MAIN | CARS | GAMES | MOVIES | TV | MUSIC | NOTHING | FOOD | POLITICS | FAQ | TOPICS | ARCHIVE
Drudge Report
Fox News
Studio Briefing
The Superficial
TMZ
Reddit

Cali-Drivers-Suck.com

RSS


MANAGE BOOKMARKS


Monday, October 24th, 2011SUGGEST NEWS

Libya
Posted by: Nebuchadnezzar on October 24th, 2011 @ 12:50AM
  • Libyan Rebels Channeled the A-Team With This Anti Sniper Dozer
  • Gadhafi's autopsy reveals he was shot in head
  • New - Rebels Beat a Captured Moammar Gaddafi As He Pleads for His Life (October 20th,2011) - That sucks. The guy was evil but they shoulda either killed him outright or captured and punished. But I guess that's not how the uncivilized world does it. I guess we did the same thing with Bin Laden shooting him when we could have captured.
  • Muammar Gaddafi killed in Libya
  • Qaddafi Is Dead, Libyan Officials Say
  • Gaddafi dead, eyewitness recounts final moments

    All the villains are dead now except for the North Korean one.

  • Looters Steal Gadhafi's weapons, including surface-to-air missiles

  • U.S. Fears Missing Libyan Weapons Could Fall Into Wrong Hands
  • UPDATE 1-Libyan convoy with gold, cash crossed to Niger-NTC
  • Qaddafi: No Surrender in Libya
  • How Crazy is Gaddafi? He Has a Giant Prince of Persia Poster in His Palace
  • Jihadists plot to take over Libya - We learned in Vietnam that taking out one leader and replacing them with another is often worse than the previous one.
  • Libyan rebels round up black Africans
  • Africa
    Libya Rebels Poised to Attack Qaddafi Stronghold

  • Gadhafi's family fled to Algeria
  • Gaddafi's girl executioner: Nisreen, 19, admits shooting 11 rebel prisoners, now she is shackled to hospital bed awaiting justice
  • Luxury, horror lurk in Gadhafi family compound
  • Horror of 150 bodies found on a farm after being massacred by pro-Gaddafi forces
  • Human slaughterhouse discovered in Tripoli
  • NATO nations set to reap spoils of Libya war - I hope we get some.
  • Inside Gaddafi's secret tunnels: Rebels break into labyrinth for the first time as they claim to have leader and sons cornered
  • Muammar Gadaffi's gun. It's made out of pure gold and has his name written on it. (it's right above the horse) (i.imgur.com)
  • In the ruins of Gadhafi's lair, rebels find album filled with photos of his 'darling' Condoleezza Rice
  • Rebels, looters target Gadhafi family homes - Awesome
  • Libya rebels capture Kadhafi's Tripoli compound: AFP
  • Gadhafi Loyalists Stiffen Resistance as Strongman Remains at Large
  • Kadhafi son Mohammed escapes: rebel source
  • Obama says 'rule is over' for Libya's Gadhafi
  • Libyan Insurgents Push to Heart of the Capital; Battles at Gadhafi's Compound
  • Gaddafi defector sees end of regime in 10 days
  • Libyan Rebels Control Much of Tripoli, Gadhafi Whereabouts Unknown
  • Clashes near Gadhafi compound in Libyan capital
  • Gaddafi’s rule crumbling as rebels enter heart of Tripoli

    COMMENTS (56) | WAR | DIGG
    COMMENTS
    ADD COMMENTS | SEND TO A FRIEND | BOOKMARK | SORT LAST TO FIRST
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 4:37AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    if you think gaddafi is bad wait until you see who the globalists plan to replace him with
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 10:31AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    And who would that be, RRP?
    killer6600
    Marine

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 12:31PM

    Registered:
    2007-06-16
    Location:
    canada
    Posts: 1371
    small chinese style footed, central american elongated head, 15 foot tall reptile muslim who spews flouride and hunts ron paul for sport
    jdLordHelmet
    Good is Dumb

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 2:31PM

    Registered:
    2003-12-22
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts: 1314
    You know you spelled Libya wrong, right?
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 4:07PM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    bwahahaha i think killer got it right for once
    Wootah
    non-leet

    August 22nd, 2011 @ 10:06PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-16
    Location:
    Utah
    Posts: 1590
    Can we get out of Libya yet?
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    August 26th, 2011 @ 1:36PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    Good thing Obama brought about such "Change".
    BloodClot
    Kali Compton

    August 26th, 2011 @ 2:31PM

    Registered:
    2003-03-26
    Location:
    Southern OC
    Posts: 516
    I would think pure gold would be too soft to make a gun out of.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    August 27th, 2011 @ 10:48AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    Good thing Obama brought about such "Change".

    Arab Spring occurred if and only if Barack was elected.

    /s
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    August 28th, 2011 @ 7:19PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    What does "Arab Spring" have to do with us being in Libya? Is it really any different than Iraq? Sure it is much less in scope, but still supporting the overthrow of a dictator.

    I don't think you can be anti-Iraq and support Libya at the same time.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    August 29th, 2011 @ 8:11AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    What does "Arab Spring" have to do with us being in Libya? Is it really any different than Iraq? Sure it is much less in scope, but still supporting the overthrow of a dictator.

    I don't think you can be anti-Iraq and support Libya at the same time.


    If the same exact reason was used in Iraq as was used in Libya, I would have been 100% behind us going into Iraq. I never enjoy the use of our Military, but will always support it as long as the reasons are just and alternatives have been exhausted. While I'll say alternatives were exhausted with Iraq, the reason was bullshit.

