sure. But, there are plenty of people that support the Iraq war for caring about Iraqis that also supported those other wars for caring about the people of those nations.

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
All I can say it's funny how some people - all of sudden - seem to care about the poor Iraqis.

Where were all these same people during Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo. They were busy criticizing Clinton for nation building.

As far as I know the war was about WMD. And not about gving my tax dollars to Cheney's chronies at Haliburton. You must be speaking about the French, Germans, Russians, and those people here in the US that apposed the war.

I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

Rex you remind me an awful lot of a guy who called himself Silverlock on another forum. The resemblance of your statements and opinions are uncanny.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:08: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 09:06 PM

I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: rextorres ]

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies. The President, that is GWB, was referring to the LACK of commitment by then President Clinton. Clinton tied the hands of the military and was not committed to the effort for which he had committed troops.

If you do not believe me, just ask any military or peace keeping officer who was there. They utterly hated Bill Clinton�s politics.

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? - Wasting the total and blind sympathy to USA after 09/11 toward worldwide antipathy today.
- Lying about the goals of the second Iraqi war.

In my book, that is enought to write him as an idiot. However, millions of humans who suffered under Saddam will praise this event and be right to do so.
So despite our political differences, let's just rejoice of the arrest of that human beast. <hr /></blockquote>Thank you. I do not believe that he is an idiot, but given the way things have turned out, I do believe he knew more than he let on. But again, I think this is a case where the ends did justify the means. One less evil dictator to deal with.

It will be interesting to read the offical CIA reports in 50 years. Man what I would give to be a historian in the latter part of this century.

Starhawk

December 14th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Okay first off Clinton attacked Iraq for no reason with no goals and he had a tendency of starting a war anytime someone found out yet another woman gave him yet another blowjob so that is why he is so easily criticized.

And for the fact that Clinton would stay just long enough and be just dumb enough for the American people to get pissed off and for just enough US troops to die needlesly before he pulled out for no reason such as he did in Bosnia.

Bush went into Afghanistan with a purpose and we won easily, he went into Iraq with a purpose and we defeated the regime and are helping to create a new free nation. Clinton just blew crap up and left the second his sex scandals passed.

I am a Bush supporter yes but I have myself disagreed with SOME of the stuff he's done but not all.

Now as to that other statement about where were the people who cared...easy. The United States was practically threatened by Russia if we went into Iraq on our own, we were also threatened by boycots from the nations like Germany, France, and Switzerland and the rest of the UN were being arrogant airheads that said effectively "as long as they don't bother us let's not bother them" the US couldn't do anything without allies, now that Britain helped us as well thats good but notice that the UN and other allies which said they'd help are putsing about and stalling in the actual deployment of troops or economic aid for Iraq?

General Woundwort

December 14th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
My critisism was always to the war itself that was illegal, unjustified and directly against US and Europe interests.1) How many UN resolutions was Hussein in violation of? 17? 19? So what's the threshold for legitimacy? 21?

2) He attempted the assassination of an ex-president back in '95. Is that not a sufficient justification?

3) How is it in the interests of the US (or even Europe if they thought straight) to have an expansionistic madman next door to the world's largest oil reserves? The fact that those reserves are in the hands of fanatical Muslims is bad enough as is.

4) Hussein was directed to give over all materials and records of his WMD programs. He refused. Just who is dumb enough to think that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt?

5) RE: WMD's - I'm still waiting to see if any stockpiles show up in Syria or elsewhere. And just some food for thought... what if any number of WMD depot locations were known before the war - given Hussein's record, might they not be legitimate bombing targets? Hard to gather evidence from a smoldering crater, and "Better safe than sorry..."

Originally posted by oleg:
Saddam had no WMD whatsoever and in fact was a bastion against islamic fanatics. Both he and those fanatics were/are US enemies, and I'm not yet convinced that they were not in some sort of collusion.

Originally posted by oleg:
I have no idea what will heapen in Iraq and really hope it will emerge as a secular and democratic country. However, it seems more likely to become a violent antiamerican theocracy. Simple - occuply it until the threat of theocracy passes. We had troops in Germany and Japan for many years for similar reasons. Here I will criticize Bush - we should NOT leave by June. Stay until the job is done.

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies. The President, that is GWB, was referring to the LACK of commitment by then President Clinton. Clinton tied the hands of the military and was not committed to the effort for which he had committed troops.

If you do not believe me, just ask any military or peace keeping officer who was there. They utterly hated Bill Clinton�s politics. <hr /></blockquote>I can look up the transcripts of the debate . . . and we can parse words. All I know is that GWB meant that the US should not get involved in any nation building.

What lack of commitment are you talking about - can you be more specific. Kosovo and Haiti were the only adventures that Clinton got us into and they were relative successes.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Roanon

December 14th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
But again, I think this is a case where the ends did justify the means.This is exactly where I - and I think many other people - disagree. Remember your own words:
We should never stand idle when human rights are being violated, and people are being appressed.This is a very hypocrite statement if you support actions violating human rights and oppressing people in cases where you think they are "justified". And it is a common ideology I encounter, the alleged motivation by morals, but the fact they rarely care for any other of the numerous dictatorships in the world and put their moral standards aside when it comes to their own actions.

Yes, I am glad that this dictatorship is over. But it had been possible to do it with other means. But that would have meant less profit for Haliburton etc.
You must be speaking about the French, Germans, Russians, and those people here in the US that apposed the war.Generalizing this way is like I would say that every war supporter is a greedy war profiteer with something like a good job at Haliburton. And this "these people enjoy human suffering" is outrageous and personally offending me.

I utterly despise people who think they are the utmost in moral authority and therefore take it as their god-given right to treat everyone having a different opinion like a piece of ****.

