[Atef's Carcase]

Get over it, appeasement-loving infidels. Saddam screwed up royally--he got caught with empty chemical warheads. The UN says they weren't declared. You liberal pukes won't be prepared to take action until Saddam gases a bunch of Kuwaitis or Kurds (again!) and flaunts it in your pretty little pacifist faces. You're ready to let Saddam give it to you from behind all day long, while you bend over and take it. Losers. Your excuses, especially at this juncture and in light of recent discoveries, are pathetic and the height of weakness.

I'm proud of many of you (like the thunderous_funker) for your progress towards enlightenment, but, sadly, hawkeye_a and his ilk remain sorely deficient.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:

A couple of years back (when I was working at that school), he and his students were involved in that student "Mock UN" project.

I was involved in one of those back in high school. We haggled over Law of the Sea. As I recall the rest of the world proved itself impervious to our impeccable logic.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:
A peeve, Rog? A Wilsonic peeve?

He really was a vicious racist - easily our most racist president.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:
Get over it, appeasement-loving infidels. Saddam screwed up royally--he got caught with empty chemical warheads. The UN says they weren't declared. You liberal pukes won't be prepared to take action until Saddam gases a bunch of Kuwaitis or Kurds (again!) and flaunts it in your pretty little pacifist faces. You're ready to let Saddam give it to you from behind all day long, while you bend over and take it. Losers. Your excuses, especially at this juncture and in light of recent discoveries, are pathetic and the height of weakness.

I'm proud of many of you (like the thunderous_funker) for your progress towards enlightenment, but, sadly, hawkeye_a and his ilk remain sorely deficient.

How is Saddam screwing anyone but Iraq? How have you suffered because of Saddam? What the f*ck do I care that Saddam has empty shells?

Saddam is in a crappy little box and his time as dictator is running short because he own people won't take it much longer. He'll go the way of Pinochet soon enough and it will be at the hands of his own people like so many of his ilk.

That is unless of course the US succeeds in rallying the Iraqi people together by making us the enemy and taking all the blame for the suffering that Saddam has visited upon their heads. That's his game and he's been doing it for decades and we've been playing right into it. It's hard to imagine us playing the role of Great Satan with any more conviction than when we roll the tanks into the rubble that once was Bagdad and expect a parade.

Disarm Iraq and keep it boxed in. Saddam isn't long for this world anyway at the rate he's been going. The Iraqi's will see to that.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
He really was a vicious racist - easily our most racist president.

I had no idea. Jeez, the holes in my education you could drive a few tankers through.
As if I didn't have enough to read, NOW I have to research THIS too...
Thankee...

[voodoo]

OMG. People really like to argue over nothing.

It is all a matter of perspective. When is a weapon not a weapon.
Why argue over it? The UN is the only judge and jury on that.

The analogies Simey has given sound inappropriate, and he seems to like simplifying international law and post war law so ad nauseum, even if it doesn't even apply.

I just hope that guy won't be teching any young Americans. Halftruth and biased opinion is not what the next generation needs. The ability to approach each problem in many different ways and train critical thought, that is what teachers must have.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
OMG. People really like to argue over nothing.

It is all a matter of perspective. When is a weapon not a weapon.
Why argue over it? The UN is the only judge and jury on that.

The analogies Simey has given sound inappropriate, and he seems to like simplifying international law and post war law so ad nauseum, even if it doesn't even apply.

I just hope that guy won't be teching any young Americans. Halftruth and biased opinion is not what the next generation needs. The ability to approach each problem in many different ways and train critical thought, that is what teachers must have.

You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar when it comes to Simey...you slander his name right an left without cease.
You've unfairly referred to him as a bigot on numerous occasions, and you never pass up the opportunity to personally attack him, totally obliquely to the topic or the conversation.

put simply: What is your friggin problem?

[rampant]

voodoo has a well-found chip on his shoulder for Simey.

[skipjack]

Originally posted by anarkisst:


Let me clarify something here too...it ain't weapons we're after...it's oil.

Link to where I got the image...

One can always interpret things the way they wish.

How about this: Are Iraq's oil resources really that great or is their rate of production low?

[Nicko]

Did a quick search and found a nifty flash presentation of the oil reserves in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,798061,00.html


Lets see....


Saudi Arabia has 265.3 billion barrels of crude

Iraq has 115 billion......

the US has around 22 billion

Also note the source of data is from "US Energy Information Administration" whatever that is.


No, im sure that the US really just wants to bring democracy to an oppressed people.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by voodoo:
OMG. People really like to argue over nothing.