    Also, the United States was a tad more involved with the operations on the ground in Iraq than in Libya. Libya had a rebel force that could take on Gaddafi, Iraq did not.

    I guess I was trying to make some sense out of your Obama 'change' post. Were you under the impression that he was going to melt all of our weapons, dissolve the Military branch and declare all countries Allies or something?
    killer6600
    Marine

    August 30th, 2011 @ 5:36PM

    Registered:
    2007-06-16
    Location:
    canada
    Posts: 1371
    comparing america and england sending in an invading army and then occupying iraq so that it`s leader can`t nuke us, vs a civil war in libya with NATO bombing tanks and government infastructure so that it could not kill it`s own civilians is quite different i`d say
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    September 1st, 2011 @ 4:45AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    I`ll explain right now whats going on. The goal of the elite is to destroy america. They are removing all the dictators in the middle east who work with america, selling us oil, keeping at peace with america etc so they can replace them with cia trained super radical muslims who will not sell us that countrys oil and will not ever work with america. So look at these facts here and realize whats happening:

    Our govt arms radical rebels with a confirmed al queda leader. so your brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who spilled their blood in iraq and afghanistan fighting "al queda" ..for what?? Our govt is arming al queda...does that disgust you or what?

    Well this is exactly what the scum who run things do. arm the bad guys then years down the road say "we have to go to war with them they have weapons! they are terrorists!" They can get away with it because YOU (im saying the average fluoride slurping pea brained american who does not pay attention forgets that they were armed by our govt..well not actually our govt its been taken over by globalists who hate the u.s. and want to give us a bad name)

    So our govt who wants to take OUR guns from us puts tsa in your pants to make sure you dont have any weapons, gives guns freely to mexican gangs. and to rebel libyans so they can do the dirty work by killing gaddafi. Then after gaddafi is done away with they will have "elections" in libya to get a new leader who will bring "hope and change yay" to libya but its actually a staged rigged election for this al queda leader to get in. then the us will say "grumble gruble oh noes he doesnt want to sell us oil uh oh`s looks like the gas prices will go up big time because terrorists are running the country and they have weapons where did they get em!"

    So think...if the goal is to attack america with an actual full scale invasion of a large military force this is what they would have to do...get in puppets in all these countrys who hate the u.s. (they are actually cia employed scum) With a world filled with dictators who can rally their countrys against the u.s. and beat the drums of war this is what they have to do. So when china attacks us they will have all these huge armys to help them.

    America must be destroyed in order for them to get their one world government in. a government that sits atop a continent of 3rd world countrys. The U.S. is the only thing in their way. We are being attacked by so many fronts, on the inside from Tsa, homeland security calling us terrorists, patriot act made against us,a police force being trained to go against us as well as military being trained for civil unrest here to go against us. so many other things. and a brewing outside force from other countrys.

    its so stupid the game they play and continue to get away with it. but as nebu said most americans go to the fake money atms and act like pimps this is why they get away with it.

    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 1st, 2011 @ 2:34PM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    So..

    You believe everything you read and hear, RRP? Or only things you make up yourself?
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    September 1st, 2011 @ 3:50PM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    Heres a video detailing U.n. troops training to disarm americans and take us on...including U.S. traitor troops wearing blue berets. or maybe they will go door to door selling u.n. girl scout cookies?





    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    September 1st, 2011 @ 8:11PM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    and uh oh speaking of an attack on the U.S. a retired chinese general let slip of a much thought about surprise missile attack on the U.S. while you watch footbal Xu will press the red button
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 2nd, 2011 @ 10:07AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    America must be destroyed in order for them to get their one world government in. a government that sits atop a continent of 3rd world countrys.

    Who in their right mind would want to control that government over being a part of the current US Govt?

    Instead of ruling a bunch of 3rd world countries, you have a hand in the freakin USA - and you are getting serviced by all these lobbying firms. Are the World's richest people just that bored or something?
    killer6600
    Marine

    September 4th, 2011 @ 8:33PM

    Registered:
    2007-06-16
    Location:
    canada
    Posts: 1371
    so wait, the muslims trained by america will never work with america? is the cia not from america anymore? why would cia backed muslim dictators be switched for cia backed MORE muslim terrorists......is it because the more muslim terrorists carry footballs and flouride?
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 5th, 2011 @ 11:03AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    We didn't lose Iran to Jihadists. We lost it when the corrupt Shah the US placed into power was ousted by the Ayatollah.
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    September 5th, 2011 @ 3:03PM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    Do ya see? "jihadists plot to take over libya" all the plan from the beginning....had to remove gaddafi so the boogiemen could get in. The same thing is occuring in egypt, they also want to get the guy out whos head of syria. all so they can be replaced by "jihadists" and all funded and planned by the very people you believe are your friends in washington.

    and to answer smokin joe
    "Instead of ruling a bunch of 3rd world countries, you have a hand in the freakin USA - and you are getting serviced by all these lobbying firms. Are the World`s richest people just that bored or something?"

    These crooks have all the money they could ever want but like a fat kid near the cookie jar, his belly full he just wants to empty the entire jar so its brought to a finish yum! These scum are bleeding our country dry while they destroy it. sucking up social security, pensions, 401k`s you name it...its being drained.