Alneyan

December 14th, 2003, 09:54 PM

Woundwort, would you have by any chance a link about this assassination attempt you mentioned? I admit I never heard about this, no wonder given the location I am living in. Obviously I don't doubt your word, but I would like some details about this. Thanks in advance!

Actually, I believe Oleg was partially right. The war in Irak might have threatened the interests of an European country, France. France may have had some access to one of the pipelines in Irak, even during the economical blockage on Irak. There were some articles in France about this topic a few months ago, but of course, it would be hard to make sure of the truth beyond these articles.

About the violations of UN resolutions by Iraq: actually a few countries broke or failed to respect these resolutions more often than Iraq. So this cannot be used as a reason to explain the war , unless you would want to be involved military in other areas as well. However, these violations are not usually even considered, and few if not no action are taken in regard to these countries. It doesn't help the credibility of the UN, but this is a whole different topic.

[ December 14, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

sachmo

December 14th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Saddam is far and away a bigger bastard than Bin Laden. And the world is going to find out just how big of a bastard he is once the trial starts. They may not believe it, but the facts will be there.

Fyron

December 14th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies. Interesting. Seeing as I disagree with half (or more) of the mainline Republican policies, I don't see how that is the case.

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies. The President, that is GWB, was referring to the LACK of commitment by then President Clinton. Clinton tied the hands of the military and was not committed to the effort for which he had committed troops.

If you do not believe me, just ask any military or peace keeping officer who was there. They utterly hated Bill Clinton�s politics. <hr /></blockquote>I can look up the transcripts of the debate . . . and we can parse words. All I know is that GWB meant that the US should not get involved in any nation building.

What lack of commitment are you talking about - can you be more specific. Kosovo and Haiti were the only adventures that Clinton got us into and they were relative successes. <hr /></blockquote>By all means look up the transcript. The lack of commitment that I am refering to is the fact that President Clinton would send troops, but the tie there hands politically so that they could do nothing to stop the atrocities they were witnessing. Again, just ask those who were there, and they will all tell you that they could have done more, but were prevented from doing so.

As far as nation building goes, Clinton did not declare war upon those nation, and did not send in troops to conquer them. With Iraq, we did conquer them, therefore under the articles of war, we must assist them in rebuilding.

Not to discount your views, but you have a lot to learn about how to communicate with poeple. You are far to argumentative and to me you appear to be out looking for a fight to justify your point of view. Just discuss the topic, don't declar war over it.

dogscoff

December 14th, 2003, 10:30 PM

Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? I mean as I see it, he ended a system of government that was both corrupt and a threat to continued world security.
He strated this war not to free the Iraqi ppl, but for his own purposes. Why do I believe this?

1> That was not the stated goal from the start. WMD were not even the stated purpose from the start.

2>after the fall of baghdad the coalition didn't seem to give a toss about restoring order. They did nothing to stop the looting and destruction of hospitals, universities, police stations, religious buildings, ministries (oh, except the ministry of oil, that one was well guarded). They had no-one to police the streets except combat troops with absolutely no training or experience of that kind of work. I've seen footage of coalition troops 'policing' Baghdad, and believe me it's not nice.

3> Too much of the rebuilding money is being funnelled towards Bush and his cronies via Halliburton et al. It stinks. Shouldn't all those Iraqi enginneers and contractors (The ones who did an astonishing job rebuilding after the '91 war) get the jobs? It's their country, their money and their economy.

you would say Sadaam was convicted of beating his wife, not simply suspected or threatening to do so.
The one thing ppl seem to have missed from this metaphor is that Saddam has been convicted by the legal system, put under parole and broken parole and everything else, which is fair enough, but then who goes and enforces the law? The police? No. The big, ugly, amphetamine freak down the road with the tattoos, collection of knuckledusters and (inexplicably) a slick British lawyer being used as a suppository.

What Saddom has to say during his interrogation could disrupt the governments of several countries... I doubt that France, Germany and RussiaI hope he also mentions who armed him to invade Iran back in the 80s... Bush and Blair are only too quick to take every opportunity to criticise him for "threatening his neighbours"

In summary:
Yes, he had to go, and yes, a war was probably the only way it was going to happen, but a honest, open war waged for the right reasons and with proper planning for what comes after.

But it's too late now, they've done it their way, and now they can deflect our attention away from the bits they don't want us to see, crow triumphantly over the rest and move onto the next one.

geoschmo

December 14th, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
What lack of commitment are you talking about - can you be more specific. Kosovo and Haiti were the only adventures that Clinton got us into and they were relative successes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Uhhh, Somalia? That was such an utter debacle they made a movie about it.

Eight years of talking tough with Afganistan, and not doing anything more then lobbing an occasional cruise missle. That's exactly what people mean when they say a lack of commitment.

Haiti was a military success. How could it not be? Haiti was probably the only country in the world capable of putting up less of a fight then Grenada. But the operation was a failure in it's main objective, which was to detract attention from the Presidential daliances.

Geoschmo

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
But again, I think this is a case where the ends did justify the means.This is exactly where I - and I think many other people - disagree. Remember your own words:
We should never stand idle when human rights are being violated, and people are being appressed.This is a very hypocrite statement if you support actions violating human rights and oppressing people in cases where you think they are "justified". And it is a common ideology I encounter, the alleged motivation by morals, but the fact they rarely care for any other of the numerous dictatorships in the world and put their moral standards aside when it comes to their own actions.

Yes, I am glad that this dictatorship is over. But it had been possible to do it with other means. But that would have meant less profit for Haliburton etc.
You must be speaking about the French, Germans, Russians, and those people here in the US that apposed the war.Generalizing this way is like I would say that every war supporter is a greedy war profiteer with something like a good job at Haliburton. And this "these people enjoy human suffering" is outrageous and personally offending me.

