Dis-information (the thread you all expected to come up)

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:33 pm

Funny, but you forgot one.

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

We don't know, they've never tried.

Although, y'know Jay Leno's wrong, without the help of the French Underground Resistance we would've had one hell of a time getting on those beaches as well as moving inland.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:51 pm

I'd like to say, as a American, I am not bashing America.

There's a saying, "Love your country, fear your government"
and another, "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

And we shouldn't only bash the US and France, lets not forget Syria, Russia and Germany. All of them have aided Saddam in one way or another.

While we're at it the bash the Irish, Brits, Dutch, Italians, Koreans,Chinese, Canadiens, Aussies, Laotions, Brazillians, Swedes, Swiss, Mexicans...

...oh yeah, the Hopi, Mowhawk, the Aztecs, Pigmyies, Tall people, short, fat, skinny, homeless, rich, musicians, actors, garbagemen, and Ecrivian!

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:17 pm

Undertaker wrote:And we shouldn't only bash the US and France, lets not forget Syria, Russia and Germany. All of them have aided Saddam in one way or another.

While we're at it the bash the Irish, Brits, Dutch, Italians, Koreans,Chinese, Canadiens, Aussies, Laotions, Brazillians, Swedes, Swiss, Mexicans...

...oh yeah, the Hopi, Mowhawk, the Aztecs, Pigmyies, Tall people, short, fat, skinny, homeless, rich, musicians, actors, garbagemen, and Ecrivian!

Hmm, so does Ecrivian belong to: 'None of the above'?

trewqh

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:51 am

I'm my own breed!

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 1:38 am

Undertaker wrote:I'd like to say, as a American, I am not bashing America.

There's a saying, "Love your country, fear your government"
and another, "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

And we shouldn't only bash the US and France, lets not forget Syria, Russia and Germany. All of them have aided Saddam in one way or another.

While we're at it the bash the Irish, Brits, Dutch, Italians, Koreans,Chinese, Canadiens, Aussies, Laotions, Brazillians, Swedes, Swiss, Mexicans...

...oh yeah, the Hopi, Mowhawk, the Aztecs, Pigmyies, Tall people, short, fat, skinny, homeless, rich, musicians, actors, garbagemen, and Ecrivian!

I don't know Undertaker, it sounds like you are equal opportunity discriminator to me.

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:35 pm

Defending vs. TK here...

The Iraqi information minister also has his offices at the same hotel the journalists were at. Sadly, he didn't show up to work Wednesday. There very easily could have been Iraqi snipers up in that building.

And the journalists did volunteer to park their asses in a war zone. Not like they didn't know the risk, they reported about the war all day.

Finally, friendly fire casualties are much much much better than the proportionate number of friendly fire casualties in Desert Storm, with a longer war and much more territory to cover this time around.

Post by **korexus** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:11 pm

If anyone wants an update on that competition I mentioned, John Irvine from ITN won it yesterday, so there you are. American Troops are now officially in Baghdad - It says so in the media!

I saw some pictures of trops pulling down a statue of Saddam today, the reaction of the crowd suggests that they at least think this war is justified. We'll know better once the dust settles a bit, but maybe we should go with that idea for a bit.

That being said, America bashing is more fun!

korexus.

Post by **ThinKing** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:18 pm

TBert wrote:Defending vs. TK here...

The Iraqi information minister also has his offices at the same hotel the journalists were at. Sadly, he didn't show up to work Wednesday. There very easily could have been Iraqi snipers up in that building.

And the journalists did volunteer to park their asses in a war zone. Not like they didn't know the risk, they reported about the war all day.

Finally, friendly fire casualties are much much much better than the proportionate number of friendly fire casualties in Desert Storm, with a longer war and much more territory to cover this time around.

(one paragraph at a time...)

"vs TK"? No need to be so confrontational...

Do you really believe that about the offices? Do you think that the troops were justified in shooting a building labelled as a *coalition* media centre?

They deserved to die for doing their job? You're crazy.

Friendly fire really shouldnt be an issue *at all*. Does a British helicopter really look like a "regime" (*shudder*) target?

I think you've been watching too much TV. And listening to your bosses too much, etc.