    And the plan to physically attack america with a full military force is underway. China threatening missile attacks, china bolstering its troops in mexico right now for a southern invasion. Its gonna happen.....but when? who knows.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 6th, 2011 @ 8:13AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    You need way better evidence than that to justify such an accusation.
    Nalcolm
    Thinker

    September 6th, 2011 @ 2:26PM

    Registered:
    2005-04-16
    Location:
    Posts: 651
    I dunno, I kinda dig the 'fat kid cookie jar hypothesis' when evaluating the likelihood of war. Seems very astute.
    peekay
    Special Ops

    September 7th, 2011 @ 3:19AM

    Registered:
    2005-09-28
    Location:
    Germany
    Posts: 359
    "If the same exact reason was used in Iraq as was used in Libya, I would have been 100% behind us going into Iraq."

    I don`t understand why this matters. If Bush had said Iraq has ice cream and the US is invading Iraq for more ice cream, it has no bearing on whether I justify the invasion of Iraq. Bush might have been wrong in his reasoning, but it doesn`t mean invading Iraq was wrong. It only means that argument (for ice cream) is wrong.

    There might be other ways to justify it, depending on your own beliefs. I think Bush makes people irrational. There is nothing stopping you from applying the same reasoning, except Bush.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 7th, 2011 @ 10:04AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    I don`t understand why this matters. If Bush had said Iraq has ice cream and the US is invading Iraq for more ice cream, it has no bearing on whether I justify the invasion of Iraq. Bush might have been wrong in his reasoning, but it doesn`t mean invading Iraq was wrong. It only means that argument (for ice cream) is wrong.

    It matters because we irresponsibly put hundreds of thousands of our Military personnel into danger without the public, or even those in charge knowing exactly what the hell was going on.

    Are you a firm believer than the ends justify the means?

    I wanted to change the situation in Iraq because I believed people were being suppressed and murdered. However, while we appeared to exhaust all avenues for changing this, I am not going to approve of an all-out invasion just because I believed something needed to be done if the reasons behind it were deliberately misleading.

    If you can't truthfully make a reason for War, either don't go to War or don't say anything at all. I strongly disapprove of just throwing out troops left and right, and that's what we did.
    peekay
    Special Ops

    September 9th, 2011 @ 6:45AM

    Registered:
    2005-09-28
    Location:
    Germany
    Posts: 359
    So you don`t agree to removing a dictator from power and putting the people in charge? You reject the humanitarian arguments for going to war in Iraq. Isn`t that the exact reason we are at war with Libya?

    Also, your reluctance to put Americans at risk is understandable, but innocent people are dying in Libya every day. It`s war. Also, the winners (rebels) are rounding up the losers (black africans) and killing them, because rebels believe black africans are mercs for the regime.

    "Are you a firm believer than the ends justify the means?"

    No. I`m a moderate deontologist. Although the wrongness of something can be outweighed by it`s benefits. For example: If torturing 1 person (wrong) could save the lives of 1,209 people (yay!) the wrongness of torture could be overridden.

    "without the public, or even those in charge knowing exactly what the hell was going on."

    If you don`t know why we went to war you haven`t been looking. Bush spoke to and sent a transcript of his reasons for going to war, of which, there were many reasons listed. If you don`t agree with them fine.


    "I wanted to change the situation in Iraq because I believed people were being suppressed and murdered. However, while we appeared to exhaust all avenues for changing this, I am not going to approve of an all-out invasion just because I believed something needed to be done if the reasons behind it were deliberately misleading."

    Like I said, Bush Administration makes people irrational. Go back to my ice cream arguments. It doesn`t matter if Bush lied, made false arguments, or made a mistake, or was truthful. Either you agree with the arguments or you don`t. Each argument for war stands on its own merits, they are not connected to what Bush said, Ice cream, or any other thing but what is in the argument itself.

    Your hangup of not invading a country with troops is a little strange. I fail to see what`s so much better with invading it with bombs, and funding other people to attack the government the country wants to remove. If you don`t like nation building, that makes sense, but nation building and troop invasions are not the same thing.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 9th, 2011 @ 11:08AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    So you don`t agree to removing a dictator from power and putting the people in charge? You reject the humanitarian arguments for going to war in Iraq. Isn`t that the exact reason we are at war with Libya?

    Please point me to the source where President Bush declares that the sole reason for the invasion of Iraq is the liberate the people and remove Saddam from power - on behalf of the suffering citizens, which is what is going on in Libya. Please, find that and I'll be shut up.

    We were already in the area doing work in Afghanistan, kicking some fucking ass in Afghanistan. We had the Taliban on the run and Osama cornered. The job was nearing completion - and what occurs? All of a sudden this insistence that we needed to open another front in Iraq. That there were harbored terrorists there, training facilities, WMDs, threats to our actions in Afghanistan.

    So we invaded Iraq.

    While you may just need them to say we need Ice Cream and then 'whoops, we liberated the country from a dictator! lol!' And you think that's fine (no issues with that, to each their own), however I find that somewhat irresponsible in the fact that what if we didn't liberate the country? I can't just look at this with hindsight and say, "well, whatever, we directly mislead the public, but we did a good thing, so it's all ok!"

    So I'll always contend that if you don't have the confidence to stand up in front of the World and declare, "We're invading Iraq to remove Saddam," then you haven't exhausted all forms of diplomacy, you haven't exhausted all options, you aren't acting on behalf of the people of that country, you're simply attempting to selectively police the World to your liking.

    I don't want that.