I utterly despise people who think they are the utmost in moral authority and therefore take it as their god-given right to treat everyone having a different opinion like a piece of ****. <hr /></blockquote>First, I do not believe what I said to be hipocritical. I think that you are distorting what I did say to fit your counter argument.

And I could careless if I have offended you. Your tone with me is far more offensive than anything I said. If you want to get down to brass tax over this, then what I said lacked a couple of words that would make it more politically correct for those with sensative eyes. So allow me to clarify my word as not to seem like a "moral authority" out to "treat everyone having a different opinion like a piece of ****" to use your words. (NOTE: I find your editorial comments to lack both credibility and professionalism.)

Oh kind sir, you must be speaking about those noble honest free loving French, Germans, Russians, and american people who justly opposed the vile George W. Bush and his genicidal war against the inocent and humbly kind leader of Iraq, Saddam.

How was that Roanon? Does that meet with your approval and opinion??

What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology.

[ December 14, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
What lack of commitment are you talking about - can you be more specific. Kosovo and Haiti were the only adventures that Clinton got us into and they were relative successes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Uhhh, Somalia? That was such an utter debacle they made a movie about it.

Eight years of talking tough with Afganistan, and not doing anything more then lobbing an occasional cruise missle. That's exactly what people mean when they say a lack of commitment.

Haiti was a military success. How could it not be? Haiti was probably the only country in the world capable of putting up less of a fight then Grenada. But the operation was a failure in it's main objective, which was to detract attention from the Presidential daliances.

Geoschmo <hr /></blockquote>Bush senior got us into Somalia.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: rextorres ]

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
[QUOTE]Not to discount your views, but you have a lot to learn about how to communicate with poeple. You are far to argumentative and to me you appear to be out looking for a fight to justify your point of view. Just discuss the topic, don't declar war over it. I think that's unfair. I've staked out a position and you merely disagree with it. When you disagree with my position it's discussion when I refute your position it's argumentative.

Still I have not attacked anyone. On the other hand you've gone out of your way twice to mention me and Fyron even called me "partisan" because he disagrees with all my postitions but of course he not a partisan - anyway Loser specifically asked for my opinions.

And yes I do believe Bush lied - no WMD have been found.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Roanon

December 14th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology. Well I think it was less right, but this is not the main point. You are personally attacking people just disagreeing with you and offending them. You even openly admit that you don't care if you do. There is someone here who owes some people an apology, Mr. I-am-the-moral-universe.

BTW, I do not care for political correctness. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, regardless how he puts his words. Implying I would do is another insult.

Unknown_Enemy

December 14th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Simple - occuply it until the threat of theocracy passes. We had troops in Germany and Japan for many years for similar reasons. Here I will criticize Bush - we should NOT leave by June. Stay until the job is done. [/QB]Woundwort, it seems to me that lots of people believed Iraq would be similar to Germany/Japan after WW2.

What USA really ended with is a new Liban.

Look at the facts : Kurds in the north with their own agenda. Sunnite in the center grieving for their lost power. Chia in the south who are about to be in power.

I am sorry to say so, but mark my words, the end of Saddam is not going to bring peace in Iraq. The end of Saddam is not going bring stability to this country.

But his end is going to make lots of people's sleep easier.

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Your right, I have mentioned you twice, and that is because I was talking to you specifically.

I wanted to be clear that I enjoy and value opinions that differ from my own. You have a very strong sense of yours, and that is fantastic in my humble opinion. I just would enjoy reading them without all of the hostility.

Then again, I who am I to judge. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You have made some excellent points and have stood your ground.

BTW, I think Geoschmo was talking about President Clinton and not GW senior. Just and FYI.

And you do remind me an awful lot of the guy I mentioned before. More power to you man. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

CNCRaymond

December 14th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology. Well I think it was less right, but this is not the main point. You are personally attacking people just disagreeing with you and offending them. You even openly admit that you don't care if you do. There is someone here who owes some people an apology, Mr. I-am-the-moral-universe.

BTW, I do not care for political correctness. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, regardless how he puts his words. Implying I would do is another insult. <hr /></blockquote>This his how revisionist history is written. People like you twist the facts to suit your need in an effort to hide the truth of what you have said and done. In this case you claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not. You insult me and then do a role reversal followed by a two step around the truth and attempt to paint your self as the innocent victim. You draw first blood by attacking me with an insult, followed by two more insults, as proof of your point of view. You then call me a hypocrite, twice, without the slightest clue as to the understanding or meaning of the word. You yield the word like a child would a toy sword but with far less skill. I shouldn't have to point out to you that what you have done, three plus times now, violates the terms of use of this forum. You can try and play the victim all you want, the truth is already known, and regardless as to whether or not you agree, you are the one in the wrong. You are the one who has been doing the insulting here, not I. You were the one to draw a conclusion and twist my words to suit your point of view. And then in defense, you insult me in an effort to add weight to your argument and then to validate what you have done, you claim that you are the victim having been offended by what I have posted. Now you're attempting to hide from your actions by playing a role reversal by posting these personally insulting accusations about me.

Like I said, you have no skill.

You see, I never attacked any one at any point. However, you did. I can quote you again if you like, but I think we have seen enough of your foul mouth for one day. And I openly admitted that I could careless if I offended you, not these �them� you speak of. And again you post a personal flame as the only defense for your position. I believe you now owe me two apologies.

And the Last time I looked, the �them� you speak of, had not appointed you their leader. So perhaps you should not speak for �them� any more.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

rextorres

December 14th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Your right, I have mentioned you twice, and that is because I was talking to you specifically.

I wanted to be clear that I enjoy and value opinions that differ from my own. You have a very strong sense of yours, and that is fantastic in my humble opinion. I just would enjoy reading them without all of the hostility.

Then again, I who am I to judge. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You have made some excellent points and have stood your ground.

BTW, I think Geoschmo was talking about President Clinton and not GW senior. Just and FYI.