TK

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:59 pm

Simple explanation. Ever been shot at? Didn't think so.

(added) Oh and to anticipate your reply before you even ask, everybody that goes through BCT has to complete NIC at Nite, also known as the Night Infiltration Course. Crawling through the sand towards those machine gun towers that were firing over my head, I sure wished I had some rounds to make 'em stop.

Post by **ThinKing** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:53 am

TBert wrote:Simple explanation. Ever been shot at? Didn't think so.

(added) Oh and to anticipate your reply before you even ask, everybody that goes through BCT has to complete NIC at Nite, also known as the Night Infiltration Course. Crawling through the sand towards those machine gun towers that were firing over my head, I sure wished I had some rounds to make 'em stop.

Contrary to your helpful anticipation, my reply has nothing to do with "NIC".

I dont understand how your question can possibly be a "simple explanation" of anything at all. It appears to be something of a non sequitur (I'll let you look that up yourself).

However, if you are suggesting that as a civilian, I cannot understand war, then I am surprised at your arrogance. I shouldn't be - you're American.

(That last line was especially for the US Chest-Beating Brigade)

TK

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:30 am

Thin_King wrote:

Contrary to your helpful anticipation, my reply has nothing to do with "NIC".

I dont understand how your question can possibly be a "simple explanation" of anything at all. It appears to be something of a non sequitur (I'll let you look that up yourself).

TK

NON-Sequitur....
dangnabbit, i've seen that before, oh yeah English 103.... last semester.....

here it is....

Non Sequitur: a fallacy of argument in which claims, reasons, or warrants fail to connect logically; one point does not follow from another.

Although the points of TBert's statement "Ever been shot at? Don't think so." are seemingly unrelated..... {begin random rambling}........... and that's why this can and can't be considered a non-sequitur.

Thank you and good night.

Ecrivian

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:01 pm

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Jubilant crowds helped US troops tear down a giant statue of President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, marking the collapse of his iron-fisted rule and the final throes of the three-week war.

US forces met little Iraqi resistance as they took over swathes of the Iraqi capital, with widespread looting erupting as it became clear Saddam's 24-year stranglehold was over.

Tanks rolled into the heart of the city, with US soldiers tearing down the giant statue of Saddam which towered over the Al-Fardus (Paradise) Square, to the cheers of Iraqi citizens, who had slung a noose around its neck.

The US troops controversially draped the Stars and Stripes over the statue's head, before removing it and tying the Iraqi flag around his front.

Civilians queued up to hammer blow after blow into the plinth supporting the statue, while soldiers chatted to journalists, the hatches of their tanks open, although other marines on foot took up defensive positions.

The statue was felled by a crane attached to a US armoured vehicle, with its head then dragged through the streets of Baghdad by Iraqis in a release of emotion pent up during a quarter century of Saddam's brutal rule.

"The reception by the Iraqis was very warm and this was a big surprise to us. People are very nice," Staff Sergeant Daniel Attilio told AFP.

One resident marched up to the heavily-armed troops with a symbolic peace offering in his hand.

"I couldn't find flowers so I brought you a palm leaf," said the man wearing a traditional galabiyah gown.

[glow=blue]You're welcome.[/glow]

Whether you all want to admit it, the world just became a little bit better place to live in, thanks to the U.S., Great Britain, and their true allies.

Post by **Duke** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:06 pm

May I correct you there Egbert?

Iraq just became a little better place to live in. The rest of the world still wonders how they will be able to go from the class room to the cafeteria without being robbed on our lunchmoney from the single bully that controls the entire school.

However if "the school" HAS to have a "bully" the one we now have would be my first choice.

/Duke

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 3:06 pm

Just because a "person" is more powerful than another person, doesn't make them a bully. As hard as it may be for some to believe, the U.S. is using it's power to try and make the world a better place to live --- something which is unique in history, I believe. I suppose someone like Superman or Spiderman would be a "bully" by your definition?

Polymorphic · Post by **Polymorphic** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:22 pm

...and what if America (or Bush, as the case may be...) decided that the world would be a better place if, say, England, Australia, or wherever you live was 'liberated' from the current system of government - which would be replaced by one completely under the control of the US?