It is all a matter of perspective. When is a weapon not a weapon.
Why argue over it? The UN is the only judge and jury on that.

The analogies Simey has given sound inappropriate, and he seems to like simplifying international law and post war law so ad nauseum, even if it doesn't even apply.

I just hope that guy won't be teching any young Americans. Halftruth and biased opinion is not what the next generation needs. The ability to approach each problem in many different ways and train critical thought, that is what teachers must have.

Thank you.

[Atef's Carcase]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Saudi Arabia has 265.3 billion barrels of crude

Iraq has 115 billion......

the US has around 22 billion

No, im sure that the US really just wants to bring democracy to an oppressed people.

<sigh> come now, if the US really wanted to invade countries for their oil, Saudi Arabia would be the best target. Its military is more useless and inept than Iraq's, its population is lower, it has more oil, and you don't need to cross other countries' land or airspace for an invasion (Saudi has that long coastline).

But you're right: it isn't about bringing democracy to an oppressed people. They'll benefit, sure, but that outcome is secondary to how the Great Satan views its security interests.

voodoo, simey whips you around every time you open your cakehole; there's no need for you to contest it unless you have something to say, apart from your perpetual b*tching.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, so the excuses begin. 24 hours. A little slow this time.

ROFL!

The fact is that these weapons were clearly not reported in the "full and final" disclosure as mandated by the UN Security Council. Empty or not, they are a componant of a usable chemical weapons system, and the Iraqis were ordered 11 years ago to destroy them. Iraq violated that instruction, and has violated this latest disclosure requirement.

And really, use some common sense. Iraq has chemical weapons dispersal shells because it has chemical weapons. You don't need one unless you have the other.

Bingo. But shhh this makes Bush look like he knows what he is doing. And we can't have that!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Halftruth and biased opinion is not what the next generation needs.

Aahh.. the crunchy irony.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Saddam is in a crappy little box and his time as dictator is running short because he own people won't take it much longer. He'll go the way of Pinochet soon enough and it will be at the hands of his own people like so many of his ilk.

You know, it's not 1992 anymore

[rampant]

Originally posted by itai195:
You know, it's not 1992 anymore

Well don't tell anyone in the administration that!

[itai195]

Originally posted by rampant:
Well don't tell anyone in the administration that!

Well actually, the point was that in 92 people thought Saddam's regime was not long for this world and they let up on him.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

He'll go the way of Pinochet soon enough and it will be at the hands of his own people like so many of his ilk.

Pinochet no longer rules Chile because he willingly gave up his power. Yes, he faced internal and external pressure to do so but nothing like the pressure that Saddam has been under. If Saddam were to go the way of Pinochet, he would have been gone long ago.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Well actually, the point was that in 92 people thought Saddam's regime was not long for this world and they let up on him.

Would that be the same people in the Administration that encouraged the dissenters to rebel and then left them to be slaughtered because they didn't think there was enough political mileage to be gained from being involved in a coup?

Or that subverted the same dissenters because they overtly manipulated those groups and undermined their credibility with other Iraqi's (CIA puppets is a tough name to shake when you want support from your fellow citizens)?

Non-violence has a pretty damn good track record against dictators. Some experts in the field feel that too few Iraqi's are familiar with the techniques of effective non-violent resistance to make a real change in Iraq right now. With a little help (mostly informational, not money or something that will undermine their credibility) the same principles could lead to Saddam's ouster.

Comes down to separating the regime from it's means of control (police, military). Once they have doubts as to whether the regime can survive, they won't stand in the way of a popular uprising. The critical mass of dissent hasn't been reached in Iraq yet, but it can be. This may require patience, but it promises much fewere risks than an all out war and the installation of some Western "puppet" no matter how good our intentions are.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar when it comes to Simey...you slander his name right an left without cease.
You've unfairly referred to him as a bigot on numerous occasions, and you never pass up the opportunity to personally attack him, totally obliquely to the topic or the conversation.

put simply: What is your friggin problem?

