Dodaj do ulubionych

War in Irak?

08.10.02, 00:03
Who's for the war in Irak?

Obserwuj wątek
        • Gość: Melater, Bill Re: War in Irak? IP: *.sympatico.ca 09.10.02, 14:20
          Sure I do know the address: it's the speck of land between Syria and Iran
          (another grand set of candidates to have their asses kicked). And you, bleeding-
          heart liberal, should quite whining and get it once for all: this bomb would
          save your sorry ass, too, so you can enjoy freedom, democracy and your right to
          go around and to utter this nonsense.
          • Gość: Wojtek Re: War in Irak? IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 09.10.02, 16:32

            "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
            into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
            emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war
            have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
            closed , the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
            Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will
            offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For
            this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
            - William Shakespeare
            • Gość: wacko jacko Re: War in Irak? IP: *.nyc.rr.com 20.10.02, 02:03
              Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a):
              "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
              into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
              emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war
              have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
              closed , the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
              Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will
              offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For
              this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
              - William Shakespeare

              Well, well, well. Nice try. The only thing is Shakespeare never wrote it.
              It was the hoax. Barbra Streisand knows it the best because she was a victum of
              it. She has made a complete ass of herself, not the first time.
              • Gość: Wojtek Re: War in Irak? IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 20.10.02, 10:57
                Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                > Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a) (...) And I am Caesar."
                > - William Shakespeare
                >
                > Well, well, well. Nice try. The only thing is Shakespeare never wrote it.
                > It was the hoax. Barbra Streisand knows it the best because she was a victum
                of
                >
                > it. She has made a complete ass of herself, not the first time.

                I admit to have taken it from some web page and not from Shakespeare's "Caesar
                and ...". Could you tell me more about it, the hoax and the circumstances, and
                when did it happen. Serious request.
                Regards.
    • Gość: wacko jacko Streisand's hoax IP: *.nyc.rr.com 20.10.02, 22:16
      JULIUS CAESAR QUOTE USED IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL GALA SPEECH
      (updated 10-02-02)

      Introducing her performance of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" at the
      Democratic National Gala, Barbra Streisand read material which she identified
      as having been written by William Shakespeare. It had been passed to her by a
      friend, but she learned the following day that it is, rather, a passage which
      is widely circulated on the internet as an excerpt from Shakespeare's "Julius
      Caesar" but which is, in fact, an anonymous composition, not Shakespeare at all.
      She wanted this brought to your attention, with the following note from her:

      "The authorship of this is important. But it doesn't detract from the fact that
      the words themselves are powerful and true and beautifully written. Whoever
      wrote this is damn talented and should be writing their own play."
      www.barbrastreisand.com/
      click on 10/04/02 NEW Truth Alert!

      For full text of nonShakespeare's "Julius Cesar"
      www.barbrastreisand.com/
      click on 9/30/02 BARBRA STREISAND at the Democratic .................

      The shit hit the fan very next day. She was humiliated and ambarassed.
      Also read a letter to Dick Gephardt where you'll find misspelled names.
      Not anymore. They were fixed. She has blamed the errors on staffers.

      • Gość: Wojtek Re: Streisand's hoax IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 21.10.02, 00:17

        Thanks, Whacko!

        My apologies to all who opposed the war on account of that text being
        Shakespeare's. To be honest, I spent an hour today going through both "Julius
        Caesar" and "Antony & Cleopatra" in hope of finding it there... Well,
        Shakespeare or Falczak, it was an insightful description of crowd behaviour in
        certain quarters at certain times.
        I am not a fun B S.
      • Gość: erwas Re: War in Irak? IP: 12.96.204.* 29.10.02, 06:46
        Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisało:
        > It is a free service but you have to create an account with NYT.