And you do remind me an awful lot of the guy I mentioned before. More power to you man. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Fair enough.

I do concede, however, that writing "When Bush lied people died" was meant to generate a heated discussion and I am sorry if I offended anyone who believes that Bush told the truth.

And no I am not that other guy.

BTW: Yes Geo meant Clinton, but Bush Senior invaded Somalia. I truly believe things would not have been much different if Bush had won that election.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Phoenix-D

December 15th, 2003, 12:02 AM

"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

Phoenix-D

December 15th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order. I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.

However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.<hr /></blockquote>Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:15: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Phoenix-D

December 15th, 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
[qb]I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.

However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise. No, it wasn't. I fully understood what you were going for, and frankly insults are entirely perception. Which means that yes, he was responding to an insult, meant or not..

The second post was just to provide the proof without making people dig for it.

Will

December 15th, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering. [/QB]So by not supporting a specific action to stop "human suffering" (not necessarily of the Iraqis), a person is therefore guilty of not supporting any action to stop "human suffering"? That is flawed logic, I'm afraid. It is quite possible for someone to believe that war is not the way to end "human suffering", and that another path can be found.

To attempt a horrible analogy that takes things to extremes (and borrowing from all the wife-beating occuring earlier in the thread):
If I do not support vivisecting the husband for beating his wife, and thus removing the threat of the husband beating his wife, then I must support the continued beatings -- even if I merely support putting him in a small concrete room for a period of time, and restricting his activities after release from said room (ie, no alcohol, counseling, curfews, community service, whatever...).

Hmm, hope that made sense...

President_Elect_Shang

December 15th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Gees Roanon, didn�t you and I just have this song and dance. Now you are on the floor with someone else? I feel jealous, point is there had to be around a half dozen ways to put your opinion of CNCRaymond�s comments in a manner that was not insulting. Don�t start jumping on me (happy face) I am only pointing this out because I thought we had reached an agreement. I am sure being as eloquent and insightful as you are, you could soften the blow so that it does not look like you want to start a fight. Anyway, I still feel that you are cheating on me. Didn't I argue enough for you Last time dear? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just a joke,
don't stroke.

Let me also add CNC that you did come across wrong.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:41: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Guys... stop. Seriously. Mud has been slung on both sides. Let it die. This thread is heading nowhere but to a lockdown.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Ah, I have become the focus of angry comments. I will not run and hide from what I have said. If you all enjoy what you are posting them by all means, keep posting. I know I will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The truth is, I was not the one to personally insult someone, I was the one who was personally insulted. Twisting my words to suit your needs, does not justify your actions or comments. I have apologized for not being more precise in my comments, and if that is not good enough, then oh well, life goes on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

To many of you are far to inflamed by this topic and I agree that the best thing to do here is for you all to apologize for treating me with disrespect or to lock down this thread to prevent more of your unprofessional behavior and comments.

After all pointing out other points of view, whether or not I personally agree with them or not, is all that I have done. Attacking me for it just proves how valid those other points of view are. If that offends people, then perhaps they have a guilty conscience for not supporting the war effort. I do not know, and I really don't care if you defend your insulting behavior by piling on more insults. That is your right, even if it does violate the terms of use of this forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

If Roanon was offended by my comments, he should have handled it more professionally than to resort to the childish insulting behavior that he chose to conduct himself in. Justifying his behavior by saying I insulted him is at best warped logic.

Now that Phoenix has pointed out the error of my ways, I have posted an apology. The matter is now considered resolved in my opinion. But again, if you all wish to continue with this debate, I will be more than happy to oblige you.

Will, you make an excellent point in your post. Thank you for pointing out the warped logic of the statement. However, even though it is warped, people will saddly still chose to believe it.

[ December 14, 2003, 23:04: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Will

December 15th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Well, I don't think my comments were angry... I'm just pointing out the flawed logic in your statements, generalizing opposition to one thing as opposition to all things. I'm pretty sure the disrespecting comment wasn't directed at what I said, but just to make sure: There was no disrespect in my post, whether you saw it or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Overall guideline for forum-goers: If a generalization is posted that is insulting, try not to take it seriously; it will save all involved a headache http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

--edit: Fyron, aye, I did it seems... I was fairly sure that it wasn't directed at my comments, but I was just ensuring that everyone knew that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 14, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: Will ]

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
[QB] I think that's unfair. I've staked out a position and you merely disagree with it. When you disagree with my position it's discussion when I refute your position it's argumentative. [qb]Actually... when you refute someones position in an overtly hostile manner, it is arumentative. If you drop the hostility, it will become discussion like most other people's responses.

Fyron even called me "partisan" because he disagrees with all my postitions but of course he not a partisanIt miust be nice knowing what everyone else thinks and believes. I have not actually posted anything that would support such a statement. What I have posted that I disagree with is your attitude and manner of "discussion".

And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about.

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Will, you posted concurrently with CNC's Last edit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Ah yes, Sorry about that Will, I made an edit to clarify my comments.

Will, you make an excellent point in your post. Thank you for pointing out the warped logic of the statement. However, even though it is warped, people will saddly still chose to believe it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ December 14, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Roanon

December 15th, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
the best thing to do here is for you all to apologize for treating me with disrespectNo comment.

If Roanon was offended by my comments, he should have handled it more professionally than to resort to the childish insulting behavior that he chose to conduct himself in. Justifying his behavior by saying I insulted him is at best warped logic.Do I understand this correctly? Calling me childish is NOT an insult, because YOU are doing it?
If I was offended by your comments (yes I was) then I should have handled it more professionally than by saying you insulted me, which is at best warped logic?
I give up, I really cannot understand this logic, my fault probably.

