Please, spare me the pap.

Post #93,776 by mmoffitt 4/2/03 1:56:10 PM Reply	Please, spare me the pap. (as we do all of those who serve to protect us). Protect me? From what? Saddam? Hells Bells, man, I need a hell of a lot more protection from the Office of Homeland Security than I've ever needed or ever will need from Saddam. I'm sick of people parading their paper compassion before my eyes. And this relates to my point that PFC Lynch is no more and no less human than the kids whose picture I posted a link to in what FUCKED UP way? Am I glad that PFC Lynch is still alive? Hell yes I am. But I'd rather she hadn't "simply taken orders." In a nutshell, PFC Lynch's death would have been tragic. But ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NO MORE TRAGIC than the people's deaths who were caused by her rescue. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #93,783 by Mike 4/2/03 2:48:21 PM Reply	You stole my title!!!!!!! >>Protect me? From what? Saddam? So.....you feel supremely safe from interference from characters like Saddam? And why the fuck IS that? Because none of his kind could ever possibly want anything you've got? Because he fears your forum writing skills? >>Hells Bells, man, I need a hell of a lot more protection from the >>Office of Homeland Security than I've ever needed or ever will >>need from Saddam. Why do you think you have no proection from the Office of Homeland Security? Hey......if you're getting something out of this delusion...more power to ya. "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,798 by jbrabeck 4/2/03 3:21:16 PM Reply	Now I need to support MMoffit.. So.....you feel supremely safe from interference from characters like Saddam? And why the fuck IS that? Because none of his kind could ever possibly want anything you've got? Because he fears your forum writing skills? Because nothing that Saddam has done makes me fear him. He funds terrorists... The likelyhood of being killed by a terrorist are small. It's more likely that I'll die from secondhand cigarette smoke. His WMD, if he still has them, do not have a delivery vehicle that would be able to threaten the US. Why do you think you have no proection from the Office of Homeland Security? Hey......if you're getting something out of this delusion...more power to ya. Check the liberties that we have lost in the name of Homeland Security. Credit check to fly? We have lost more freedoms than we have gained in security. [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com\|Joe]
Post #93,807 by Mike 4/2/03 3:57:01 PM Reply	Disagree >>Because nothing that Saddam has done makes me fear him. He funds >>terrorists... The likelyhood of being killed by a terrorist are small. >>It's more likely that I'll die from secondhand cigarette smoke. >>His WMD, if he still has them, do not have a delivery vehicle that would be >>able to threaten the US. I sense some irony. You are painting a picture of the security which you are afforded by today's capable army ...... to argue that you don't feel the need for its protection. >>Check the liberties that we have lost in the name of Homeland Security. >>Credit check to fly? We have lost more freedoms than we have gained in >>security. And what freedom would that be which you lost......the freedom to fly without appropriate identification? The freedom to fly while paying cash? The freedom to fly while poor. The freedom to fly anonymously? Similar to the point above ...... you require the benefit of the security you already have in order to decry those measures that lead to it. The life of the typical American has NOT been impacted by ANY of the changes since 9/11. (So long as we're playing the statistic game). Want to see an impact? Let's all just drop our guard for 12 months and see what happens. -Mike "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,809 by jake123 4/2/03 4:03:57 PM Reply	"You're damn right I did!" --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #93,817 by jbrabeck 4/2/03 4:14:22 PM Reply	Lost you on that one Jake. What ya referring to? [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com\|Joe]
Post #93,820 by jake123 4/2/03 4:17:05 PM Reply	Jack Nicholson --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #93,835 by Mike 4/2/03 5:11:01 PM Reply	Quit worrying..... You'll be back on your knees in no time. "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,841 by jake123 4/2/03 5:21:42 PM Reply	Right. It's pretty clear what the quality of your character is too. Have fun in your revenge fantasy. I hope you really enjoy it when it blows back. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #93,983 by Mike 4/3/03 12:06:05 AM Reply	Oh you bitch! <sniff> Dude, you need to study your Jack Nicholson a little harder. -Mike "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,821 by jbrabeck 4/2/03 4:26:50 PM Reply	Huh? I sense some irony. You are painting a picture of the security which you are afforded by today's capable army ...... to argue that you don't feel the need for its protection. Where did I ever say that we don't need the Army? IIRC the armed services are part of the Department of DEFENSE. The Department of WAR was renamed after WWII. Our military should be used to DEFEND the US. And, no, I don't believe that a good offense is a good defense. If Saddam had attacked the US, then go get him. But until then leave him alone. No, I will not defend Saddam, his regime nor his politics. [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com\|Joe]