    Like I said, Bush Administration makes people irrational. Go back to my ice cream arguments. It doesn`t matter if Bush lied, made false arguments, or made a mistake, or was truthful. Either you agree with the arguments or you don`t. Each argument for war stands on its own merits, they are not connected to what Bush said, Ice cream, or any other thing but what is in the argument itself.

    You're calling me irrational, and then start talking about Ice Cream. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but all I can get out of it is:

    "Follow the President regardless of truth."

    Your hangup of not invading a country with troops is a little strange. I fail to see what`s so much better with invading it with bombs, and funding other people to attack the government the country wants to remove. If you don`t like nation building, that makes sense, but nation building and troop invasions are not the same thing.

    You're comparing two very different conflicts that do not share very many commonalities. My hangup isn't that one War was fought differently than another (and they both were approached very differently), it is the fact that the reasons for Libya were mentioned outright. Iraq, not so much. And I don't care how it ends or is supposed to end - you don't just send in people to do a job and then trick them into another job. Our soldiers were fed a Bait and Switch, and I am disgusted at that.

    That's how I saw Iraq. I'm never hesitant to use force if that's the last remaining option, however don't jerk me around.

    For example: If torturing 1 person (wrong) could save the lives of 1,209 people (yay!) the wrongness of torture could be overridden

    That's quite a big if to make right before you completely dehumanize yourself and your prisoner. Torture is never worth it and it lowers us to the level of our enemies. If we cannot hold our head high and hold ourselves to a higher standard, why the fuck should the rest of the World do so as well?


    EDITED: 2011-09-09 11:10:53
    peekay
    Special Ops

    September 12th, 2011 @ 3:40AM

    Registered:
    2005-09-28
    Location:
    Germany
    Posts: 359
    Wow, I can`t believe you are objecting so strongly to my point here.

    All I`m saying is this: The President made many arguments for going to war. You, an individual with a mind of your own, can decide, for yourself, which of those reasons you choose to accept or reject, as you wish.

    You reject them when made by President Bush, but accept them when made by President Obama. That seems like a contradiction.

    Never did I come close to saying follow the president. The ridiculous ice cream example is only to show a point. No matter if the president or anyone close to him makes one or many bad arguments, any of the other arguments are still viable to accept or reject on their own terms.

    "You`re comparing two very different conflicts that do not share very many commonalities"

    I am not. I am comparing the arguments for going to war in each case. The arguments for going to war in one country can and are used to go to war in other countries. Either you agree with those arguments or you don`t. You don`t pick and choose based on whose making them.

    "That`s quite a big if to make right before you completely dehumanize yourself and your prisoner.... Torture is never worth it and it lowers us to the level of our enemies."

    That`s how conditionals work. They are true only when what`s contained with the `if` part is true.

    And since when did you become a moral absolutist? Or is it only when it suits your topic? Once again you pick and choose your views like a buffet. There seems to be no consistency here.

    Isn`t killing the innocent absolutely morally wrong? Doesn`t it lower your morality? Why don`t you support a ban on abortion? There is nothing more innocent than a fetus. Or how about, did you support the killing of Osama Bin Laden? How is killing a person better than torturing them for information which might save lives. Shouldn`t we have captured him and brought him to court rather than killed him? Doesn`t killing a person lower us to their level? It seems to me killing people is worse than torture, but what do I know.

    Think for yourself. Don`t follow the herd.
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    September 12th, 2011 @ 1:16PM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    Wow, I can`t believe you are objecting so strongly to my point here.

    All I`m saying is this: The President made many arguments for going to war. You, an individual with a mind of your own, can decide, for yourself, which of those reasons you choose to accept or reject, as you wish.

    You reject them when made by President Bush, but accept them when made by President Obama. That seems like a contradiction.


    First off, I'd rather you call it the War in Iraq specifically, because I was all for the War in Afghanistan (still rather favorable, however given the massive disapproval, may not really be worth it generally speaking). And yes, I rejected the reasons for going into Iraq because they didn't make much sense to do. We brought the jihadists into Iraq as another front for battling when it could have been kept in Afghanistan.

    If we wanted to take Saddam out, then fine, but do it while we aren't also fighting another front in another country. We aren't the World Police - and if we want to be all over the place then we can't do it during an existing War where we're thinning troops where we need them the most.

    And then yes, I was for the reasoning for Libya because Gaddafi was slaughtering his people while they were trying to protest. I realize that this is going to open a can of worms, but I was highly appeased by the show of International Support by a few large nations/UN and am hoping that there is a plan for moving forward with the new change in leadership.

    I'm always a fan of a coalition (very similar to how Bush Sr. did it during the initial Gulf War).

    I am not. I am comparing the arguments for going to war in each case. The arguments for going to war in one country can and are used to go to war in other countries. Either you agree with those arguments or you don`t. You don`t pick and choose based on whose making them.

    Could you show me a list of arguments used to go to Iraq? And I guess bonus points for Libya so then I can check to see whether I know fully about my justifications for both. I can't really tell what specifically you're talking about or if you mean on a general sense. I said specifically that the two wars (Iraq and Libya) were different conflicts both in how they were approached in planning and execution as well as general geographic/logistic differences, not to mention overall reasoning.

    Perhaps there is overlap in results: Leaders were removed from power. However, you'll need to provide a link to me to prove that George W. Bush had a specific goal in mind to oust Saddam because he was murdering citizens who were attempting to protest. I'm fairly sure the goals were purely Military based.

    That`s how conditionals work. They are true only when what`s contained with the `if` part is true.

    And since when did you become a moral absolutist? Or is it only when it suits your topic? Once again you pick and choose your views like a buffet. There seems to be no consistency here.