        the only cost is reading debilitated, flaky garbage.
        he argues that the US is doing the world at large a stunning favour by
        proposing to slaughter Iraquis (which he calls the liberation of Iraq) since
        this will reduce oil prices! this guy is not a brainless twit. he just simply
        assumes that you (dear reader) are a brainless twit.
        the rejuvenating Japan bit is too stupid to even discuss.
        the cause of Third World poverty is based on the rich world's refusal to trade
        fairly with poor countries, by heavily subsidising farm produce and anything
        else that poor countries are capable of producing. Both the US and the EU have
        spent untold billions on this policy. money well spent: the food production
        industry is practically destroyed in most poor countries. White House and State
        Department foreign-policy experts are overwhelmingly directed towards military
        and diplomatic issues, not poverty reduction or development issues. global
        inequality is worsening rapidly. prices of industrial goods and services
        exported from rich countries are increasing faster than the prices of goods and
        services exported by poor countries. oil then becomes merely yet another item
        poor countries have troublr paying for, but is hardly the cause of their
        poverty.

        he reckons that if the Turks invade the Kurdish heartland of Iraq, that the
        Kurds will happily fight alongside their mortal enemies, and that if the Turks
        steal the Kirkuk oil fields (which rightly belong to the Kurds, at least in
        their minds) it will "be an incentive for them to patch up relations with pro-
        democracy Iraqi Kurds fighting Saddam at their side."

        he salivates over the vast gains and profits to be made by US and UK economies
        and their oil companies after liberating Iraqi oil fields from the Iraqis and
        then gets all high pitched over the "Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis of greed — whose
        commerce-driven politicians seek to prop up the doomed Saddam".

        I had the misfortune to live in a totalitarian Communist dictartorship for many
        years of my life. it always offended me how little respect propagandists paid
        to peoples intelligence by mechanically mouthing stock phrases of abuse at
        their adversaries. who needs to hear these bumper sticker wisdoms. how sad it
        is that current American society is assumed to be a brainless herd to be fed
        nutriment-free fodder.

        don't send any more crap from William or Rush or other such-like preachers, or
        I'll get upset again and write long epistles.
        erwas
        • Gość: Wojtek Re: War in Irak? IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 29.10.02, 15:04

          Safire: Thank you for the informative, timely and interesting editorial today.

          I bet you think it's a wind up. If not that,I must be raving mad. Well,
          neither. All you do now is put quotation marks on the above statement. Its
          author is hiding behind 'btanne1696' nick. What am I talking about? Ok, you
          follow the link to Safire's article Wacko kindly provided and since erwas
          kindly read it for you (spot on, erwas!) you go straight down the page and
          press 'forum' button. And this is where the value of Wacko's post lies. He let
          you in to mine of information on Obese America's mental health. That's where
          you can find 'btanne 1696'. That's where you can find 'phillyfanatic'
          writing "...why our brave Prez (and I love him) cannot see that the Israeli's
          attack to kill the Hamas killer leader was a necessity..." and 'bogwan1' writing
          "The only thing that will swing the EU to our side is a few 9/11 happenings in
          their midst." and on and on...in similar vain.
          Jacko, wake up!
          • Gość: wacko jacko Re: War in Irak? IP: *.nyc.rr.com 30.10.02, 02:34
            erwas take a pill. Relax man. What is it? You can't stomach an opposing view?
            Not everyone shares your convictions.
            Bill Saffire is a respected and renown columnist. Never heard of him?
            I respect you disagrement, but to call it a crop is silly.
            I am sending you a link to Mort Kondracke ( who is moderate and closer to
            democrats but not a nut like late Paul Wellstone )
            www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/kondracke/00/2002/kond1021.html

            Woktek, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.
            • Gość: erwas Re: War in Irak? IP: 12.96.204.* 30.10.02, 04:33
              Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

              > erwas take a pill. Relax man. What is it? You can't stomach an opposing view?
              > Not everyone shares your convictions.

              jacko, let me explain two things to you:
              1. this is a discussion. you present one set of views, I counter it with
              another. there is nothing pathological about this, it does not mean that I
              cannot stomach opposing views; it simply means that I do not agree, perhaps
              even disagree strongly. so I do get a little florid in my form; it does not
              mean that I need therapy. try to write a post without ladelling lathering gobs
              of advice (not to mention invective). as someone once said: "I hate to take
              your advice, you obviously need it so badly yourself."
              2. views are one thing, misinformation is another. Safire is one member of a
              growing bandwagon of populist manipulators of the angry rabble that want to
              cause pain, death and destruction in the name of American values. this man
              fixes "facts" for the unwashed masses so they can feel justified in hating
              those nasty little brown subhumans whom they are about to kill in large
              numbers. he suggests that we are doing this for their sakes, that we are going
              to liberate them and feed the hungry Third World. tell me jacko, do you really
              belive that the US is about to attack one of the worlds largest oil producers
              so as to bring "liberaton" to its people and to feed all the hungry and
              diposessed of the world? let me suggest the following possibility: the US is
              going to come into posession of vast oil reserves and continue disposessing the
              already diposessed.