I disagree very much with SimeytheLimey on this subject. His lectures on this matter leave a lot to be desired if they were ever to approach the matter with any objectivity. I don't care much for people whose goal is to blur other people's point of view. This is a debate where he is one of the principal Bush administration cheerleaders. I just don't see his words to ring true, so I say so. This is still an open forum right? While I single out Simey so often is probably because *his* cheerleaders, Zim, Atef and Spliffdaddy don't really post much argument. All their comments boil down to: "That's just silly ", "simey whips you around every time you open your cakehole" and "You are just jealous of Americans", repectively. I can debate with logic and intelligence with Captain Obvious, itai195, roger_ramjet and many others on the right wing. So that leaves Simey. By what law is he immune to my critcism? I disagree with what he writes and I say so. Fair enough? Just because I disgree with him more than most people doesn't mean I am singleing him out on purpose. I have nothing against him has a person, I challenge his opinions, is all. But I think he can stand up for himself if he thinks he is being mobbed, don't you think?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Atef's Carcase:

voodoo, simey whips you around every time you open your cakehole; there's no need for you to contest it unless you have something to say, apart from your perpetual b*tching.

You are being silly

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Aahh.. the crunchy irony.

Takes one to know one

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I disagree very much with SimeytheLimey on this subject.

ah. but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's point of view, and accusing them of lying or calling them bigots merely because you disagree with them...right? One is disagreement, the other is ad hominem.

Originally posted by voodoo:
.....But I think he can stand up for himself if he thinks he is being mobbed, don't you think?

On that we can agree. However, if I feel the urge to speak up on this open forum when I am disgusted by your behaviour, I will do so.

have a nice day!

[undotwa]

Iraq disobeyed the Security Council resolution, and they lied in their weapons report... is there anything to argue?

Seriously, under no circumstances can you let this go unnoticed. Once people start softening international law, even more serious things are even more easily justified.

Hopefully Bush knows what he's doing, but please, don't jump to conclusions.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ah. but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's point of view, and accusing them of lying or calling them bigots merely because you disagree with them...right? One is disagreement, the other is ad hominem.

Naturally, there is no need for personal attacks or on character. Not can there be. I don't know Simey personally, how could I? To me he is just a faceless figure behind whatever he writes here. He is what he writes. I have pointed out the weak spots in his writing. There isn't much to debate, really. If there were, I'd certainly write something. This whole discussion is based on perception on what is a weapon, but we forget that our opinion of it is worthless.. at least in the grand scheme of things. That is what makes it silly to argue heatedly about it or try and force your opinion on others. It shows a weakness of character. Perhaps that is what I am fingering.

On that we can agree. However, if I feel the urge to speak up on this open forum when I am disgusted by your behaviour, I will do so.

have a nice day!

Don't get all huffy on me. You are no angel either. But you as you say, this *is* an open forum.

And as one last thing about Simey's lectures that I frequently think of. Have you read Capterhouse: Dune by Frank Herbert? Good book, IMO. It starts every chapter with a quote, and one goes something like this:
"Beware jargon. It usually hides ignorance and carries little knowledge."

[voodoo]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Iraq disobeyed the Security Council resolution, and they lied in their weapons report... is there anything to argue?

No. Nothing to argue there. If the UN sec. council says so, it *is* so.

[finboy]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
You will wear out your keyboard and your patience trying to clarify this to some, Simey.

Yup. Don't waste your breath. Some folks won't get it. Ever.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by finboy:
Yup. Don't waste your breath. Some folks won't get it. Ever.

Oh, people *get* it, but why are you expecting people to to agree with it?

Are there such things as "right" and "wrong"? Truth and lies? Come on. Getting all patronizing doesn't help either.

[Face Ache]

voodoo: You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder over Simey and I think it's because of your inability to tackle him head on. Kicking at his ankles isn't really on though.

My personal notes on Simey:

(hope you don't mind, Simey).

I think the guy is really smart. I mean REALLY smart.

I think he has a clear mind that enables him to put ideas and words down in a very compelling manner. (My mind is like a fire in a disco. Everyone races for the door and dies in the crush ).

I think he occasionally gets all "lawyerly" and avoids points he can't defend by sidetracking.

I think a lot of people here don't see that. THAT'S how clever he is.

I think to some degree that stifles debate in these forums. Simey can run rings around most of us using historic facts and obscure details of law. He can veritably beat us over the head with them. That doesn't always make him right though. We just aren't smart enough to be able to defend ourselves. It's much more entertaining when we are all clueless.

I think Simey should stop asking that we learn the entire political history of mankind before we form an opinion (or that our opinions are foolish if they aren't grounded on that knowledge base). If the President of the USA doesn't have to learn it, neither do we. Some of us are "big picture" guys. The details are for the lawyers to sort out.

And finally, I think if Simey became a liberal he could get the deed to his soul back and become a great photographer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Takes one to know one

Hehehe

That really didn't make sense, but I thought it was funny anyhow.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I think Simey should stop asking that we learn the entire political history of mankind before we form an opinion (or that our opinions are foolish if they aren't grounded on that knowledge base).

Simey has some smarts. He sure as **** has some mad google skillz. And if you want to play with a pro you're gonna have to work out a bit. Practice, practice, practice. But if you're lazy and don't feel like it...
a Taser will work a number on him just as well if he were your average coke dealer.

[rambo47]

Hopefully, this will all come to nothing: No invasion, No war, No chemical weapons used. The rumors going around the trading desks of Wall Street are that Saddam is negociating to go into exile somewhere in Africa and avoid prosecution by the World Court.

One huge caveat: this rumor has been around for about 2 weeks, gaining and losing credibility as often as the Dow Jones average gains and loses points. And don't forget, a rumor is not responsible for who believes it. But wouldn't it be nice if Hussein would just fsck off !?

[Speckledstone]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar when it comes to Simey...you slander his name right an left without cease.
You've unfairly referred to him as a bigot on numerous occasions, and you never pass up the opportunity to personally attack him, totally obliquely to the topic or the conversation.

put simply: What is your friggin problem?

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man.
It is a dimension as vast as a glance at your shoelaces.
It is the middle ground between darkness and shadow,
between propaganda and ignorance, and it lies between
the pit of man's fears and the summit of his polemic thoughts.
This is the dimension of one man's imagination. It is an area which we call...

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Speckledstone:
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man.
It is a dimension as vast as a glance at your shoelaces.
It is the middle ground between darkness and shadow,
between propaganda and ignorance, and it lies between
the pit of man's fears and the summit of his polemic thoughts.
This is the dimension of one man's imagination. It is an area which we call...

OK, *that* was funny *lol*

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
voodoo: You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder over Simey and I think it's because of your inability to tackle him head on. Kicking at his ankles isn't really on though.

My personal notes on Simey:

(hope you don't mind, Simey).

I think the guy is really smart. I mean REALLY smart.

I think he has a clear mind that enables him to put ideas and words down in a very compelling manner. (My mind is like a fire in a disco. Everyone races for the door and dies in the crush ).

I think he occasionally gets all "lawyerly" and avoids points he can't defend by sidetracking.

I think a lot of people here don't see that. THAT'S how clever he is.

I think to some degree that stifles debate in these forums. Simey can run rings around most of us using historic facts and obscure details of law. He can veritably beat us over the head with them. That doesn't always make him right though. We just aren't smart enough to be able to defend ourselves. It's much more entertaining when we are all clueless.

I think Simey should stop asking that we learn the entire political history of mankind before we form an opinion (or that our opinions are foolish if they aren't grounded on that knowledge base). If the President of the USA doesn't have to learn it, neither do we. Some of us are "big picture" guys. The details are for the lawyers to sort out.

And finally, I think if Simey became a liberal he could get the deed to his soul back and become a great photographer.

I guess I have better things to do than write lengthy essays on the internet. I'd rather participate in the forum in general. My native language isn't english so writing it takes me somewhat longer than others. I.E. I have given up on the big discussions of my 'youth' I can't be bothered anymore. bah. I don't think Simey is smart. He may be more or less of average intelligence, but he holds many "facts". He digs up many of them in recent Wash. Post articles and google, but many I am sure he knows already. He has no deeper understanding of them and shows no recognition of pattern recognition when hurling his facts up, which is a good indicator of *not being able to grasp* knowledge. Whatever.
"You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder over Simey and I think it's because of your inability to tackle him head on." While it is nice to see you all speculate if there are any reasons for it under the surface like that one, the reason is much simpler. I really disagree with the man. No matter how long his posts are, no matter how many "facts" there are there. I find his posts to hold as many errors as anyone elses but very few here bother to contest with them.

Look, it's like this. If there was one person that wrote on these forums that called himself a scientist (even if he was just an aspireing one), and he would take time to rake up facts and truths in arguments against God's existance, with religious people on the board. The Religious people not being scientists would have to listen to this guys rant, sometimes informative but always degrading their point of view. Now said scientist could draw up a million pictures and facts that would litterally BURY any God. To show ABSOLOUTLY that there is no metaphysical entity. He could do that all with scientific facts that he either learned, looked up on google or whatever. He'd dismiss all discussion about God unless the debaters had all the scientific facts straight. The discussion would become stiffled because of the besserwissing personality of that poster.

Bah, I'm off to work now. Wake up people!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
My personal notes on Simey:

(hope you don't mind, Simey).