    Right. Anything specific you're referencing or do you just not understand that the relationship between torturing a subject and receiving valuable, life-saving information isn't causal.

    Isn`t killing the innocent absolutely morally wrong? Doesn`t it lower your morality? Why don`t you support a ban on abortion? There is nothing more innocent than a fetus. Or how about, did you support the killing of Osama Bin Laden? How is killing a person better than torturing them for information which might save lives. Shouldn`t we have captured him and brought him to court rather than killed him? Doesn`t killing a person lower us to their level? It seems to me killing people is worse than torture, but what do I know.

    Think for yourself. Don`t follow the herd.


    I'm sorry you live in a such a simple life where choice for abortion === okay to torture === killing osama bin laden. Don't try to flex your moral self on me. Sure I'd rather Osama would be alive, but I wasn't there, I have no idea how tense it may have been in that situation. With abortions, I would rather the woman have the choice to perform one. If there is to be serious health risks with the child, if the parents cannot support the child or the mother is single and simply cannot, I have no problems with another child not being forced into an underprivileged situation that may become drastically worse.

    I am against just getting an abortion because it is convenient, however that is simply the cost of having a freedom for the woman to choose. It's a very difficult call, I understand because of not only what many people would consider the beginning of 'life' but also the connection a mother would have with the fetus. I know if I impregnated my girlfriend and she decided to immediately abort it because it simply wouldn't work, I would hesitate - I don't really know if I could make that decision regardless of personal situation. I mean, that's my kid.. Anyway, I'm kinda rambling, but it is a very crazy situation that I believe should be looked at through a case by case basis. It's almost impossible to judge or make a decision so generally regarding something so sacred as new life and the new future it may rear.

    I just don't believe that Torture directly leads to saved lives. If you want to take that risk, so be it, I just would rather not because I find it immensely inhumane.

    And thanks for that message, Bill Hicks. I thought you were dead.


    EDITED: 2011-09-12 13:17:34
    peekay
    Special Ops

    September 15th, 2011 @ 9:15AM

    Registered:
    2005-09-28
    Location:
    Germany
    Posts: 359
    "First off, I`d rather you call it the War in Iraq specifically"

    That`s all I meant for the purposes of this post, and past ones. Unless otherwise specifically talking about Libya or Afghanistan.

    "If we wanted to take Saddam out, then fine, but do it while we aren`t also fighting another front in another country. We aren`t the World Police - and if we want to be all over the place then we can`t do it during an existing War where we`re thinning troops where we need them the most."

    We should separate (1) the invasion from (2) the occupation, because you can support (1) while rejecting (2). And when I say the arguments for war I mean only the invasion, not the occupation.

    The invasion of Iraq went incredibly well, the occupation, not so much for a while.

    Just to be clear, are you saying we would have "won" (or whatever you might want to call it) in Afghanistan if we hadn`t invaded Iraq? I don`t believe invading Iraq changed the outcome in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was doomed to be Afghanistan filled with Afghans(and bordered by Pakistan), no matter how much we wished it differently.

    "If we wanted to take Saddam out, then fine... I realize that this is going to open a can of worms, but I was highly appeased by the show of International Support by a few large nations/UN and am hoping that there is a plan for moving forward with the new change in leadership."

    Iraq coalition: 20-35 countries (limited UN support) Bush received authorization from a co-equal branch of government.
    Libya: 5 (full UN support) Obama has not.

    Yeah, this doesn`t seem very clear to me which wins.

    "Could you show me a list of arguments used to go to Iraq? "

    Wow, it took forever to find.

    But here are just a few of the arguments outlined (I`m not saying they are all good arguments):

    Liberating the Iraqi`s from Saddam. Preventing harm to neighboring countries. Bringing justice to Saddam for atrocities. Disarming Saddam.

    A compelling argument for not attacking a country was made by Obama himself. If a country poses no threat to the US, the US should not invade it. Do you agree? I agree.

    This article does a great job of explaining what I mean towards the end:

    "Let me give an example. Suppose I believe in humanitarian intervention (as liberals once did). I believe, say, that the United States should intervene in other countries to prevent -- and perhaps to punish -- atrocities (understood as widespread, systematic human-rights violations). Suppose I reject intervention on other grounds, such as the acquisition of territory or resources. Now suppose I`m convinced that President Bush`s motive in going to war in Iraq was the latter rather than the former. Should it matter to me? No. What I should say is that the war is justified (by my own principles). It is justified not because of the president`s stated reasons for going to war, which I reject, but in spite of them. I will think, and say, that the president did the right thing for the wrong reason."

    "However, you`ll need to provide a link to me to prove that George W. Bush had a specific goal in mind to oust Saddam because he was murdering citizens who were attempting to protest. "

    It doesn`t matter what Bush said. It`s hilarious that you accuse me of "Follow the President regardless of truth." You justify things morally based on your own morals, not President Bush`s morals, or what he said, or anyone else. Think for yourself. What are YOUR values, and does any possible strong argument YOU could make support going to war in Iraq. That is the standard. The fact that you don`t already do this is mind boggling to me. It doesn`t matter what Obama says about Libya to me, the question is do I support it, based on my own arguments, or arguments others make that I accept.

    "Right. Anything specific you`re referencing or do you just not understand that the relationship between torturing a subject and receiving valuable, life-saving information isn`t causal."

    This specifically: "Torture is never worth it and it lowers us to the level of our enemies. If we cannot hold our head high and hold ourselves to a higher standard, why the fuck should the rest of the World do so as well?"