              > Bill Saffire is a respected and renown columnist. Never heard of him?

              he is famous, not universally respected, and I do read his pieces sometimes
              just to see what kind of wild tangents the deranged are travelling on. I even
              know how to spell his name correctly.
              erwas

              • Gość: wacko jacko American imperialism and subhumans IP: *.nyc.rr.com 30.10.02, 05:40
                Your reaction to the Saffire's piece was so intense I thought you need a chill
                pill. Maybe I was wrong.
                Are you an excitable person? I don't mean to insult you.
                How can you write that Saffire is a populist manipulator is beyond me.
                Even Carville and Begala don't characterize him as such. To say that he writes
                for the hungry masses is disingenuous. As you know NYT is not a regular Joe
                newspaper. It is rather addressed to the elites.

                In colleges Saffire is not respected at all. That is Noam Chomsky territory.
                Are you in that environment? I think you are. Are you against globalisation?
                I can't be sure, but you sound like you are.

                Well, there is the world outside colleges.

                Why are you crying so much about Third World countries? They are all in the
                hands of dictators and thieves. USA pumped bilions into Haiti with no aparent
                result. Poor haitians still attempting to escape that hell on earth.
                What difference does it make who is the oppressor, Papa Doc Duvalier or Jean
                Bertrand Aristide? Is Saddam Hussein any better? BTW I think he is a dead man
                walking.
                • Gość: Wojtek Re: American imperialism and subhumans IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 30.10.02, 12:24
                  wacko,
                  Yes, I see your point and to clarify here we go: "Safire, thank you..." was a
                  post I found in NYT forum devoted to Safire's articles and which chimed in
                  nicely with your "excelent piece" praise. Excelent example of crap it was! Take
                  the 'one-pundit's possible scenario bit - it is one sided, simplistic and
                  optimistic disregard for reality. Of course, it's only his and only possible,
                  so there it is where he is being clever, peddling this Hollywood scenario to
                  his ansuspecting fans. You should know how it works. Anyway,I didn't comment on
                  the article itself because erwas did it, and much better than I would have done.
                  Safire (one 'f' only) has a fan club and it struck me that you may belong in
                  there since you see him as "widely respected". People see and hear what they
                  like to see and hear and I heard him being described as a "'token conservative'
                  among the New York slime", so there we are... All the quotes in my previous
                  post come from the discussion going on around Safire's articles from July this
                  year, which you can find pressing "forum" under the article.
                  wacko, wake up, you are walking with the wrong crowd - is what I really wanted
                  to say. Stick with us, we are lovely bunch.
                  Cheers
                  • Gość: wacko jacko Re: American imperialism and subhumans IP: *.nyc.rr.com 30.10.02, 16:57
                    I like you guys but I am a conservative. The left wing agenda doesn't appeal
                    to me at all. No, I am not a Safire follower and I wouldn't bother to
                    participate in his forum. I didn't even know it existed since I read NYT in
                    print. As for term "token conservative", well he is the only one on NYT
                    payroll. The rest of the crowd is to the left wall.
                    You can take an interesting trip to the past and read some of the staff written
                    before the Gulf War. At that time it was Safire who was right in his
                    prediction. And believe you me Safire is widely respected not by my standards.
                    Unless you're with Gore Vidal and Chomsky.

                    All this is an academic discussion as we have no say in it. More or less it is
                    done deal. The war is near whether we like it or not.

