What would it take...... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-04-2002, 07:05 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Again...is this done through more foreign aid?
No, its done by taking a close look at our relationship with those nations, and deciding which aspects of our relationships are detrimental to those nations. We may have to make changes in what we are doing, which would mean admitting that we are wrong. It may be hard, but its for the better.

Quote:

I wish Colin Powell were president. Unfortunately, he will never get his party's nomination due to his beliefs on certain issues.
Actually, I thought one of the main reasons he withdrew in 2000 was because he is black and still feared attempts on his life. I personally thought he and McCain were the Republicans' best candidates.
__________________

__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 07:10 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Foxxern


Actually, I thought one of the main reasons he withdrew in 2000 was because he is black and still feared attempts on his life. I personally thought he and McCain were the Republicans' best candidates.
McCain Powell would be an awesome ticket. McCain brought so many people into the party to vote for him. My grandfather, a lifelong democrat swithched parties to vote for him. He once told me he would kick my ass if I became a Republican.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 07:17 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
See, I do not have any objections to either of these. I am not a terrorist, therefore I do not have to worry about the wiretap. 2nd, I am a citizen, therefore, I can't be detained for 7 days without charges.
So are you saying that it's not worth fighting for the rights of others in the US? I'm also a citizen, and I am not a terrorist either. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about this infringement onto the rights of people who are not US citizens. And the wiretapping applies to someone who is a "suspected terrorist". Am I a suspect? I am of Indian descent, I don't have a positive opinion of Bush, and I don't agree with how the US is handling the War on Terrorism. There are some (admittedly mostly extremists) who would label me a suspect. I hope the government would know better in my case, but for others, maybe government officials would decide the evidence is against them. Should the government be able to do these things without hard evidence of illegal activities?

I'm surprised that you're willing to compromise the rights of other Americans in order to protect yourself.
__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 07:29 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Foxxern


So are you saying that it's not worth fighting for the rights of others in the US? I'm also a citizen, and I am not a terrorist either. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about this infringement onto the rights of people who are not US citizens. And the wiretapping applies to someone who is a "suspected terrorist". Am I a suspect? I am of Indian descent, I don't have a positive opinion of Bush, and I don't agree with how the US is handling the War on Terrorism. There are some (admittedly mostly extremists) who would label me a suspect. I hope the government would know better in my case, but for others, maybe government officials would decide the evidence is against them. Should the government be able to do these things without hard evidence of illegal activities?

I'm surprised that you're willing to compromise the rights of other Americans in order to protect yourself.
This is where we disagree. I do not think foreigners coming to this country from places and from countries which Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are operating deserve the rights of an American citizen. If detaining them while their background is checked and they are determined to be safe, and protects more people from dieing I am for it. If there were some evidence that this power has been abused in the past year I would fully support looking into things.

The governement had hard evidence about 9/11. In many cases the hands of the people who protect us were tied by the political correctness that has permeated the system. One example, NOT allowing Moussaui's laptop to be examined.

I will answer the "I'm surprised comment with a comment". I am surprised that you would place the safety of our citizens over the "rights" of someone coming into this country.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 09:01 PM   #35
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


See, I do not have any objections to either of these. I am not a terrorist, therefore I do not have to worry about the wiretap. 2nd, I am a citizen, therefore, I can't be detained for 7 days without charges.

This is dangerous territory, Dreadsox. Just because these things don't apply to you now, don't get lazy about watching out for the rights of others. People who are the favored majority at the time (conservative males) can be very smug about having "nothing to fear" when the rights we have as Americans are taken from us in the name of patriotism. Let me mention the 50s and our buddy McCarthy. Many people on this board would have been on his list and would have had their rights as Americans trampled underfoot in the name of their own country. Cherish your freedoms and don't let those of others be taken away, because when my freedom is limited, so is yours.

And don't get all balky at me calling you conservative. It's not always a bad thing.

As for the Constitutional rights I fear losing, I think probable cause for searches has been brought up here.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 09:02 PM   #36
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


In Islam, there are three types of people. Believers, those who will become believers and infidels. As a Christian, I fall in this last catagory.
Yeah, like I said, it's your beliefs that make you an infidel.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 09:17 PM   #37
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 09:22 AM
more support for the title of the forum....

From: Jeffrey Goldberg
To: Slate writers
Subject: Aflatoxin
Posted: Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 12:47 PM PT
David Plotz has offered a not-unconvincing argument for Saddam's removal, but let me offer a better one: aflatoxin.

In 1995, the government of Saddam Hussein admitted to United Nations weapons inspectors that its scientists had weaponized a biological agent called aflatoxin. Charles Duelfer, the former deputy executive chairman of the now-defunct UNSCOM, told me earlier this year that the Iraqi admission was startling because aflatoxin has no possible battlefield use. Aflatoxin, which is made from fungi that occur in moldy grains, does only one thing well: It causes liver cancer. In fact, it induces it particularly well in children. Its effects are far from immediate. The joke among weapons inspectors is that aflatoxin would stop a lieutenant from making colonel, but it would not stop soldiers from advancing across a battlefield.

I quoted Duelfer, in an article that appeared in The New Yorker, saying that "we kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use for aflatoxin." They never came up with an adequate explanation, he said. They did admit, however, that they had loaded aflatoxin into two warheads capable of being fitted onto Scud missiles.

Richard Spertzel, who was the chief biological weapons inspector for UNSCOM, told me that aflatoxin is "a devilish weapon. From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruelest weapon—it means watching children die slowly of liver cancer."

Spertzel went on to say that, to his knowledge, Iraq is the only country ever to weaponize aflatoxin.

In an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, a group of worthies called upon the American people to summon the courage to question the war plans of President Bush. The advertisement, which was sponsored by Common Cause, asks, in reference to the Saddam regime, "Of all the repugnant dictatorships, why this one?"

I do not want, in this space, to rehearse the arguments for invasion; Jacob Weisberg and Anne Applebaum have done a better job of that than I could, and they have also explained why multilateralism and congressional sanction are not the highest moral values known to man. There is not sufficient space, as well, for me to refute some of the arguments made in Slate over the past week against intervention, arguments made, I have noticed, by people with limited experience in the Middle East (Their lack of experience causes them to reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected). I will try, instead, to return to the essential issues: the moral challenge posed by the deeds of the Iraqi regime; and the particular dangers the regime poses to America and its allies. Everything else, to my mind, is commentary.

There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular danger. To review: There is no dictator in power anywhere in the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored al-Qaida fugitives (this is, by the way, beyond doubt, despite David Plotz's assertion to the contrary); attacked civilians with chemical weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy country with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human subjects; committed genocide; and then there is, of course, the matter of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else.

I do not know how any thinking person could believe that Saddam Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one else comes close—not the mullahs in Iran, not the Burmese SLORC, not the North Koreans—to matching his extraordinary and variegated record of malevolence.

Earlier this year, while traveling across northern Iraq, I interviewed more than 100 survivors of Saddam's campaign of chemical genocide. I will not recite the statistics, or recount the horror stories here, except to say that I met enough barren and cancer-ridden women in Iraqi Kurdistan to last me several lifetimes.

So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if "never again" is in fact actually to mean "never again."

But at a panel this past weekend on Iraq held as part of the New Yorker festival, Richard Holbrooke scolded me for making the suggestion that genocide was reason enough for the international community to act against Saddam. Holbrooke, who favors regime change, said the best practical argument for Saddam's removal is the danger posed by his weapons programs. He is right, though the weapons argument, separated from Saddam's real-life record of grotesque aggression, loses its urgency. Because Saddam is a man without any moral limits is why it is so important to keep nuclear weapons from his hands.

On the subject of Saddam's weapons programs, let me quote once more the Common Cause advertisement: "Do we have new information suggesting he has obtained or is about to obtain weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear warheads) and the capacity to deliver them over long distances?," it reads.

Yes, actually. There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. This is not unlikely, since the international community, despite Kate Taylor's assertion, is incapable in the long run of stopping a determined and wealthy dictator from acquiring the things he needs. It is believed now that Saddam's scientists could make the fuel he needs in as little as three years (the chief of German intelligence, August Hanning, told me one year ago that he believed it would take Saddam three years to go nuclear).

The argument by opponents of invasion that Saddam poses no "imminent threat" (they never actually define "imminent," of course) strikes me as particularly foolhardy. If you believe he is trying to acquire an atomic bomb, and if you believe that he is a monstrous person, than why would you possibly advocate waiting until the last possible second to disarm him?

After returning from Iraq, I dug out an old New York Times editorial, which I recommend people read in full. It was published on June 9, 1981 under the headline, "Israel's Illusion."

"Israel's sneak attack on a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression," the editorial states. "Even assuming that Iraq was hellbent to divert enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, it would have been working toward a capacity that Israel itself acquired long ago."

Israel absorbed the world's hatred and scorn for its attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. Today, it is accepted as fact by most arms-control experts that, had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have been a nuclear power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way across Kuwait.

The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

—Jeffrey Goldberg is a staff writer at The New Yorker and a frequent contributor to Slate.
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 10:31 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


This is dangerous territory, Dreadsox. Just because these things don't apply to you now, don't get lazy about watching out for the rights of others. People who are the favored majority at the time (conservative males) can be very smug about having "nothing to fear" when the rights we have as Americans are taken from us in the name of patriotism. Let me mention the 50s and our buddy McCarthy. Many people on this board would have been on his list and would have had their rights as Americans trampled underfoot in the name of their own country. Cherish your freedoms and don't let those of others be taken away, because when my freedom is limited, so is yours.

And don't get all balky at me calling you conservative. It's not always a bad thing.

As for the Constitutional rights I fear losing, I think probable cause for searches has been brought up here.

I do not mind being called conservative at all. I cherish my freedom. If there were any evidence of the statutes under the patriot act being abused, I would probably be right there with you assuming that is what the facts say.

I would say that we have probable cause to suspect people who come to America from known terrorist countries.

Again, I am still trying to understand your comments about the original terrorist intercepts published by one of the most respected journalists in the field today. The fact is, there was enough information to have pieced together 9/11. Should we not be concerned that there was the intercepts about our schools? It sounded like from your other post that you would prefer inaction rather then proactively doing something to stop it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 10:47 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by us3
more support for the title of the forum....

From: Jeffrey Goldberg
Thank you for posting the Jeffrey Goldberg article, us3! I do wish some here would take the chance to read it. He has written several convincing articles on the need to remove Saddam, yet all we ever see posted here are "Scott Ritter said this, Scott Ritter said that..." Goldberg has seen his own share of first hand evidence that is frightening to say the least.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 11:06 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


Thank you for posting the Jeffrey Goldberg article, us3! I do wish some here would take the chance to read it. He has written several convincing articles on the need to remove Saddam, yet all we ever see posted here are "Scott Ritter said this, Scott Ritter said that..." Goldberg has seen his own share of first hand evidence that is frightening to say the least.

~U2Alabama
Dang it he stole my thunder. I was just going to post it myself!!!!!

Bama is right it is an excellent article.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 11:19 PM   #41
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Again, I am still trying to understand your comments about the original terrorist intercepts published by one of the most respected journalists in the field today. .... It sounded like from your other post that you would prefer inaction rather then proactively doing something to stop it.
I don't want to do anything based on the two paragraphs you posted. When real, hard evidence is at hand, maybe so. But the rumors of "terrorist" activity and attacks have really been rumors and chain-yanking.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 11:22 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I don't want to do anything based on the two paragraphs you posted. When real, hard evidence is at hand, maybe so. But the rumors of "terrorist" activity and attacks have really been rumors and chain-yanking.


Hi-jacking planes was just a rumor one month before 9/11 happened.

Peace to all.....

Night.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 11:26 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:22 AM
wink

US3 is a righteous cat..

That terrorists are thinking of targeting schools concerns me..


Martha needs a spank.

Thank you-
diamond-
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-04-2002, 11:27 PM   #44
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox




Hi-jacking planes was just a rumor one month before 9/11 happened.

Peace to all.....

Night.
No, it wasn't. FBI agents had evidence of trouble and it was ignored.

See you tomorrow.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-05-2002, 12:44 AM   #45
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would it take......

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


See, I do not have any objections to either of these. I am not a terrorist, therefore I do not have to worry about the wiretap.
You don't care if the government is tapping your phone without your knowledge?!

He who would sacrifice his liberties for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
--Benjamin Franklin
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com