..oh yes, can't say England is threatened then...

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:51 pm

Polymorphic wrote:...and what if America (or Bush, as the case may be...) decided that the world would be a better place if, say, England, Australia, or wherever you live was 'liberated' from the current system of government - which would be replaced by one completely under the control of the US?

Our leaders are elected officials. If one of them, or a few of them, decided to "go Hitler," they would be removed from power. Such is the beauty of democracy.

Bush does not have dictatorial powers. There is a system of checks and balances in the U.S. government --- 3 branches which each essentially have the power to veto the actions of another branch:

1. The Executive Branch is the President --- he can veto an act of the Legislative Branch (Congress), and he appoints the members of the Judicial Branch (The Supreme Court).

2. The Legislative Branch (Congress includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, composed of 100s of officials elected by the people) can overrule an Executive Branch veto by a 2/3 majority vote, and also has the power to approve or disapprove the Executive Branch's appointment of members of the Judicial Branch.

3. The Judicial Branch (The Supreme Court) can declare unconstitutional and invalid any act of either the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch.

Any of the members of these 3 branches of government can also be removed under certain circumstances, for good cause. So, as you can see, all of the paranoia of the rest of the world is completely unfounded. The circumstances which are being dreamt up would never happen. The people of the United States believe everyone has a right to govern themselves freely, and not be controlled by others --- so why would anyone think that the U.S. would then go out and control other governments? It just wouldn't happen. The U.S. is not the "school bully" --- the U.S. is the very big nice guy that you always want to have as your friend, just in case some other bad person shows up.

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:51 pm

Polymorphic wrote:...and what if America (or Bush, as the case may be...) decided that the world would be a better place if, say, England, Australia, or wherever you live was 'liberated' from the current system of government - which would be replaced by one completely under the control of the US?

..oh yes, can't say England is threatened then...

Replace England with France, then yes, the world would be a better place without them.

Polymorphic · Post by **Polymorphic** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:56 pm

Egbert wrote:Our leaders are elected officials. If one of them, or a few of them, decided to "go Hitler," they would be removed from power. Such is the beauty of democracy.

But Hitler wasn't removed, was he?

Egbert wrote:Bush does not have dictatorial powers. There is a system of checks and balances in the U.S. government --- 3 branches which each essentially have the power to veto the actions of another branch:

1. The Executive Branch is the President --- he can veto an act of the Legislative Branch (Congress), and he appoints the members of the Judicial Branch (The Supreme Court).

So, President in charge, can over-rule group 2 and group 3 rely on him for their jobs (that's incentive for you...).

Egbert wrote:2. The Legislative Branch (Congress includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, composed of 100s of officials elected by the people) can overrule an Executive Branch veto by a 2/3 majority vote, and also has the power to approve or disapprove the Executive Branch's appointment of members of the Judicial Branch.

...so group 2 can only over-rule the president if he's going to lose the next election anyway...

Egbert wrote:...so why would anyone think that the U.S. would then go out and control other governments? It just wouldn't happen.

Afganistan, check.
Iraq, check.
...who's next?

Post by **korexus** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:24 pm

Egbert wrote:
Our leaders are elected officials. If one of them, or a few of them, decided to "go Hitler," they would be removed from power. Such is the beauty of democracy.

Eg, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong (and I could well be) but isn't "America shall not be governed by a democracy" part of the constitution? Seriously here, I was told that was the main reasoning behind the slightly bizarre election procedure which let the guy with less votes win...

Also, Britain is, allegedly, a democracy. However even though most of the population was against the war Tony Blair was able to go ahead with it because not enough politicians were willing to risk their places in the government by going against him.
Of course, now that the pictures of cheering Iraqis have been shown on the TV opinion polls have 65% of the population agreeing with the war. This is one of the problems of leadership. The people just keep changing their minds!

The systems of government that most western countries have in place are, without a doubt, better than those of many other countries. But it is possible for them to go wrong and when it does, because of people's "faith in the system" the results have the potential to be very bad...

Now I remember why I gave up politics, it always makes my head hurt for some reason.

korexus.