No, I don't mind. This has been a bit odd for me, though. Apparently, i am a polarizing fellow and from what I gather about Voodoo's posts, he's still upset. I can't help him with that.

All I really do is post here for fun. I enjoy the conversations, including with the people with whom I disagree. I'm sorry that you think that I swamp the politicial threads. It isn't because I have access to all world knowledge or anything. It's just that those happen to be "my" subjects. It's what my background is in.

You may have noticed that I mostly post in the Lounge, not, say, the OSX forum. There's a reason for that - I know squat about computers. I came here originally to learn about Macs before i bought one. Then i drifted into the Lounge because I found the conversation stimulating.

There are people here with a wide variety of backgrounds. Many of them seem to be computer and design professionals. I sometimes have a hard time following what they are even saying because I don't know that field. But I don't think that there is anything wrong with them posting just because I haven't studied their field. The same goes for other fields that are represented here. If the subject is, say, journalism, I may have an opinion on that, but I recognize that Lerkfish has more knowledge. He's trained as a journalist, and that's his profession. In other words, I generally presume that if somebody studies a subject and/or works in the field, that they probably know more about it than I do, and I don't resent that fact.

A lot of the topics here revolve around international affairs, law and so forth. Those happen to be areas I have had training and experience in. I don't know where the idea has come from that I just work the google search engine. It should be obvious that there is a bit more to it than that.

I've been very forthcoming with my personal background. You guys should be able to evaluate where I'm coming from. I've lived in a couple of countries, served inthe Army, and then I went to college and now law school. Warning! School pride ahead! After starting at a community college, I was lucky enough to transfer to the oldest, largest, and very arguably best specialized international affairs school in the country. It's not some rinky-dink thing. As I understand it, there are more graduates of my school serving in the State Department than the next two most represented schools combined (which I believe are Harvard and Princeton). It's not by accident that Bill Clinton, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Jones, CIA Director Tenet, King Abdullah of Jordan, Crown Prince Philippe of Spain, and others went to the same school.

It's a pretty good place, and I think I got a decent education there. It doesn't mean that I know everything about international relations (what degree could teach you that?), but I did learn from experts in the field. For example, the person who taught me about the UN and intervention was a former US Ambassador to the United Nations (under Carter). The person who taught me about anti-terrorism policy and politico-military affairs was a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Assistant Secretary of State, and Ambassador to Portugal. The person who taught me about democracy promotion was a serving senior career Foreign Service Officer who had worked those issues and who was doing a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy. The person who taught me about Chinese foreign policy was the head of the China desk at CIA. The person who taught me about intelligence matters had just retired after serving for 50 years in the CIA. The person who taught me about strategic theory was an adjunct whose day job at Rand was teaching the same thing to generals at the Pentagon. All of these were in small upper-division or graduate classes or seminars. The class sizes were small. Six students in one case. More often about 15. So I think I got a fair bit out of the experience.

I know this probably makes me sound incredibly arrogant. I'm sorry for that. When I post, I try not to do it from Mount Olympus "Thou art Wrong, I am right - the God hath spoken" but instead to try to explain things logically as i understand them. If that annoys people, I apologize. And when I fail to show humility (such as now), I apologize for that too.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It doesn't mean that I know everything about international relations (what degree could teach you that?), but I did learn from experts in the field.

I once read (pre Tom Clancy) that "international relations" was just one country screwing another.

IMO, Simey seems to have a fair attitude and a good grasp on reality. As for insisting that folks understand the history of Western civilization prior to forming opinions, that sounds like a good idea to me (though I don't think S does that). Especially when dealing with folks who have been conditioned by CNN to think that today is the only one that counts.

[Spliffdaddy]

So, if Simey is only of "average intelligence" - and voodoo NEVER wins a debate against Simey - then we must conclude.....

[Zimphire]

Wow people making fun of people, and people NOT getting pissy about it.

*marks on calender*

:-)

Humor - 1
Thin Skin - 0

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Iraq got caught with a weapon they can't have and they got caught red handed lying about it. Quit making excuses for them.

doesn't it seem strange though that they DID get caught red handed in the first place?!

please, if you have the dea comin' to your home, you don't let the razorblade and mirror sittin' on your coffeetable, do you?!

i mean, they must have read the resolution and had ample time to REALLY hide, or at least take the missiles "apart" so they couldn't be declared as weapons any longer.

personally, i think saddam might even resign from his office in a couple of weeks and go into exile (probably in russia). it's all a question of money.

if he doesn't step down, the us is going to attack before the end of february, regardless of what the uno inspectors might "find" (or not "find").