Anti-War Movement Plan

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: etech
Hagbard, do you believe that Iraq still has hidden weapons that were banned by the UN in 1991?

I have no idea if they do or do not. Guess we'll find out shortly...hey, I'm still betting on March 22, as I have for over a month. Its about is easly to guess as anything else (ie: its not).

Why do you only have an opinion about America and not Saddam and Iraqi WMD Programs?<<<<<<<Seems Childish and Ignorant to me ??

I've explained my position in my first and second post. The same applies to both Iraq and the US, but it isn't Iraq that's looking for the fight, its the US.

We will just let Saddam grow in power, until he nukes someone someday. That is a much better solution.

Fantasy. Its never been about WMD...just war propaganda. France and Germany (as do the others but won't say so) know this. Few outside the US believe its anything but propaganda.

Then why are there 17 UN resolutions for him to disarm?

US pressure, I said that already. Since when does the US gave a damn about UN resolutions...is Bush a born again UN believer too? Need I once again mention all those resolutions against Israel that go ignored?

Well if that is true, which i doubt as there are 5 vetos in the security council, then we can at least agree the UN is useless.

Its useless because it didn't dance to Washington's tune they way the President wanted them too. BTW, I do think its useless but I thought that before. The US will do what it damn well pleases no matter what other countries think.

I really doubt the 18 IRaq resolution will get thru the security council. I guess we dont have enough gunboats....

One day at a time.

I'm outthere...Frontline is on.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sorry I couldn't do better. I can't read Bush's mind. To be absolutly sure my analysis is the only right one would be as silly as those who are absolutly sure we're wrong.

moony strikes again.

gotta luv moony. Wherever there is an Iraq thread, he's there.

as for this, I'll sit this one out. I'm sick of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sher, before you torture Saddam be sure to read Guru Nanak.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: dahunan
If it is found out that France and Germany illegally sold Saddam Weapons Hardware and anything else while UN Sanctions were placed on Iraq will you think differently about France and Germany?

Would it make me feel differently...what do I think about France and Germany now? You seen to know what I think...tell me.

They are on the Moral High Ground ABOVE the United States?

Is that your view or your view of what you think I believe?

Yes, you seem to HATE the USA and ALL it stands for.

Broaden your mind. I don't fit your tiny world view. If I were so anti-American I'd be rooting your government on since I'm certain that their path will end in disaster for the United States.

To answer your question, I think that France and Germany (but especially France) is acting in its own best interests. They will sell out if offered the right price. Does that answer it for you?

Here is yet another bit of evidence to ignore:

Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya

I'm holding back from saying "I told you so".

 

[ConclamoLudus]

So this is where it stands.

The best foreign policy is to not have one at all MYOFB right?

This is the problem with that:

All biases aside you are putting an incredible amount of faith in the human race as a whole to just do their own thing. MYOFB only works if everybody Minds Their Own F Business. That would be great. A Utopia. But hardly realistic. Perhaps we should close the borders, put up a wall, stop all international trade of any kind, and be a self-sufficient Utopia. That's a nice dream Hagbard but you'll wake up from it at some point when somebody comes in to take it all away. The human race as a whole cannot MYOFB.

This isn't where I thought this thread would go, but I'm glad its gone somewhere. So are there any other stipulations to your foreign policy or is that it. I guess at this point I don't know anyone who would risk it. I wouldn't. At what point do you put a stop to things Hagbard. For instance: by this rationale would you have had us wait until Hitler spread his empire to our borders. Should we have just said MYOFB to him and gone about our business? Or when any country needs foreign aid, should we just say MYOFB? While the AIDS bomb is going off in Africa should we just say MYOFB? When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor should we just have given that base to them and then said MYOFB?

Its just not that simple. But thanks for giving it a shot. Feel free to answer some of these questions, but don't just give an answer like USA=bad. Nobody's buying it . Everyone knows we've done some stupid things and some great things, so don't oversimplify every situation like that.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
So this is where it stands.

The best foreign policy is to not have one at all MYOFB right?