Post #93,830 by Mike 4/2/03 5:00:36 PM Reply	If I understand you right You don't fear Saddam. And the reason is.......if he attacks America the (call the department whatever you like) will then kick his ass. Shame that didn't work with Bin Laden ...... no? -Mike "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,839 by mmoffitt 4/2/03 5:17:35 PM Reply	Perhaps we shouldn't have funded and trained bin Laden. Nor Saddam for that matter. And I guess I fall to the edges because I sure as hell have been affected by the anti-American, un-Constitutional establishment of the ~~Gestapo~~ Office of Homeland Security. But from your posts I can see that you are one of those myopic "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" types. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #93,840 by jake123 4/2/03 5:19:54 PM Reply	False analogy Iraq is a state, and Ba'ath is its duly constituted government. Al-Qaida is a criminal organisation. That's like equating Peru and Shining Path, or Italy and the Red Brigade. Or even New York City and the Gambino family. Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists. The world is no more dangerous now than it was a week before 9-11. If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional protections of the individual from the state. Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities. The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure its own destruction. Does this mean that the US armed forces are bad? No, it doesn't. It does mean that the current leadership is bad. This has happened before, and will probably happen again. Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules of international order no longer apply? --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #93,861 by Brandioch 4/2/03 6:28:05 PM Reply	"Or even New York City and the Gambino family." Exactly.
Post #93,988 by Mike 4/3/03 12:46:33 AM Reply	What analogy? What analogy? I'm pointing out why it might not be a great idea to sit and wait. >>Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities >>are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm >>on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists. Yeah...and estimates are that the sanctions on Iraq killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000. If your rationale is legitimate...that makes the war we are inflcting on them negligible doesn't it? >>If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the >>current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional >>protections of the individual from the state. You need to evidence this. The majority of the legislation enacted is expressly written to exclude U.S. citizens. So that leaves us with a statistically VERY small number of people impacted. Now.... if I take your statistical reasoning...I think that leads you to say "fuck 'em"...right? >>Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities. You mean like voting for 1441 then failing to follow through? >>The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure >>its own destruction. To infinity and beyond. Not sure who talked about conquering the world. >>Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules >>of international order no longer apply? Dude ....... this has been true for years. You just don't know it yet. -Mike "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion)
Post #93,997 by jake123 4/3/03 1:59:49 AM Reply	Re: What analogy? What analogy? \r\n\r\n The analogy of not being afraid of Iraq because the US is quite capable of crushing his skull and how that didn't work with bin Laden. As I said, it's like saying one should destroy New York City to get rid of the Gambino family. \r\n\r\n I'm pointing out why it might not be a great idea to sit and wait. \r\n\r\n Sit and wait for what? It's not like Hussein can even reach the US, let alone try to hit it. You're conflating the actions of a criminal organisation with those of a nation state again. They are not the same thing. \r\n\r\n >>Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities \r\n>>are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm \r\n>>on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists. \r\n\r\n Yeah...and estimates are that the sanctions on Iraq killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000. If your rationale is legitimate...that makes the war we are inflcting on them negligible doesn't it? \r\n\r\n Another bad analogy. My point is about an individual assessing risks to their physical self, and you're talking about the affect of actions on a population. Try again. \r\n\r\n >>If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the \r\n>>current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional \r\n>>protections of the individual from the state. \r\n\r\n You need to evidence this. The majority of the legislation enacted is expressly written to exclude U.S. citizens. So that leaves us with a statistically VERY small number of people impacted. Now.... if I take your statistical reasoning...I think that leads you to say "fuck 'em"...right? \r\n\r\n Well, only if we take your strawman version of my reasoning. Besides, in case you didn't notice, I'm not an US citizen. Furthermore, one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians without any due process whatsoever; Land of the Free, right? As a person who is sitting here looking at the risks to myself, misdirected fury of your justice system ranks a lot higher than al-Qaida, as I'm a LOT more likely to run into your justice system than I am to run into al-Qaida. Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens, and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights against unreasonable search and seizure. \r\n\r\n I'm surprised you're not more concerned about this. \r\n\r\n >>Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities. \r\n\r\n You mean like voting for 1441 then failing to follow through? \r\n\r\n See Negroponte's comments about automaticity. They've been referenced here enough. Besides, the Bush administration let it slip some months ago... their goal was regime change and nothing less would satisfy them. 1441 doesn't say anything at all about regime change. "Failing to follow through" is a red herring. \r\n\r\n >>The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure \r\n>>its own destruction. \r\n\r\n To infinity and beyond. Not sure who talked about conquering the world. \r\n\r\n The Project for a New American Century, that's who. Go look 'em up on the web, and take a nice long look at the people who signed on the founding principles of the group. Then go read some of the papers they've published. \r\n\r\n >>Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules\r\n>>of international order no longer apply? \r\n\r\n Dude ....... this has been true for years. You just don't know it yet. \r\n\r\n Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or otherwise produced outside the US. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #94,105 by Mike 4/3/03 12:26:53 PM 4/3/03 12:29:52 PM Reply	Thoughts I'd hate for this to disappear into threadblivion...but oh well. >>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Blah blah blah. If you want to have an argument over how treaties operate between certain selected first world countries .....have at it. But for just a second.....let's assume that when you used the word "world" .... you meant "the world".....and how more powerful nations interact with weaker ones (can't help but think this is relevant). We'll come back to this. Just for the record.....I studied International Law under Michael Akehurst. (I know you know of him). Not saying that this makes me holier than thou ..... but cheap shitty insults which have as their foundation.... how smart and worldy wise you are ... just ain't gonna cut it. Partucularly in your case. Just so ya know. An even more pertinent fact for you: I am not a U.S. citizen (in case you didn't know) ..... so it seems you have made a rash assumption. The impact for me was minor......but just for the record 1) Was asked/advised to (re)register my whereabouts 2) My application for citenship has been delayed 3) I may have been monitored for all I know >>Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US >>citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens >>and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights >>against unreasonable search and seizure. ....... >>one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado >>for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians >>without any due process whatsoever You appear free to dance in and out of whatever level of granularity you see lends itself to supporting your arguments. I've tried to point this out. I know it may seem logical to you .... but I don't believe it is. When it comes to security measures and whether or not they are justified ...... you are in the corner of numbers, statistics and probabilities when gauging the benefit. But when it comes to gauging the harm ..... you conveniently avoid using the same lens. Suddenly your solitary countryman is raised to overwhelming importance in the debate. You can try to say that this may have implications for the rest of us.... but then you stumble into having to show whether this is even remotely likely. Finally......let's come back to this shall we? >>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking >>forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules >>governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing >>interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing >>interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international >>order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or >>otherwise produced outside the US. If I may so...this is the response of a fuckwit who reads the equivalent of USA today and fuck all else. Let me give you ONE.....just ONE.....example of what I am talking about. And this......just happens to involve Canada. (How about that!) Am I right in understanding that Chretien ordered Canadian forces to bomb Yugoslavia without even bothering to consult the United Nations? Was there a declaration of war? Did it have the approval of the Canadian Parliament? The bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. There was no hesitation or scruples about going ahead. Where was the suggestion that operating outside the umbrella of the UN might have long-term consequences and deal a blow to the framework of international security? No explanation was ever given for this. Indeed I don't believe the failure to consult the UN was even discussed in Parliament. So where was the fucking rule of law? Now.......you can ....if you like .... fret and worry about the role of telecommunications agreements in International Law.....but I put it to you that there are more pressing things to be concerned about. And I put it to you that the idea that we have a "fair" world which is being conducted according to the rule of international law is very...very.......naive. -Mike (who believes that its possible to show support for a noble goal....and still not be particularly enlightened) "My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier." (The Onion) Edited by Mike April 3, 2003, 12:29:52 PM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!