[ December 14, 2003, 23:25: Message edited by: Roanon ]

geoschmo

December 15th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
BTW: Yes Geo meant Clinton, but Bush Senior invaded Somalia. I truly believe things would not have been much different if Bush had won that election. I think you are wrong. I suppose we can't know for sure. But I believe that Clinton's lack of comitment to the troops in the field, and mishandling turned what could have been a succesful operation into an abject failure.

It's not uncommon for the President in charge when things go to hell to be blamed for the failure of the operation, rightly or wrongly. Nixon get's maligned for Vietnam, which was started by Johnson. Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs from Ike.

On the plus side I supported what Clinton was trying to do in Bosnia. I would have liked to see more effort, but at least they stuck it out till the end there, unlike Mogadishu.

Geoschmo

[ December 14, 2003, 23:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

President_Elect_Shang

December 15th, 2003, 01:41 AM

For my part I am not claiming one insulted the other first. I am saying that it takes two to escalate the matter. You did apologize and that is fair enough. As to your viewpoint I hope I did not (was not trying to) insinuate either point is correct or wrong. I want to stay neutral.

My input is based on seeing one to many arguments started over what should be discussion. Did I say arguments? I meant fights. Have I been in a fight, heck yes my house is glass and I have stones in my pockets. It occurred to me (with the help of Roanon) that I needed to put those stones down and patch the broken glass, metaphorically speaking of course.

Roanon and CNC can take a lesson from Imperator Fyron and I. Imperator Fyron knows me as well as SJ, Atrocities, or Geo does, heck he knew me before I changed persona to President-Elect Shang. As I recall we have had more than one tiff ourselves (correct me if I am wrong) but we always calmed down and I think you two could do the same if you tried.

Even to this day Imperator Fyron and I do not see eye-to-eye, however we have come to understand one another as well as this board allows, now I feel very confident in reading his opinions and taking criticism from him concerning my conduct. I don�t expect you two (CNC, Roanon) to be friends or even agree. I am just asking that you try to calm down and debate in a non-insulting way. You both could have changed a few words out and said the same thing and not been so darn insulting.

I said it before and I will say it again, I want to stay neutral in this debate. But make no mistake if Imperator Fyron goes higher to have this thread locked I will back him all the way, that too is part of the mutual respect we have developed.

rextorres

December 15th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
[QB] I think that's unfair. I've staked out a position and you merely disagree with it. When you disagree with my position it's discussion when I refute your position it's argumentative. [qb]Actually... when you refute someones position in an overtly hostile manner, it is arumentative. If you drop the hostility, it will become discussion like most other people's responses.

Fyron even called me "partisan" because he disagrees with all my postitions but of course he not a partisanIt miust be nice knowing what everyone else thinks and believes. I have not actually posted anything that would support such a statement. What I have posted that I disagree with is your attitude and manner of "discussion".

And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about. <hr /></blockquote>You're right Fyron I don't know what you think or believe all I know is what you write in this forum. My assumption is that you are being intellectually honest and what you write reflects what you think.

I have reread all my postings in this thread and there is not one hostile word leveled at anyone (on this forum). I think you may percieve them to be hostile because they are the opposite of your positions (that's what I think anyway). On the other hand I took the partisan comment to be hostility aimed at me.

So with that said I challenge you to find a position that I have staked where you DO agree with me. If we disagree on every political position written in this forum and I am a "partisan" then doesn't that make you a "partisan" too?

[ December 15, 2003, 00:13: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Karibu

December 15th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Go and Look (http://news.bbc.co.uk/). I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president.

[ December 14, 2003, 12:03: Message edited by: Karibu ]

geoschmo

December 15th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about. Uh, I don't know about this Fyron. Personally I am not convinced that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD's. It very possible, if not likely, at this point Bush was very wrong about the threat of Iraqi WMD's. But being wrong and lying are two very different things.

If someone were to prove that Bush knew that Iraq had no legitimate WMD threat and that the war was only intended to line the pockets of Haliburton then I would say that goes way beyond propaganda. Propaganda is lying to gain tactical advantage over the enemy. This would be lying to your own people to cover up presidential malfeseance of a tremendous scale.

Geoschmo

Slynky

December 15th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Karibu:
I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president. What a shame http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

President_Elect_Shang

December 15th, 2003, 02:15 AM

I don�t think that Bush lied; I think that Blair and he felt the threat was there. Saddam had enough time to conceal or destroy most evidence before the ground war kicked off. With him in custody it may lead to the uncovering of stashes that are still hidden. Only time will pan this one out.

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 02:15 AM

Rex, I did not say your hostility is aimed at anyone in particular. The overall tone of your Messages is extremely dismissive of anyone that does not share your opinions. You can be hostile in general without a specific target in mind. I could rattle off a list of other adjectives that might be more appropriate than "hostile", but that would accomplish little. This is much more evident in the Military Buffs thread (as well as the tone of many of your Posts in these sorts of threads that have existed in the past) than in this thread, but the issue is being discussed here, not there.

As for your challenge, I do not have an opinion one way or another on many of these particular issues, so meeting it (as well as failing it) would be rather difficult.

Thermodyne

December 15th, 2003, 02:25 AM

One SOB down and one bigger SOB to go!

Roanon

December 15th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Karibu:
I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president. Too early. People tend to forget what has happend more than half a year ago when voting. So this is really a reason to celebrate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

rextorres

December 15th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Rex, I did not say your hostility is aimed at anyone in particular. The overall tone of your Messages is extremely dismissive of anyone that does not share your opinions. You can be hostile in general without a specific target in mind. I could rattle off a list of other adjectives that might be more appropriate than "hostile", but that would accomplish little. This is much more evident in the Military Buffs thread (as well as the tone of many of your Posts in these sorts of threads that have existed in the past) than in this thread, but the issue is being discussed here, not there.