This is the problem with that:

All biases aside you are putting an incredible amount of faith in the human race as a whole to just do their own thing. MYOFB only works if everybody Minds Their Own F Business. That would be great. A Utopia. But hardly realistic. Perhaps we should close the borders, put up a wall, stop all international trade of any kind, and be a self-sufficient Utopia. That's a nice dream Hagbard but you'll wake up from it at some point when somebody comes in to take it all away. The human race as a whole cannot MYOFB.

This isn't where I thought this thread would go, but I'm glad its gone somewhere. So are there any other stipulations to your foreign policy or is that it. I guess at this point I don't know anyone who would risk it. I wouldn't. At what point do you put a stop to things Hagbard. For instance: by this rationale would you have had us wait until Hitler spread his empire to our borders. Should we have just said MYOFB to him and gone about our business? Or when any country needs foreign aid, should we just say MYOFB? While the AIDS bomb is going off in Africa should we just say MYOFB? When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor should we just have given that base to them and then said MYOFB?

Its just not that simple. But thanks for giving it a shot. Feel free to answer some of these questions, but don't just give an answer like USA=bad. Nobody's buying it . Everyone knows we've done some stupid things and some great things, so don't oversimplify every situation like that.

Nice post.... You are exactly the kind if person that others like to debate with..... Thoughtful, respectul and willing to listen!!! Way to go my friend.

I find however some little details: Hitler was going to lose the war WITH or WITHOUT intervention by the USA anyway..... Even after the USA entered the war, 80% of the German army was fighting the Eastern front..... And yes, I known the USA helped the Soviets with food mainly, but even without that help they were going to beat Germany (at the cost more lifes, and instead of the 22+ million dead they could have been 28+ millions...) False statement??? Bring DATA to backup any refutal here.

Pearl Harbor was an attack and required response, no debate here. Fighting the Japanese was justified justified (as a conspiracy theory, and keep it that way, some people speculate that all the sanctions imposed on Japan and the banning in oil and steel to the island prior to the attack were intended to provocate Japan and make them "launch an attack".... but that belong to a totally different thread )

Regarding inteventions abroad by the USA, I would love to see OFFICIAL petitions by the affected countries/entities to be affected..... Korea, Vietnam??? Any other????

I agree, it is not that simple to MYOFB, but some kind of RESPECT to the others should exist, and that RESPECT, tolerance and treatment to the others MUST be fair and EQUAL...... If Iraq has weapons, they are violating a UN resolution, no debate here...... but my point about EQUAL lies in the fact that there are some other countries, allies of the USA *cough* *cough* who are also violating UN resolutions.... but no effort is being done to ENFORCE those resolutions.

No country is perfect, and I know that a lot of people in the USA feel the desire to help. They also feel the desire to be protected. The best way to get protected is to realize what things have done wrong in the past and try to fix them...... there is no completely innocent party, as well as there is no completely guilty or evil party (it is not black and white, it has several shades of gray) The sword cuts both ways, and the concept of "we are the good guys, they are the bad guys" is childish..... If somebody thinks that nothing has been done wrong, then that person doesn't belong to this time, it belongs to the mid 30's in a rally praising the leader with flags outfitted with a swastica.... There is good and bad in both sides!!

Thanks for the objective post, we need more of these!

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
So this is where it stands.

The best foreign policy is to not have one at all MYOFB right?

No, I'm saying have a non-interventionist foreign policy, not an isolationist one.

This is the problem with that:

All biases aside you are putting an incredible amount of faith in the human race as a whole to just do their own thing. MYOFB only works if everybody Minds Their Own F Business.

Again, I'm not saying no national defense. Countries need to protect their citizens and national sovereignty from outside invasion. Its their primary duty as a government. In a world in which one country has ointed itself god over all other nations, it now becomes each nation's responsibility to develop effective deterrents to such aggression (ie: nuclear and e-bombs).

That would be great. A Utopia. But hardly realistic. Perhaps we should close the borders, put up a wall, stop all international trade of any kind, and be a self-sufficient Utopia. That's a nice dream Hagbard but you'll wake up from it at some point when somebody comes in to take it all away. The human race as a whole cannot MYOFB.

You don't understand myofb then. Its not about isolation, its about not aggressively interfering into the business of other countries, such as stationing troops or providing military aid to other countries, especially when such aid is used to oppress other countries or people within those countries.

This isn't where I thought this thread would go, but I'm glad its gone somewhere. So are there any other stipulations to your foreign policy or is that it. I guess at this point I don't know anyone who would risk it. I wouldn't. At what point do you put a stop to things Hagbard. For instance: by this rationale would you have had us wait until Hitler spread his empire to our borders.

Containment worked for nearly fifty years with the Soviets. Besides, you're not going to get rid of all the little Hitler's that pop up, there have been many since. I have no objection to you as an individual supporting the overthrow of any government you please. Where I live, however, that is not legal (10 years in prison). I don't know the status of such things in the US.

Should we have just said MYOFB to him and gone about our business?

Yes. What good did it do you? If your country is invaded or there is an immediate threat (such as the country has just invaded your neigbour) then you have a right to defend your country. I can also see some justification for common defense. GB and France were in such a position in 1939. The US wasn't. And like I've said before, had the US stayed out of WWI (that is MYOFB), there would have been no WWII.

Or when any country needs foreign aid, should we just say MYOFB?

Absolutely.

While the AIDS bomb is going off in Africa should we just say MYOFB?

As a government, yes. As individuals, no.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor should we just have given that base to them and then said MYOFB?

It was US intervention that lead to Pearl Harbor, and its pretty well accepted now that Roosevelt allowed the Japanese attack to proceed in enable Congress to pass a declaration of war.

Its just not that simple. But thanks for giving it a shot. Feel free to answer some of these questions, but don't just give an answer like USA=bad. Nobody's buying it . Everyone knows we've done some stupid things and some great things, so don't oversimplify every situation like that.

You're the only one saying "US=Bad". My criticism is mostly of US foreign policy (and a bit on US hypocrisy which is ignored by those who somehow think that the US is in a special position by being a defender of liberty and human rights, which your country has never been except rhetorically). What the US does within its own borders is NOMFB, but when they go pushing their world vision beyond its borders and it effects me...it becomes MFB.

 

[ILikeStuff]

I read the first two articles hagbard posted and they make a bit of sense. There are a lot of "Bad things" that could happen as a result of the coming war, but I still think the war against Iraq/Saddam is justified due to his blatant refusal to comply w/ treaties he signed and the UN resolutions that came thereafter and if it comes to War, I will stand by my president/country.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I appreciate the response to this Hagbard and Alexruiz. This is more of what I wanted out of this thread. Its easy for people on either side of the issue to dismiss those that they disagree with when there aren't details being discussed. That is why I'm glad you explained what you meant about MYOFB. I wasn't sure if you meant isolationism or non-interventionism (I think thats a word ) I understand better where you guys are coming from. But I still disagree with many of the points, I'll be the first to admit most of it is out of the fact that I haven't delved into it as deep in order to make a MORE informed position...yet of course.

Foreign Aid link

I would agree with Hagbard about the AMOUNT of foreign aid we give, but if we didn't give any of this to other countries, how would that affect the world economically? Who would be better off, besides us, if we pulled out on our foreign aid? Its true, and there are no disagreements here about the US sticking its nose into everyone's corner of the world, but I do believe that much of it has a better affect globally. When we don't intervene in certain cases, more people would lose out. Iraq, in my opinion, being one of these situations.

And on the issue of the AIDS timebomb, its only a matter of time before the world has to deal with that. It will reach the US in many ways, and if we wait it will affect us much worse. To me its like waiting for the fire in your kitchen to reach your living room couch before you try to put it out.

And one could also argue that it was the failure to enforce national policies that led to Hitler gaining so much power. We tried to restrict him with rules on how their militarty could build, when we ignored him breaking these rules it led to him having so much more power.

And on another note I will say this to Alexruiz, as we've discussed before, its unfortunate that the US picks and chooses our human rights causes solely on national interest, but I would argue that some are better off because of this, we've made a few great choices, and a few really awful ones that we're paying the price for, but we can NOT get to all of them, and I would disagree that we shouldn't get to ANY of them.

Thanks for your debate on this, guys.

 

[Ferocious]

A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

Something to think about, but a VERY different situation as well. If we were losing thousands of US soldiers over there, I would be back-stepping a bit too, but we lost very few in the Gulf War, and technology is only getting more precise.

Gulf War facts from CNN

These statitistics are interesting to look through, though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

The Anti War Movement during Viet Nam didn't become effective until Mainstream America started sympathizing with them. This happened because the Lies that were being told to us by our Government finally were revealed and the soldiers coming home reported that the war wasn't being fought to win.

The Anti War Movement today seems to include more of Mainstream America than the early Viet Nam Anti War Movement. Though some idiots spout off and call them all Hippies, if you take a look at those who are participating you see that isn't the case. There also segments of todays Anti War Movement who understand the danger Hussien represents, they just feel that American acting without the UN's approval sets a dangerous precedent and that the harm caused by it could be more extensive than the harm of not invading Iraq. Of course just like the Pro War advocates, the Loud Mouth Idiots of the Anti War Groups seem to get all the attention even if they are in the minority. For every Loon like Martin Sheen for the Anti War Movement there's a hot bag of Noxious Gas like Rush Limbaugh for the Pro War Advocates.

Personally I see this situation as a "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation. I really have reservations about us being able to successfully execute this Military action and the subsequent Occupation and Administration of Iraq without the Support of the UN. I have no delusions though about Hussien complying with UN Resolution 1441 yet I still feel we should give the Inspectors more time. By having the patience to wait, even knowing full well that Hussien isn't going to comply, we are saying to our hesitent Allies that we are willing to compromise with them which I feel will go a long ways to finally being able to enlist their active participation, which like I said earlier and in other threads, is what I believe is necessary to do the job right. If we don't I feel the Economic Wieght of this action will be extremely detrimental to our and the worlds economy plus with the UN's support the hit our Prestige around the world will take won't be as bad though it will still take a major hit.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: halik
Violence breeds violence...Pure goals can never justify impure or violent action...They say the means are after all just means. I would say means are after all everything. As the means, so the end....If we take care of the means we are bound of reach the end sooner or later.
--Mahatma Gandhi

Yeah, but this is the real world....not Happy Land.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
I read the first two articles hagbard posted and they make a bit of sense. There are a lot of "Bad things" that could happen as a result of the coming war, but I still think the war against Iraq/Saddam is justified due to his blatant refusal to comply w/ treaties he signed and the UN resolutions that came thereafter and if it comes to War, I will stand by my president/country.

No contract signed under duress is a legal contract. Besides that, the entire case against Iraq is a sham. What part of Bush's case to you find truthful? I'll show you how it isn't. Bush and his neoconservative chickenhawks want to get into Iraq for purposes they're not openly discussing. Have you read the links I provided? The US is opening a whole can of whoopass. They might get lucky and just walk into Iraq but this isn't only about Iraq...its onward to Iran and Syria, etc.

This in an Israeli newspaper today:

Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya

How do you think Muslims and other middle eastern people are going to react to such a crusade? I don't think much of the rest of the world is going to take to kindly to it either.

 

[Mandrill]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

The Anti War Movement during Viet Nam didn't become effective until Mainstream America started sympathizing with them. This happened because the Lies that were being told to us by our Government finally were revealed and the soldiers coming home reported that the war wasn't being fought to win.


Personally I see this situation as a "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation. I really have reservations about us being able to successfully execute this Military action and the subsequent Occupation and Administration of Iraq without the Support of the UN. I have no delusions though about Hussien complying with UN Resolution 1441 yet I still feel we should give the Inspectors more time. By having the patience to wait, even knowing full well that Hussien isn't going to comply, we are saying to our hesitent Allies that we are willing to compromise with them which I feel will go a long ways to finally being able to enlist their active participation, which like I said earlier and in other threads, is what I believe is necessary to do the job right. If we don't I feel the Economic Wieght of this action will be extremely detrimental to our and the worlds economy plus with the UN's support the hit our Prestige around the world will take won't be as bad though it will still take a major hit.

Part 1: Red nailed it.

Part 2: I agree with you for the most part. I don't think Saddam is going anywhere and I would be for allowing more time to humor the hesitent. The problem I have is, how much more time? I think that has to be set in stone, not open ended. I also feel that come the end of said time, the hesitent would still be hesitent. He's really had more than enough time to do what he is supposed to do. He's still screwing around and will continue to do so until action is taken.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I appreciate the response to this Hagbard and Alexruiz. This is more of what I wanted out of this thread. Its easy for people on either side of the issue to dismiss those that they disagree with when there aren't details being discussed. That is why I'm glad you explained what you meant about MYOFB. I wasn't sure if you meant isolationism or non-interventionism (I think thats a word ) I understand better where you guys are coming from. But I still disagree with many of the points, I'll be the first to admit most of it is out of the fact that I haven't delved into it as deep in order to make a MORE informed position...yet of course.

Foreign Aid link

I would agree with Hagbard about the AMOUNT of foreign aid we give, but if we didn't give any of this to other countries, how would that affect the world economically? Who would be better off, besides us, if we pulled out on our foreign aid?

The US actually (until very recently) gives very little in the way of foreign aid anyway. Less than 1% of GDP. France gives more, and Japan more than France (x2 the US actual dollar amount). If the US stopped giving aid, the world wouldn't even notice.

Its true, and there are no disagreements here about the US sticking its nose into everyone's corner of the world, but I do believe that much of it has a better affect globally. When we don't intervene in certain cases, more people would lose out. Iraq, in my opinion, being one of these situations.

I suspect it will only make things muchworse in the long term. The best thing the US could do is pull back, allow the UN to patrol the borders and remove the santions so their economy can develop and their people get feed.

And on the issue of the AIDS timebomb, its only a matter of time before the world has to deal with that. It will reach the US in many ways, and if we wait it will affect us much worse. To me its like waiting for the fire in your kitchen to reach your living room couch before you try to put it out.

The US aid, as I understand it, will do little to stop the "aids timebomb". Its for medicine provided by large US pharmadeutical companies. Its actually a bit self-serving on Bush's part.

And one could also argue that it was the failure to enforce national policies that led to Hitler gaining so much power. We tried to restrict him with rules on how their militarty could build, when we ignored him breaking these rules it led to him having so much more power.

It was the punitive Treaty of Versailles which lead to Hitler in the first place. Instead of most of Europe getting Hitler, they got Stalin who killed more than Hitler did and was more repressive. Since you'll likely point to the killing of the Jews, Gypsies, etc I should point out that the allies did little to stop this genocide during the war and much of it was already completed by the end of the war. So the US going to war did little to stop this. In my view, WWI never ended and is still going on today ("we" won the battle of Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it continues with the dividing of the Ottoman Empire into artificial nation-states and the Balfour Declaration of 1917).

And on another note I will say this to Alexruiz, as we've discussed before, its unfortunate that the US picks and chooses our human rights causes solely on national interest, but I would argue that some are better off because of this, we've made a few great choices, and a few really awful ones that we're paying the price for, but we can NOT get to all of them, and I would disagree that we shouldn't get to ANY of them.

Thanks for your debate on this, guys.

But by what right does the US interfer in this way?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

The Anti War Movement during Viet Nam didn't become effective until Mainstream America started sympathizing with them. This happened because the Lies that were being told to us by our Government finally were revealed and the soldiers coming home reported that the war wasn't being fought to win.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. They're still lying.

The Anti War Movement today seems to include more of Mainstream America than the early Viet Nam Anti War Movement. Though some idiots spout off and call them all Hippies, if you take a look at those who are participating you see that isn't the case. There also segments of todays Anti War Movement who understand the danger Hussien represents, they just feel that American acting without the UN's approval sets a dangerous precedent and that the harm caused by it could be more extensive than the harm of not invading Iraq.

What the UN decides would have no impact on my opposition...and I know of many who feel the same.

Personally I see this situation as a "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation. I really have reservations about us being able to successfully execute this Military action and the subsequent Occupation and Administration of Iraq without the Support of the UN. I have no delusions though about Hussien complying with UN Resolution 1441 yet I still feel we should give the Inspectors more time.

I have to agree with the hawks on this one...its a delay tactic and a hold out by the UN members for a better deal for themselves. This has nothing to do with doing what is morally right, its a power and money grab by the world's governments. I could be wrong, but we'll have to wait and see. France has never acted in a particularly moral way in regard to the mideast or North Africa, so why now?

By having the patience to wait, even knowing full well that Hussien isn't going to comply, we are saying to our hesitent Allies that we are willing to compromise with them which I feel will go a long ways to finally being able to enlist their active participation, which like I said earlier and in other threads, is what I believe is necessary to do the job right. If we don't I feel the Economic Wieght of this action will be extremely detrimental to our and the worlds economy plus with the UN's support the hit our Prestige around the world will take won't be as bad though it will still take a major hit.

True. But I'm not as concered with maintaining the US and UN's public relations image. There is no reason for attacking Iraq. UN resolutions are a joke, if they were serious, the US would be talking about invading Israel (they have all types of WMD, and repress unpopular minorities, and have attacked and invaded their neigbours). Its a big fat con and too many are falling for it. Maybe the US will pull it off, though I seriously doubt it, and even if they did, you really want a world government? Were are you going to hid if things get bad? How do you oppose a world empire? Okay, I'm nuts, but that's were this is going to end.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

On AIDS and pharmaceutical companies:


Don't you kind of hope that the money will be used to help AIDS. I do. And I think it will. And if the pharmaceutical companies get rich, so what...lives are at stake.



I can't really agree with you on much there Hagbard, but the only satisfaction I have for my opinion is that we will continue to have this policy, and you will never see the day that the US doesn't do what it is doing right now. The only satisfaction that you will have is that we'll probably get a terrorist attack or two in the next few years. Time will tell. In the mean time we will continue to dish out aid and protection to your country as well (sorry this bothers you), but we'll do it anyway.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
On AIDS and pharmaceutical companies:


Don't you kind of hope that the money will be used to help AIDS. I do. And I think it will. And if the pharmaceutical companies get rich, so what...lives are at stake.

There are already generic drugs available which are being used in Africa, the pharmaceutical companies have stood in their way. This is used by the administration to pay off these companies. If the US governent were really concerned about human suffering, and the suffering of AIDS patients, they wouldn't be standing in the way of medicial marijuana that provides these people with relief. No, its self-serving.

I can't really agree with you on much there Hagbard, but the only satisfaction I have for my opinion is that we will continue to have this policy, and you will never see the day that the US doesn't do what it is doing right now. The only satisfaction that you will have is that we'll probably get a terrorist attack or two in the next few years. Time will tell.

Either way, a great deal of damage will be done. Maybe when the America people see how counterproductive such a policy is they'll force the government to pull back...I suspect it will continue to the bitter end and not with the results that they expect.

In the mean time we will continue to dish out aid and protection to your country as well (sorry this bothers you), but we'll do it anyway.

Its not like we have a choice.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
On AIDS and pharmaceutical companies:


Don't you kind of hope that the money will be used to help AIDS. I do. And I think it will. And if the pharmaceutical companies get rich, so what...lives are at stake.

There are already generic drugs available which are being used in Africa, the pharmaceutical companies have stood in their way. This is used by the administration to pay off these companies. If the US governent were really concerned about human suffering, and the suffering of AIDS patients, they wouldn't be standing in the way of medicial marijuana that provides these people with relief. No, its self-serving.

I can't really agree with you on much there Hagbard, but the only satisfaction I have for my opinion is that we will continue to have this policy, and you will never see the day that the US doesn't do what it is doing right now. The only satisfaction that you will have is that we'll probably get a terrorist attack or two in the next few years. Time will tell.

Either way, a great deal of damage will be done. Maybe when the America people see how counterproductive such a policy is they'll force the government to pull back...I suspect it will continue to the bitter end and not with the results that they expect.

In the mean time we will continue to dish out aid and protection to your country as well (sorry this bothers you), but we'll do it anyway.

Its not like we have a choice.

You would spend all the money on getting dying people high? Now I see where this is coming from. My god man! I'm just messing with you. I don't think weed is the solution to the AIDS suffering though.

I think the US, and Canada too, will be alright, but I'm just an optimist. How often does your life suck because of the US Hagbard?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

The Anti War Movement during Viet Nam didn't become effective until Mainstream America started sympathizing with them. This happened because the Lies that were being told to us by our Government finally were revealed and the soldiers coming home reported that the war wasn't being fought to win.

True. But I'm not as concered with maintaining the US and UN's public relations image. .

Of course you aren't. On more than one occasion you posted about your vehement hatred for the United States and it's Citizens.Because of that your opinion is highly suspect to me as you have demonstrated a Bias against America that I doubt would change no matter what direction we took regarding this issue. You are entitled to your opinion but because of your obvious BIAS don't expect us (Americans) to give it the consideration that that we would for someone who didn't demonstrate such a nefarious agenda towards the United States.

 

[ebloom]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Here it is in a nutshell....MYOFB. Do that, and you won't give terrorists a reason to line their sights up on you.

And get accused of being an isolationist? Heavens forbid!

Everyone being alive and not wanting to live under the Islamofascists boot is the excuse for the scumbags to kill everyone. :disgust:

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus<br



You would spend all the money on getting dying people high? Now I see where this is coming from. My god man! I'm just messing with you. I don't think weed is the solution to the AIDS suffering though.

March 27, 1999
From The Lancet
lancet.editorial@elsevier.co.uk
http://www.thelancet.com/
By Alicia Ault

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE SAYS MARIJUANA HAS BENEFITS

On March 17 the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) said that smoking marijuana had benefits for the terminally ill, and recommended immediate development of an inhalation device to provide a safe alternative for those who needed the drug.

The 11-member expert panel urged further study of the biochemical properties of the active ingredient D-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids, and new trials to assess potential clinical benefits.

The panel also said cannabinoids stimulate the appetite, combat nausea, and might also control pain. The drug also acts as a sedative and reduces anxiety, which may itself have a therapeutic effect, they added.

I can provide additional material if you wish.

I think the US, and Canada too, will be alright, but I'm just an optimist. How often does your life suck because of the US Hagbard?

A far bit. As you might tell, I'm a bit uptight about this war war and demand for CDN participation, there is the ongoing WoDs and US government interference to prevent liberalization of Canada's drug laws, there's the trade santions on BC softwood lumber that has negatively impacted the local economy. Minor compared with what I believe will result from further US empire building efforts.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ebloom

Originally posted by: hagbard

Here it is in a nutshell....MYOFB. Do that, and you won't give terrorists a reason to line their sights up on you.

And get accused of being an isolationist? Heavens forbid!

Everyone being alive and not wanting to live under the Islamofascists boot is the excuse for the scumbags to kill everyone. :disgust:

*I* said that, and Hagbard didn't even have the guts to respond. Anyway, you've got to give al-Qaeda credit for at least being honest - they've never attempted to hide their agenda. In numerous statements, they've been quite clear that their goal is an Islamic World Order in which you're either Muslim, or you're dead. The West as we know it, to include such institutions as the democratic vote, equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, religion, etc., will cease to exist.

EDIT:

From al-Qaeda's statement "Why We Fight America":

America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ferocious
A lot of people dissed the Vietnam war protesters for years.

In retrospect....many of those same people now believe those protesters were correct.

Just something to think about.

The Anti War Movement during Viet Nam didn't become effective until Mainstream America started sympathizing with them. This happened because the Lies that were being told to us by our Government finally were revealed and the soldiers coming home reported that the war wasn't being fought to win.

True. But I'm not as concered with maintaining the US and UN's public relations image. .

Of course you aren't. On more than one occasion you posted about your vehement hatred for the United States and it's Citizens.

I do? I may have lost my temper a few times, but my anger is directed toward you government and its supporters (which would include a few Richards in here who want nothing more than to flame "outside" critics of US foreign policy).

Because of that your opinion is highly suspect to me as you have demonstrated a Bias against America that I doubt would change no matter what direction we took regarding this issue.

You'd be wrong. My views are completely in line with most American libertarians, of which I support. Republican Representiave Ron Paul holds many of the same views I've expressed here...guess he must be anti-American too. And I guess to qualify as pro-American I'd have to become a bootlicking Bush supporter?

You are entitled to your opinion but because of your obvious BIAS don't expect us (Americans)

Speak for yourself Red, you don't speak for all American's anymore than I speak for all Canadians. I know that there are many American's that would agree with what I'm saying...I know this because its Americans that are providing me with most of my information (and the fact that I participate in other US based forums).

to give it the consideration that that we would for someone who didn't demonstrate such a nefarious agenda towards the United States.

My "agenda" is cautionary. You can read it anyway you wish...I'm trying to reach those who are receptive (non-authoritarians).