                    PS. In 1994 Peter Jennings, who claims not to be biased, said on election night
                    while it became apparent Republicans won control of the House that the voters
                    behave like a bunch of 5 year old children. So the conclusion is when you vote
                    for a democrat you're smart, when you vote for a republican you are 5 year old.
                    Peter Jennings is widely respected.
    • kamilaksiezyc Re: War in Irak? 02.11.02, 11:32
      I don`t agree for Bush,because in Irak live people such as we.War in Irak will
      be new international war.I am for Irak.In USA live many people,who make very
      more money and They stolen country thirth world.We must help their.New war is
      stupped.War isn`t finish problem.I think that USA for 11 September want make
      III war world.And I hate America for this.
    • Gość: wacko jacko The cost of peace IP: *.nyc.rr.com 04.11.02, 21:34
      I see everybody more or less is against the war, any war, for variety of
      reasons. All I can see is a pure emotion driving the thought process.
      War is bad and people like us get killed is all I can read. Not good enough.
      Can any one make a rational argument against the war?
      • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of peace IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 05.11.02, 08:47
        Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

        > I see everybody more or less is against the war, any war, for variety of
        > reasons. All I can see is a pure emotion driving the thought process.
        > War is bad and people like us get killed is all I can read. Not good enough.
        > Can any one make a rational argument against the war?

        Rational!? It is quite apparent, even at a cursory reading of this thread,
        that there is no point in arguing with you. You will simply not get it! All you
        can do is to quote "respectable" names, and... more names. This is about a
        difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and not right and left, for starters!
        • Gość: wacko jacko Re: The cost of peace IP: *.nyc.rr.com 05.11.02, 15:25
          I can't make you opine. Sorry to disappoint you but it’s always between right
          and left.
          So called moderates have no say in anything except voting booth.
          Even if it is right or wrong this time I’d still like to see coherent and
          rational argument from either side. Dear Wojtek I promise you I can get it if
          it’s not about the poor children
          and women being killed. It really has to be better than that.
          On the other hand are you able to get my argument when I present it?
          In your thought process, you are dismissing my intelligence only on the basis
          of my political affiliation. In your mind conservative equals stupid,
          socialist equals smart.
          In 1938 FDR floated a régime change in Germany with UK and France. Neither
          government was for it at the time.
          • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of peace IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 05.11.02, 16:31
            Rational arguments against war (= any war) can only be made from moral
            viewpoint. We could argue presenting honest, 'real' thoughts or just lots of
            qoutations from books of philosophy, religions, science... which could be fun
            and quite educational but I somehow doubt it possible here. So, simply (and
            naively): Right and wrong, Good and Evil are not independently existing
            phenomena, they are absent outside "the web of humanity". These are qualifiers,
            ethical statements. And what we, humans, value most? Life. The right to live is
            the basic right in our value system. War is a life destroyer therefore is
            Wrong. Rational enough for you.
            From any other viewpoint, this must analized case by case on their particular
            merits and drawbacks. In other words, which war, in what circumstances, for
            whom... kind of questions. As far as the war with Iraq is concerned, you know
            my arguments from previous posts but I can repeat in one word (or two):
            basically unjustified
            • Gość: wacko jacko Re: The cost of peace IP: *.nyc.rr.com 05.11.02, 18:46
              >And what we, humans, value most? Life. The right to live is the basic right
              >in our value system. War is a life destroyer therefore is Wrong. Rational
              >enough for you.
              Regretably not enough. I'd like to bring to your attention a motto of the
              state of New Hampshire "Live free or die".
              For Americans there are two mor rights on top of life. These are Liberty and
              Pursuit of Happiness.

              Well, I've read your previous posts in this topic and I couldn't find what
              your argument was. I don't count the nonshakespearian one. I know you against
              this war because it's as you put it "basically injustified". I also understand
              that from moral standpoint the war is wrong, it is Evil.
              What does it mean "basically unjustified"? Can you tell us more?

                    • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of peace IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 05.11.02, 19:56
                      yeah, sorry. You go there, if you really want to, by following that broken
                      link then, by typing "whosgoingtohell", then 'pressing on the new page "extend
                      search to entire net", then pressing 'Satan for president' and once there
                      press "price of gassoline"... But it's just a limp joke, so forget it. Consider
                      just my 3 arguments: - no 9/11 link

                      - yes to inspectors

                      - his basically 'unthreatening' position at present...