As for your challenge, I do not have an opinion one way or another on many of these particular issues, so meeting it (as well as failing it) would be rather difficult. I suppose calling someone a "flag waver" could be considered an insult in some circles, but other than that I do not read any hostility in my tone in that thread either.

I did disagree with you in that thread as well though . . . so maybe that's why you are picking up hostility.

BTW: Can I quote what you've posted here next time you write an opinion.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 03:31 AM

I suppose calling someone a "flag waver" could be considered an insult in some circles, but other than that I do not read any hostility in my tone in that thread either. I think the person you called "flag waver" was thrilled to death by it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Seriously though, it was a bit provacative. I am surprised he let it go without challenging you. If he is a flag waver, then you would have to provide proof, IE a picture of such, and since you cannot provide such proof, the alligation can be taken as I said, provocatively. In stead he simply let the comment go without comment. That says a lot about his character.

But all is good that ends good, so lets move on.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And for the record, Bush did lie. It is called propaganda, part of waging war. Every war fought throughout history has been filled with propaganda. Propaganda is by its very nature at best a half-truth. You can not fault someone for employing propaganda. You can certainly fault them for their real reasons for going to war, but not just the fact that they lied. Lying is what being a leader is about. Uh, I don't know about this Fyron. Personally I am not convinced that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD's. It very possible, if not likely, at this point Bush was very wrong about the threat of Iraqi WMD's. But being wrong and lying are two very different things.

If someone were to prove that Bush knew that Iraq had no legitimate WMD threat and that the war was only intended to line the pockets of Haliburton then I would say that goes way beyond propaganda. Propaganda is lying to gain tactical advantage over the enemy. This would be lying to your own people to cover up presidential malfeseance of a tremendous scale.

Geoschmo <hr /></blockquote>Well spoken Geoschmo. Although Fyron does make a good point and one that can pass as he has described it. Bush may have been spreading propoganda knowing that it might not be accurate. That is something that he will have to answer for in time I think.

About this "Haliburton" can you provide more info. I only briefly heard about this the other day and have not been able to do a follow up. Thanks.

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
I suppose calling someone a "flag waver" could be considered an insult in some circles, but other than that I do not read any hostility in my tone in that thread either. Here are a few of your more hostile passages:

"Some people feel uncomfortable with this "revisionist" history because it doesn't show the US in the best light and in today's Jingoistic climate if your not 100% pro US your unpatriotic . . . I guess if it lets them sleep better at night good for them."

"Atrocities - dropping the a-bomb wasn't meant to save civilian lives - I guess it's hard for flag wavers to admit that the U.S. was already killing hundred of thousands of civilian lives - not admitting THIS is revisionist. "

"That the bomb ended the war is a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves. The US was already killing 100,000s of civilians every night from fire bombings in the capital cities so please don't give me any altruistic crap about saving innocent civilian lives."

All of these have an explicity provokative tone to them. Hence, hostility. There is no need for the tone of these. You could have avoided a lot of problems by wording them better.

I did disagree with you in that thread as well though . . . so maybe that's why you are picking up hostility.Disagreement does not equate hostility. The hardest mistakes to recognize are your own.

BTW: Can I quote what you've posted here next time you write an opinion. If I am ever as hostile as you are at times, feel free to.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
the best thing to do here is for you all to apologize for treating me with disrespectNo comment.

If Roanon was offended by my comments, he should have handled it more professionally than to resort to the childish insulting behavior that he chose to conduct himself in. Justifying his behavior by saying I insulted him is at best warped logic.Do I understand this correctly? Calling me childish is NOT an insult, because YOU are doing it?
If I was offended by your comments (yes I was) then I should have handled it more professionally than by saying you insulted me, which is at best warped logic?
I give up, I really cannot understand this logic, my fault probably. <hr /></blockquote>No you do not understand me correctly. I did not call you childish, I called your behavior childish and insulting. But you can take it any way you want. And thank you for your apology if that is indeed what you have done here; "I give up, I really cannot understand this logic, my fault probably." If not, oh well, life goes on.

However, in the intrest of putting this behind us and moving forward with other topics, I, for having inadvertantly offending you with my words, offer my apologies.

I do not believe you to be a bad person, and if I have inadvertantly implied that you are, well that was not my intent.

Besides, what would I have gained by dilibrately insulting a member of this forum? Naw, I feel that you are more emotionally connected to the topic than I, therefore far more invested in what is said.

If you have no futher objects, shall we consider this the end?

President_Elect_Shang

December 15th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Nicely put CNC, Roanon?

rextorres

December 15th, 2003, 04:35 AM

Thanks Fyron - If saying something is "Altruistic Crap" and lamenting that one can't voice his opinions because of the climate in America today is "hostile" then you have a very thin skin. I can point to a number of posting in this thread alone that are way more provocative than that.

Anyways, I thought you wrote that, "I do not have an opinion one way or another on many of these particular issues".

[ December 15, 2003, 02:39: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 04:38 AM

If you don't see anything wrong with the way you have been posting, there is little I can do to help you.

CNCRaymond

December 15th, 2003, 04:51 AM

I don't know what the record is for Posts in a single topic in one day is, but I feel this one has got to be in the contention. 96 Posts in less than 12 hours. Not bad. And we owe this all to the Capture of Saddam.

Again, congrats to the US military, There allies, and the Iraqi People.

geoschmo

December 15th, 2003, 05:00 AM

Fyron and Rex I think both of you have made your good points and both of you have made statements that are over the line. Let's try to get the conversation off of who is hostile and who is not and get back to discussing the issues, or just drop it all together.

Try to find a way to disagree with the substance of each other's comments without critisizing the manner in which they are made.

Geoschmo

dogscoff

December 15th, 2003, 09:46 AM

Personally I am not convinced that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD's.
Blair definitely did. Anyone remember that plagiarised college thesis that had "Iraqi" search/replaced for "terrorist" and was then presented by the government as an "intelligence report"?

As for the Halliburton thing...There are a zillion sites out there tracking the tentacles of Bush's money, but on a slightly different note here's a link I like to post from time to time: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
Read the posting of August 28th for an interesting angle on the distribution of these rebuilding contracts. Spend a while reading some of the more recent Posts as well. As far as I'm concerned these Iraqi blogs are the only place for ppl like us to know what's actually going on inside the country.

geoschmo

December 15th, 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
As for the Halliburton thing...There are a zillion sites out there tracking the tentacles of Bush's money,Don't misunderstand me. I know full well that after the fact Haliburton is making a killing off of the contracts for Iraqi construction. This is a bit disturbing to me as well, however, it's not unheard of for people in powerful postions to have powerful friends. But the fact that Haliburton is benefitting from the war does not by itself prove that the war was started to benefit Haliburton. That's the accusation being made by many in opposition to the war. But I have seen nothing that comes cloes to proving it.

dogscoff

December 15th, 2003, 05:25 PM

But the fact that Haliburton is benefitting from the war does not by itself prove that the war was started to benefit Haliburton.
That's true, but you have to admit it doesn't look good. However, even if you give him the benefit of doubt it still looks like blatant corruption and war-profiteering- an impression any honest politician would surely go out of his way to avoid giving. I mean they didn't even allow open bidding on the contracts, it was just handed to Halliburton on a plate.

On it's own, I might be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but it's not the first time Bush's integrity has been called convincingly into question- that affair a while back with the deregulation of power companies for example. Without wanting to open certain cans of worms again, I would also point to the Kyoto (non)treaty, and of course you have the 'irregularities' concerning his election in the first place.

Again, it all might just be a coincidence, after all if the evidence was sufficient he'd be impeached or locked up or shot or something. However the problem is that a corrupt politician won't generally leave easy-to-follow paper trails. Crooks hide the proof as best they can, and the more powerful the crook the more effectively they can hide it. So when it comes to heads of state and other figures like that, a big pile of circumstantial evidence is sometimes all we have to go on. Add to that my (initially reluctant- ah, to be young and naive again) belief that 95% of all politicians are corrupt, soulless, self-serving reptilian arsewipes anyway and you can see why I don't trust Bush. Sure, it's not fair and it wouldn't hold up in court, but it's what my gut says and in the end that's what I go with. If I believed he'd at least done what he'd done in the interests of his country, I could give him some small measure of credit, but I just can't believe it, there are too many coincidences.

Anyway, if Bush ever comes to my little town I've got some out-of-date eggs at home with his name on them.

Karibu

December 15th, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If someone were to prove that Bush knew that Iraq had no legitimate WMD threat and that the war was only intended to line the pockets of Haliburton then I would say that goes way beyond propaganda. Propaganda is lying to gain tactical advantage over the enemy. This would be lying to your own people to cover up presidential malfeseance of a tremendous scale.

Geoschmo Heh, this makes me remember one small scale (internationally insignificant) scandal here in Finland. We had a parliament election a year ago here in Finland. It is also about changing our government, for the biggest party in our parliament will have the authority to form new government (our government is then changed every 6 years). During the Last weeks of election campaign the 2 biggest parties (social democrats and bourgeois party) had a bloody fight over people's votes and the leader of bourgeois party got into possession of one secret document about our government's discussion of USA about Iraq war.

She knew that it would be very risky to publish it, for if published, it could bring victory to her party but could also cost her political career (publishing classified information is always invetigated). She decided to publish that she had such information and what it was, but would not reveal the source and actually lied about it (she claimed she got it "accidentally"). Her party won the parliament election, partially because of that, ans she was elected as prime minister. But little after election the investigation started and she could no longer hide her source. Also it became apparent that she had lied about things during election. I don't bore you with the details, but after less than 6 months as prime minister she resigned (othervise government would have collapsed) and the people were offered few other political heads in a plate along with her.

What was the point? Lying can get you only so far. And eventually, you have to face the consequences of your actions.

mottlee

December 15th, 2003, 05:54 PM

Good, Bad or Indifferent I my self am glad he is defanetly out of power, call me a "Flag Waver" that is fine by me! That is one of the things we (USA) stand for is the freedom of speach, written or other wise. I my self I am pro military and do think it is a "Good" thing to serve your country, and weather you beleave in the WMD's or not a VERY BAD man is no longer a threat to the rest of the World and for that we can sleep better at night!

(just my $.02)

tesco samoa

December 15th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Legal question.

Where will S.H. be tried. Will it be by Iraq or USA or World Court.

I feel that the only qualification to be met is a fair trial.

Does anyone know what jurisdiciton this would fall under ??

tesco samoa

December 15th, 2003, 06:06 PM

The reason I ask this is that I feel that this is the time now that will be remembered in the long run on the story of Iraq and the western powers influence on it over the Last 50 years.

I would really like to see the truth and I hope it does come out.

Karibu

December 15th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by mottlee:
(just my $.02) Offtopic: Just curious, what happened to $.01?

Loser

December 15th, 2003, 06:38 PM

Fyron

December 15th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Karibu:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mottlee:
(just my $.02) Offtopic: Just curious, what happened to $.01? <hr /></blockquote>Where did 1 cent come from? The phrase has to my knowledge always been "just my 2 cents."

President_Elect_Shang

December 15th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Karibu:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mottlee:
(just my $.02) Offtopic: Just curious, what happened to $.01? <hr /></blockquote>Two cents worth? To heck with that what about inflation? Ha, I want my monies worth from all of you, don�t make me pull out my +5 sword of wounding and get medieval in this thread. Ops, wrong game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Munchausen

December 15th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Legal question.

Where will S.H. be tried. Will it be by Iraq or USA or World Court.

I feel that the only qualification to be met is a fair trial.

Does anyone know what jurisdiciton this would fall under ?? Oh, they definitely want the trial to be done in Iraq by Iraqis. It would be disasterous to allow Saddam an international forum to discuss his various dealings with the US and its allies. If the topic were allowed to stray from his abuse of Iraqis (internal politics) to anything international there would be very nasty things revealed about many of the NATO countries who want to be considered 'good guys' on the world stage.

Baron Munchausen

December 15th, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dogscoff:
As for the Halliburton thing...There are a zillion sites out there tracking the tentacles of Bush's money,Don't misunderstand me. I know full well that after the fact Haliburton is making a killing off of the contracts for Iraqi construction. This is a bit disturbing to me as well, however, it's not unheard of for people in powerful postions to have powerful friends. But the fact that Haliburton is benefitting from the war does not by itself prove that the war was started to benefit Haliburton. That's the accusation being made by many in opposition to the war. But I have seen nothing that comes cloes to proving it. <hr /></blockquote>This is another case of 'meme-folding'. There is ample evidence that the war was about control of oil in general, but this is such a large issue that it can be tangled up with legitimate issues of international politics -- which is how the war was in fact justified. So in order to make their point, to get the sound bite on the air, the opposition simplifies the issue and points out how one particular company is benefitting hugely from the situation and how that one company is linked to the administration. As the over-simplified usage continues, people forget that it's a simplification and it starts to become the meaning and reality of the argument instead of a sign of the larger issues behind it.

[ December 15, 2003, 19:04: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Andr�s

December 16th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Even if I don't agree with all this war, I'm glad there's one dictator less.
I still think it was possible to depose him without needing to destroy and rebuild the Iraq, but it's too late for worrying about that now.

Don't forget that although this dictator is gone, there are a lot more to go (and that even some of them hide behind a facade of democracy).

I just hope to see a fair trial and not a clumsy attempt to hide the truth, either if it's Iraqi or international justice.

I'm surprised he was caught alive. I always thought he was going to get conveniently killed while "resisting the arrest" or found he had already "committed suicide".
That's one point in favor of the US.

narf poit chez BOOM

December 16th, 2003, 02:03 AM

man, this thing has got a bloody lot of Posts. i'm not even going to try to read it.

uh, nothing really to say here, carry on.

Loser

December 16th, 2003, 02:35 AM

That can't be Narf using such language. Must be an imposter.

narf poit chez BOOM

December 16th, 2003, 02:37 AM

bloody? that just means 'a lot'.

well, it might be bad language to other people.

Loser

December 16th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Oh, dear. No offense Narf, but it likely means more than you thought. I'm confident some transatlantic anglophone will hope on and let you know where it come from and what it does mean. I didn't mean my comment as chastisement, just to let you know. There something to be said for vocabulary, even if it's not appropriate in church.

President_Elect_Shang

December 16th, 2003, 03:40 AM

Anyone heard from Roanon?

dogscoff

December 17th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Yes, 'bloody' is one of the older, milder British swear words, although it can be used politely when describing something that is covered in, or results in, a lot of blood or bloodshed (ie a bloody battle is not swearing, but a bloody mess might or might not be, depending on whether or not the mess in question is actually splashed with the red stuff.)

According to my Concise Oxford Dictionary, it stems from the "bloods", an old way of describing the aristocracy. To be "Bloody drunk" was to be as "drunk as a Blood" or "as a drunk as a lord".

</dictionary>

narf poit chez BOOM

December 17th, 2003, 10:13 AM

sounds more like an exclamation than an explicitive, but there's not much point in using it if it's going to be misunderstood.

CNCRaymond

December 17th, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Anyone heard from Roanon? Not since his Last comments.

President_Elect_Shang

December 17th, 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Anyone heard from Roanon? Not since his Last comments. <hr /></blockquote>Surely he did not flee to never be heard from again?

Karibu

December 17th, 2003, 04:46 PM

Using "bloody" instead of "much" is not so bad. Just a figure of speech. You should hear Finnish teenagers to use "f_u_c_k" (finnish equivalent) instead of comma, point, semicolon and other such marks. It would be disturbing to listen if I wouldn't be depressed of the lack of imagination of young generation of my people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ December 17, 2003, 14:46: Message edited by: Karibu ]

sachmo

December 17th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Anyone heard from Roanon? Not since his Last comments. <hr /></blockquote>Maybe he just don't bloody care anymore?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

President_Elect_Shang

December 17th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Well bloody heck, you might just be bloody right. (2 times one sentance) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Puke

December 18th, 2003, 12:15 AM

I was under the impression that it was an explitave refering to the blood of christ, rather than to blue blooded nobels.

either way, its now taken as a fairly mild form of cursing.

I heard from an old college prof, that **** is an abreviation for Fornication Under Consent of the King, as at one time (forget which ruler) consent had to be obtained from the royalty, unless you wanted to risk being jailed for fornicating without a license.

Loser

December 18th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Looks like I was wrong about how strong it was. Thanks for clearing that one up, DS.

Baron Munchausen

December 18th, 2003, 03:45 AM

While it is true that in stricter times one could be subjected to legal penalties for sex outside of marriage, the acronym explanation of the word is not valid. The euphemism 'carnal knowledge' does even not exist in English until the Bible becomes commonly available in English in the 16th century because it was the translation of a Hebrew verb that meant 'to know' and also had the connotation of sexual intercourse that created that new connotation in English. William Tyndale was burned as a heretic for translating the Bible into English, btw. And then a few years later King James comissions an 'official' translation and his 'team of scholars' rips off reams of Tyndale's work... go figure.

Anyway, the word is considered a cognate of a German word 'ficken' and to have been influenced by a Latin word 'futuere'. Both of these words mean essentially the same thing -- 'to strike' -- which makes perfect sense for the action described. I think 'ficken' is actually used in German just as we use 'f-ck' too.