    It still leaves me wondering how killing people allows us to hold our heads up high. And you said "never". Never being an indicator of an absolutist belief. Do you belief torture is never, not in a single instance, justified?

    Yes, torture does not always work, never mind that I don`t believe enhanced interrogation as practiced by the Bush Admin, and including water boarding, amounts to "torture". I`m playing devil`s advocate that actual torture might be justified, if it were reasonable to believe the person had information that could save innocent lives (for example, the captured person is a known terrorist leader) and interrogation was not working.

    "I`m sorry you live in a such a simple life where choice for abortion === okay to torture === killing osama bin laden."

    Huh? The only one who is being simple here is you. I didn`t say "abortion === okay to torture === killing osama bin laden" whatever that means. I wrote a series of mostly questions to you, which you can agree or disagree with.

    Here`s how it might look if a person answered the questions:

    Isn`t killing the innocent absolutely morally wrong? --Yes
    Doesn`t it lower your morality? --Yes
    Why don`t you support a ban on abortion? -- Because blah, blah...
    There is nothing more innocent than a fetus. -- A fetus is not an innocent life, followed by explanation of why fetus is not innocent life.

    "I have no problems with another child not being forced into an underprivileged situation that may become drastically worse."

    A mother can give the baby up for adoption which seems a better solution than abortion.



    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    October 20th, 2011 @ 11:25AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    Isn`t killing the innocent absolutely morally wrong? --Yes
    Doesn`t it lower your morality? --Yes
    Why don`t you support a ban on abortion? -- Because blah, blah...
    There is nothing more innocent than a fetus. -- A fetus is not an innocent life, followed by explanation of why fetus is not innocent life.


    Man I'm glad I got out of the thread when I did.

    No use wasting brain cells mincing details with someone who refuses to believe people have differing opinions.
    hjparcins
    General

    October 20th, 2011 @ 2:28PM

    Registered:
    2008-10-27
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Posts: 980
    Joe, the problem is that peekay is eminently logical whereas you seem more ruled by passion. You're just not going to understand each other because you have different ways of processing things.

    As for Gaddafi - fuck that guy, good riddance. I do find it humorous though that, in light of the wars and notable deaths of leaders in the last few years, arguably at the hands of the US, Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    Mohatma Gandhi didn't even win a Nobel Peace Prize!

    Hilaaarrious!
    killer6600
    Marine

    October 20th, 2011 @ 3:02PM

    Registered:
    2007-06-16
    Location:
    canada
    Posts: 1371
    the nobel peace prize seems to be "who`s a cool celeb we can give this too"

    also gandhi was a fraud
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    October 20th, 2011 @ 3:44PM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    Well gaddafi is dead. altho a scumbag wicked dictator as all dictators are. its now time for the globalists to put in power "Mr anti america super muslim" and the u.s. who spearheaded the entire op to kill gaddafi will say "terrorists have taken over in gadaffis place wtf!" as if that wasnt the plan in the first place. ahh jeez and the suckers will be bamboozled again ...
    Nebuchadnezzar
    The King

    October 20th, 2011 @ 4:18PM

    Registered:
    2003-03-20
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Posts: 3735
    RRP: You're so correct. The new gov is always an anti-America government. In the old days 1900s-1960s (whenever) we'd put people in power who were our slaves. Now we put people in power that hate us.
    killer6600
    Marine

    October 20th, 2011 @ 4:21PM

    Registered:
    2007-06-16
    Location:
    canada
    Posts: 1371
    it`s also neat to note that these guys executed him

    there`s the video of him kinda standing on his own talking, then there`s him all bloodied and with a head wound dead later, but he "died of his injuries" that he got before capture

    just need to say "here`s some money, can we have oil? no? ok fuck you assholes enjoy your tents"
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 20th, 2011 @ 4:49PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    Wow. Thank God I missed this thread. Joe you're impossible man. I don't know if it is willful ignorance or Bush Derangement Syndrome but you rationale doesn't add up. I wish I could sit down with you for some coffee to pick your brain, some of the stuff you believe is just mind boggling.
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    October 21st, 2011 @ 3:44AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    i watched a vid on youtube of gadaffis last moments he was alive, bruised but definitely alive and walking. But the comment with over 36 thumbs up was this:

    "This man transformed a fucking desert into a place that doesnt even look like Africa... He gave u free education, free health care, free water, cheap electricity & wanted to back your money by GOLD and you treat him like this?"

    i can really see why the globalists took him out now!
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    October 21st, 2011 @ 3:46AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    in fact heres the video see for yourself...he could have survived but they murdered him
    he loved america so he had to go
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 21st, 2011 @ 5:29PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    RRP, Cain stands for the Gold Standard too, it is one of the reason he ALWAYS wears a yellow tie. So much for your globalist man ideas.

    Ghaddafi didn't give his people nearly as much as he took from them....not counting the civil rights issues. Oil made everyone in the middle east rich...how better to pacify the masses than to spread some of it about. Obviously watching that video it is apparent the "free" education was worth what was paid for it.
    Trainwreck
    Marine

    October 21st, 2011 @ 8:05PM

    Registered:
    2003-04-08
    Location:
    Posts: 317
    We learned in Vietnam that taking out one leader and replacing them with another is often worse than the previous one.

    Wait, do you even know what happened in Vietnam?
    Nebuchadnezzar
    The King

    October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:57AM

    Registered:
    2003-03-20
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Posts: 3735
    Wait, do you even know what happened in Vietnam?

    Do YOU even know what happened? I have the definitive book on Vietnam. We're talking SOUTH Vietnam leadership. Not the enemy. We kept replacing their leaders and working with them in the war and each time they were shittier than the last.
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    October 22nd, 2011 @ 7:19AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    "RRP, Cain stands for the Gold Standard too"

    Yes also the globalists love ron paul because ron supports the gold standard...why? because they have most of the gold. I think the plan is really to just give us a ragtag group of horribles that its so obvious (except ron paul) that obama breezes into 4 more years. the economy is already in shambles if cain and his 999 plan gets in poor and lower middle class and regular middle class wont spend and that will decimate our economy even more.....and all this 999 revenue they steal from the poor and middle class will go straight into the pockets of bankers.......

    your roads will still be bumpy and pothole covered, crumbling bridges, empty office space all over america, meaner cops, no high speed trains no dubai like citys here. No... america is to turn into a feces covered shopping cart pushing 3rd world country. Full of poisoned idiots wearing football jerseys of course loving being a broke slave. thats what we have to look forward to unless we get a ron paul in. a real constitutionalist who is and has been going after the federal reserve for years it is his arch enemy and OUR enemy too...all the money they have stolen out of your paychecks all these years??? money YOU worked for. And the ruse youve been led to believe is going to pay for government running off of that tax...No that money comes from that 9c on the gallon of gas, the tax you pay when you get your car plates renewed and the myriads of others...thats supposed to go to fix your roads and pay cops and firemen. But of course all that tax money is swindled away in the pockets of corrupt scum. The fed tax has always been a scam and cain was HEAD of the fed at one time he is a sith lord in that gang of thieves.

    I know you probably listen to conservative talk radio the main line ones but realize these guys are on the payroll they get their direct orders to avoid anything about ron paul, to say hes crazy, to ignore ron paul they are there to only talk about romney, cain, and perry as if they are the only option. So using group think you begin to agree with them. But realize their job is to protect their jobs and go along with the talking points and protect the bankers.

    Imagine having a president who can abolish the fed, we get new money that doesnt have a pyramid with the all seeing eye on it. we are literally getting mordor money right now haha the orcish hordes are printing our money right now.

    No fed tax coming out of our checks now how great would that be? and he would shut down the tsa, bring all the troops home use them for what they are for...to defend america. Plus alot of great things. Compare that to the federal reserve yes men who work to destroy our nation, to steal all of our money to hire thugs in uniforms to go after us the victims of the money thefts. bad enuff they steal all our money now they laugh as we are humiliated at airports....not just that, now the tsa is going to the highways, then they go to the local streets, then from there in every grocery store until they have an army of tsa then it will go from there to them just popping 9 milimeters in peoples heads for fun.

    Ron Paul will throw a monkey wrench in the globalists plan. cain will push it ahead. make your choice

    meorah
    Marine

    October 22nd, 2011 @ 2:48PM

    Registered:
    2003-04-10
    Location:
    Posts: 515
    further proving that Ron Paul`s biggest impediment to the white house is his followers.
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 22nd, 2011 @ 6:58PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    RRP Cain was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas for 8 months.....he was never the head of the Fed. You really gotta lay off the drugs or whatever the hell makes you batshit crazy paranoid.

    Ron Paul isn't the savior. He is a visionary but not a realist. His policies would destroy the country because he would create vacuums of power in every institution he abolished. It would be complete chaos. That's me talking not "group think". I don't listen or radio, news, or anything. I like Ron Paul, he has some great ideas, but he isn't a leader and he doesn't have plans that would work. A President isn't king. He can't do what he wants, he has to work through congress, who actually write the laws.

    Go out and get some sunlight sometime man....you could use it.
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 22nd, 2011 @ 10:12PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    So much for Gaddaffi taking care of his people. He apparently stashed
    $200 Billion of Libya's money in foreign bank accounts and overseas investments.
    Trickshot
    Peon

    October 24th, 2011 @ 8:05AM

    Registered:
    2006-10-22
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts: 491
    Someone needs to teach those people how to use cell phone cameras.
    Trickshot
    Peon

    October 24th, 2011 @ 8:07AM

    Registered:
    2006-10-22
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts: 491
    You`re recording history asshole don`t point the camera at your own face.
    undreaming
    Kali Compton

    October 24th, 2011 @ 9:33AM

    Registered:
    2009-05-30
    Location:
    SLC, UT
    Posts: 269
    Don't you worry, Nebu, there's a plenty of horrible, villainous dictators in Africa!
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 24th, 2011 @ 10:24AM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    The shouting "Allahu Akbar" in every sentence gives you a good idea of the type of people that make up the majority out there. Definitely sounds like "globalists" to me!
    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    October 24th, 2011 @ 12:29PM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    The shouting "Allahu Akbar" in every sentence gives you a good idea of the type of people that make up the majority out there. Definitely sounds like "globalists" to me!

    You nailed that one, praise be to God.

    Or "Amen."

    Or "Dear Lord."

    Or "Jesus Christ."

    Or "God bless you."

    Whichever.. they're all used plenty in Christian countries. You probably just don't hear it very often because we were raised with that language used left and right.
    BlueFalcon
    Word To Your Mom

    October 24th, 2011 @ 2:38PM

    Registered:
    2003-04-27
    Location:
    Filth-a-delphia
    Posts: 1380
    I don't get all this hand ringing and consternnation over Ghaddafi's execution. He murdered his own people and political opponents for years. He was a major sponsor for international terrorism (Pan Am 103 bombing is just one example). So in the end he gets his ass beat and one shot to the heart and one to the head. Seems like an equitable outcome to me.
    Trickshot
    Peon

    October 24th, 2011 @ 9:34PM

    Registered:
    2006-10-22
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts: 491
    When I hear "Allahu Akbar" all I hear is "Praise Jesus!". Same nonsense. Except "Allahu Akbar" sounds way cooler.
    RowdyRoddyPiper
    Nut Job

    October 25th, 2011 @ 5:44AM

    Registered:
    2003-06-20
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Posts: 1778
    Well when the chinese invade along with iranians and they are are trashing your houses and raping your women and stealing all your valuables just remember guys like gaddafi would not have brought his people to such hot propoganda against the u.s. His replacement tho soon will. Most of the stuff about gaddafi is most likely pure propoganda meant to demonise him. just google operation gladio ("shut up rrp im not google that i only google green bay packers!")they demonised a good leader in the past and riled up the citizens against him. But next is syria. he meets the same fate as gaddafi along with a replacement that will fire up the syrians against the u.s. for a combined horde ready to join forces.

    Your invasion is coming and your herman cain or obama is working towards that end too. obama had a chinese piano player play the chnese victory song in the white house in january And you wil be in denial up until you see a mass of troops coming down your street dragging people out in the roads and sub machinegunning them down (you of course will be disarmed because you`ve been dog trained that guns are bad and only people like jared loughner have them)....but not your pretty wives or sisters these guys will just love hot american women...well until after they have their way with them "allahu akbar" suckers!

    The bible prophecy tells of this great invasion too from the book of ezekiel: chapter 38
    Ezekiel 38 I put some helpful info in (here)

    1 The word of the LORD came to me (ezekiel the phophet penned down what he saw and describes the armys in what they were known to him then): 2 “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of[a] Meshek and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of[b] Meshek and Tubal. 4 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords(swords and shields are the weapons of that day not guns). 5 Persia, Cush[c] and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, 6 also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.
    7 “‘Get ready; be prepared, you and all the hordes gathered about you, and take command of them. 8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel (this means people who become lovers of god, in other words christians and formed a christian nation...the U.S), which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety. 9 You and all your troops and the many nations with you will go up, advancing like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land. (george washingtons prophecy mirrored this prophecy precisely)

    10 “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. 11 You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars (this means america). 12 I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land

    There you have it. . the chinese amassing from the south, the other nations will attack in a pincer attack after china makes the first move, our u.s. troops will be far off in a desert listening to rap music and looking at penthouse magazines. The american people back at home will turn on their tv to see what the big booming and explosion sounds are, your globalist controlled on the payroll local news will say "its just fireworks now lets find out what chaz bono plans to do next" A sneak attack it has to be cuz we are still the most armed people on the earth but even the armed ones wont believe whats happening because their local news is telling them everything is ok remain docile.

    This IS the evel scheme that is in the works. so cheer on the death of gaddafi and others because like lord of the rings the darkness is building it is amassing against you. the army of mordor is building its weapons and preparing to march out against you while you dwell in the shire and drink your ale and laugh and party the eye of sauron is watching you on the 1 dollar bill. and saruman (herman cain, romney, perry, obama) are joined in his great plan. They chop down the trees, the ents dont even notice. not until two tiny hobbits force them to see.

    I tell ya this prophecy scares the heck out of me because i will have to go thru this. god will protect his people but seeing this happen all around me will be terrifying.
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 25th, 2011 @ 6:57AM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    Outside of a black Baptist church or a fake "Christian" television evangelist you won't hear people saying "Praise Jesus" every other sentence like that and nowhere would you hear people screaming it at the grisly scene of someone's execution.

    Every time you hear that being yelled at scenes of violence it reinforces the opinion that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion.

    Smokin Joe
    Marine

    October 25th, 2011 @ 9:30AM

    Registered:
    2006-06-10
    Location:
    The Land of Chocolate
    Posts: 2650
    Every time you hear that being yelled at scenes of violence it reinforces the opinion that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion.

    So instead of blaming the individual people involved in the act, you blame the whole religion as a whole? Do you accept blame when some Christian fundie hears God whispering in their ear and murders an Abortion Doctor?
    Charkoth
    Right Wing Extremist

    October 26th, 2011 @ 1:31PM

    Registered:
    2003-05-08
    Location:
    OHIO
    Posts: 2544
    Notice I said "Reinforces the opinion".

    You point me to a Christian Fundie murdering an Abortion Doctor and I'll point you to 100 screaming radicals waving AK47s. Why do liberals always point to extremely rare exceptions to reinforce their side of an argument? (like Rape/incest with Abortion).

    Do you honestly think these radicals in the middle east are not common or something?


    You are unable to add Comments because you are not
    logged in. If you have an account please login in now.

    You can Create an Account, it takes less then a minute.


  • USER:

    PASS:


    LOST PASSWORD
    CREATE NEW ACCOUNT
    Which do you prefer?
    - Hot Dogs
    - Tacos




    GFraizer
    [Steam Wishlist]
    [Amazon Wishlist]
    [Facebook]

    Exclusive Photos
    [How to Pump Gas]
    [Fat Lady + Donuts]
    [Dog Bike]


    EN Special Accounts
    -Special Icon
    -Address@en.com
    -Special Title
    -Instant Comments
    [Find out more]