                      Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
                      before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?
                      • Gość: wacko jacko Re: The cost of peace IP: *.nyc.rr.com 05.11.02, 20:25
                        Wojtek's question:
                        "Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
                        before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?"

                        How close? Well, I live in New York and I witnessed the tragedy.
                        And I also smelled it.
                        Was that an act of war or a soothing peace? Please.




                        • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of peace IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 05.11.02, 20:51
                          Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                          > Wojtek's question:
                          > "Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
                          > before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?"
                          >
                          > How close? Well, I live in New York and I witnessed the tragedy.
                          > And I also smelled it.
                          > Was that an act of war or a soothing peace? Please.


                          Then go and turn Saudi Arabia into a pile of rubble, for fuck's sake!
                  • Gość: wacko jacko Re: The cost of peace IP: *.nyc.rr.com 05.11.02, 20:04
                    Wojtek's statet reasons for being against the war:
                    "The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11! The Iraqi said yes to Inspectors!
                    Saddam is less of a threat to the World or USA than he was twenty or even ten
                    years ago! These are the facts that make us, the Wrong-Wingers in Europe
                    question your motives Mr Right-Winger. By the way, tou going there yourself,
                    or staying in front of a telly to cheer your boys up?"

                    1. We don't know what exactly they had to do with 9/11. Czechs are still
                    sticking to their story about Atta'a meetings in Prague. CIA is denying it.
                    2. No, Iraq did not agreed to let inspectors have unlimited access to all
                    sites. Saddam is sticking to his and Annan 1998 agreement. USA will not accept
                    it.
                    3. Iraq is a clear but not necessarily present danger. It is not a military
                    power but its covert activities and support for terrorism.

                    The difference is that in case of emergency you, Europeans as you said, will
                    call Fire Department. We Americans are the Fire Department.

                    I know the last sentence was not addressed to me, but for the record in US we
                    don't have tellies we have TV sets.
                    • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of peace IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 05.11.02, 20:30
                      V. Havel officialy stated to disregard that as it is 'a canard'.
                      I am the first to admit your 'Fire dep.' role in Yugoslavia. Europe is guilty
                      like hell on that score. I said so in another topic. Still, War with Iraq is
                      unjustified.


                      Keep up the lack of questioning, analitical thinking (or thinking, full stop)
                      and stay tuned to Cable TV!!!

                      Signed
                      Dick Cheney
                      Don Rumsfeld
                      Dubya & Dumbya in one
              • Gość: erwas Re: The cost of whirled peas IP: 12.96.204.* 06.11.02, 03:39
                Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                > >And what we, humans, value most? Life.

                hate to be so argumentative, but: your reply to your own questin is incorrect.

                what do humans value most? happiness. all your remaining arguments are based on
                the assumption that humans value life more than they value anything.
                humans are often ready to sacrifice life for what they value most. they die for
                love, they die for happiness.
                erwas
                  • Gość: Wojtek Re: The cost of ... IP: *.abo.wanadoo.fr 06.11.02, 11:48

                    erwas,
                    no need for anything heavy here. What you are really saying is this: life of
                    happiness is better than life of misery (sure!); I'd rather be dead than live
                    like this (some 'yes', majority 'no', if only for the 'hope' element). Anyway,
                    you have to 'have' this life to be able to make the choice to die. Happiness is
                    relative, life is absolute in this context. Remember the long and agonizing
                    process to make the right decission over the Maltese twins in a London hospital
                    few years ago? The courts decided (against the parents' wish) to allow
                    to 'kill' one to give a Chance of life (and I stress 'chance') to the other in
                    the face of certain death for both if they were left without surgical
                    intervention. Another thing, euthanasia is still unlawful basically worldwide.
                    People are free to choose, of course, but there still are countries where
                    suicide is 'against' the law, ridiculious but true.
                    I think I stick with my "Life is of supreme value in our value system"
                    statement.

                    Wacko,
                    I don't really mind your choosing to take offence at your convenience but don't
                    activate my 'bulshit X-ray alarm' with silly 'contrarguments' about the Checs
                    or corrections of my "telly" for the American "TV-sets", as long as you know
                    what I mean - American English is Not Standard English Yet. You
                    invite 'certain' posts if you go like this.
Inne wątki na temat:

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka