News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
- Status
Yeah sorry i mentioned in another thread about that but i forgot to update this one ^_^.
C average?
Coldrake
Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?
Good show, Coldrake. I applaud you. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to attempt to pull the knife you've just jammed into American's chest free and treat the wound. It would appear you've missed any vital organs, but the defense of war criminals is absolutely absurd. You wouldn't defend Saddam Hussein, would you? What's the matter? Just a little too nationalist to swallow justice if it is demanded of Americans?
Clockwood
Interesting assertion. Back it and we might be able to discuss it.
:m:
Tiassa
Coldrake
If it's not God, it's something else. I knew that Pledge of Allegiance was bad news.
Fair enough. I'm just curious if you're excusing criminals because they're American?
What are you arguing? Are you supporting an idea or merely arguing against me? I find the licensing of war crimes for convenience to be childish at best.
Well, that hypocrisy is expected. I admit, it's hard to complain about what I expect.
You both are arguing to excuse war crimes. That's enough for me.
Why do you think this war is so important to me? You're a day late and more than a few dollars short.
And I hold myself answered: You would excuse war crimes for some reason that does not make sense to me, and you have not provided much of a reason in the post I'm responding to.
We can all hope. How many other Iraqis and Arabs in general will we not hear from in the future?
Like I said, I'd rather think it's some quirk of personality. But yes, I have serious issues with people who, like you, make excuses for war criminals. Justice is justice, and if it is to be for all, then it is to be for all at all times. Merely because justice is inconvenient is no reason to turn one's back coldly on the foundations of the United States of America.
Denial is not just a river ... oh never mind.
That part is obvious, but without reinventing the English language, the basis of many of those cares simply doesn't make sense. Convenience is more important than human rights? A soldier who has volunteered to partake in an illegal invasion is more important than the civilians he alleges to protect? Whatever.
It's the argument of the year. What's your excuse?
Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?
Good show, Coldrake. I applaud you. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to attempt to pull the knife you've just jammed into American's chest free and treat the wound. It would appear you've missed any vital organs, but the defense of war criminals is absolutely absurd. You wouldn't defend Saddam Hussein, would you? What's the matter? Just a little too nationalist to swallow justice if it is demanded of Americans?
Clockwood
Interesting assertion. Back it and we might be able to discuss it.
:m:
Tiassa
Nobody has had to recite it in years, so what's the problem?
Well see, there's the problem. We can't seem to agree on who the criminals are in this. To you, those 4 Iraqis were victims. That leaves us standing on opposite sides of the chasm.
Merely arguing against you? Get over yourself. I couldn't care less about you. You jumped in on me in this thread. I've had very little to say to you on this forum before this and would have likely had little to say to you in the future had you not decided to make it personal.
Oh please. Define my hypocrisy.
And you want to excuse the real criminals as victims.
Because it gives you yet another reason to be a voice of dissent.
I gave a reason that was good enough for me. That it was not good enough for you is seemingly because of your own internal conflicts.
My excuse? I don't need one. I'm not preaching on the board. I'm here because I enjoy chatting with people from different global perspectives. I have no pretentions that people will take what I say seriously on here. Some of us realize that, and I guess some of us don't.
Please don't leave on my account. I can grin and bear you. The question is, can you bear what you consider my inhumanity?
Time will tell. It's up to them.
OK, consider it a quirk of personality then. As I said, if it helps fit your ideas of good and evil, then by all means.
Thank you for putting that silly overused quip back in the closet. It doesn't fit here.
You're the one that deserves applause for that ham act. I said in the thread about US war crimes that I would support war crimes against US soldiers, but I don't consider this a war crime. Period. Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different.
O-tay!
Under what conditions would you subject your daughter to the same punishment?
Yes, I'll get over myself. I'll get over horrible ol' me who does not wish to license crimes merely because the perpetrators are American.
Provide me a better reason for your advocacy of crimes and I'll deal with that. But nationalism seems most evident, judging by the symptoms.
Who said anything about excusing the "real criminals"? Did you miss those two very important words? Due Process--remember those? You made an excuse why they shouldn't apply to certain human beings.
But since you haven't the capacity to give proper regard to the idea, I'll fill you in: One of the reasons I oppose this war is because I am aware of the concept of guilt by association you invoked from A/M's posts.
That's what I mean by "arguing against me". You chose, for whatever reasons, to ignore your own point in reference to the response you cited in order to what ... make another petty, disrespectful assertion?
Please ... have an issue to argue.
Why waste your time or the kilobytes?
Should I simply put you on ignore, then, and spare us both the issue?
In the future, if you choose to not address a serious point seriously, please consider both the merits and the demerits of doing so before you simply shoot your mouth off. I'm willing to stand behind my words. Are you?
Oh, wait ... why bother asking. It's quite obvious that you are not.
Whatever you say ... sure, you have that much credibility.
I actually will accept El Sparks' assertion, especially when it's explained to me how failures to adhere to the Geneva Conventions can become charges for war crimes, but what makes it different to you? It's vigilante justice at best.
Furthermore, we can also consider the convention of the term "war crimes". At the time you justified the actions of US soldiers we were merely speaking of violations of the Geneva Conventions inside a topic about war crimes.
In the meantime, it does not change the fact that you are advocating these crimes. What is the point of "liberating" the Iraqi people if justice is not good enough for them?
My disgust arises from your support of criminals at a time when integrity is more important than it usually is.
And that support of criminals is in itself hypocritical.
Seriously: My primary issue is how anyone who can acknowledge the alleged good that can or will come out of the Iraqi-Bush War can possibly license criminal behavior among our troops. It makes no sense, and is sickeningly uncivilized.
:m:,
Tiassa
No specific problem, except that most Americans don't want to Pledge Allegiance by the terms of the pledge. It's ironic that we fought over "God" in the courts when in reality it is the "Liberty and Justice for All" that people reject.
Suspend due process and human dignity and the Geneva Conventions and you turn them into victims.
Under what conditions would you subject your daughter to the same punishment?
Yet you do choose to go on.
Yes, I'll get over myself. I'll get over horrible ol' me who does not wish to license crimes merely because the perpetrators are American.
Provide me a better reason for your advocacy of crimes and I'll deal with that. But nationalism seems most evident, judging by the symptoms.
Well, you'll afford your daughter more respect for her views than others. By what standard is it whining to point out that crimes are being committed? By what standard is it whining to point out that people are advocating the commission of those crimes and supporting the perpetrators? By what standard is it whining for me to consider such petty advocacy despicable?
Oh, yes ... that's right. Equal protection before the law--any law--is just too inconvenient.
Who said anything about excusing the "real criminals"? Did you miss those two very important words? Due Process--remember those? You made an excuse why they shouldn't apply to certain human beings.
Further evidence of your disrespect and hypocrisy. Remind me not to be rhetorical or sarcastic with you. I'll try to limit the number of syllables I use.
But since you haven't the capacity to give proper regard to the idea, I'll fill you in: One of the reasons I oppose this war is because I am aware of the concept of guilt by association you invoked from A/M's posts.
That's what I mean by "arguing against me". You chose, for whatever reasons, to ignore your own point in reference to the response you cited in order to what ... make another petty, disrespectful assertion?
Please ... have an issue to argue.
Convenience and nationalism are not good enough. Period. It was "good enough" for the tyrants we seek to defeat; why is their tyranny "good enough" for us? Is it an issue of scale? What's the line, then?
So get off this damn board and go beat up some Iraqi criminals.
Sad. A great communication medium further reduced by the indolence of its users. Why do you aim so low? I'm convinced that the answer to that question will shed much light on what motivates you to license crimes against human beings, seemingly along a nationalist permission.
Why waste your time or the kilobytes?
Should I simply put you on ignore, then, and spare us both the issue?
You seem to have a problem with my methods. In the future, don't imply people should leave, then. It really makes you look bad. You're the one who chooses to not take issues seriously; I would apologize for oppressing you with my genuine concern for the peoples of the world, but I sincerely doubt you would care.
In the future, if you choose to not address a serious point seriously, please consider both the merits and the demerits of doing so before you simply shoot your mouth off. I'm willing to stand behind my words. Are you?
Oh, wait ... why bother asking. It's quite obvious that you are not.
Sounds a little like the Requerimiento in that context. You wouldn't happen to have been a Spaniard in a previous life, would you? Perhaps around the 1500's? (As Stephen Ambrose put it: "Poor Coronado!")
Man, you really don't understand, do you?
Here's an underused one: O-tay!
Whatever you say ... sure, you have that much credibility.
Why?
I actually will accept El Sparks' assertion, especially when it's explained to me how failures to adhere to the Geneva Conventions can become charges for war crimes, but what makes it different to you? It's vigilante justice at best.
Furthermore, we can also consider the convention of the term "war crimes". At the time you justified the actions of US soldiers we were merely speaking of violations of the Geneva Conventions inside a topic about war crimes.
In the meantime, it does not change the fact that you are advocating these crimes. What is the point of "liberating" the Iraqi people if justice is not good enough for them?
My disgust arises from your support of criminals at a time when integrity is more important than it usually is.
And that support of criminals is in itself hypocritical.
Seriously: My primary issue is how anyone who can acknowledge the alleged good that can or will come out of the Iraqi-Bush War can possibly license criminal behavior among our troops. It makes no sense, and is sickeningly uncivilized.
:m:,
Tiassa
This is what I'm talking about. Your pettiness. Since you want to keep bringing my daughter into the issue, I don't think my daughter would be trying to sneak into the compound of an armed force. If she did, then I suppose that would make her a combatant, and she would deserve whatever fate came to her.
I guess that makes me more like you than is comfortable for either of us. I don't like giving up the last world either. This could go on indefinitely.
If nationalism helps you pidgeonhole, fine. But again, I don't consider chasing off someone naked with 'thief' written on there chest, someone who had just broken into a military compound to steal weapons, a crime. I don't care if you attempt to invoke the Geneva Convention or not. If they had bludgeoned them with weapons, put them up against a wall and shot them, cut off body parts, then yes, I would consider those war crimes, and I wouldn't even care about the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to be duly court-martialed.
No, it's just that my daughter doesn't continue to beat a dead horse. And I'm not talking about your feelings about the war. I'm talking about right here and now, you and me. I've no doubt you will continue your crusade on this board, but you asked me for an explanation, I gave it to you, you don't except it, get over it. You're the one wasting bandwidth. I'm merely responding to what I consider a rather tired sermon.
You noticed.
Make it easy on yourself.
Yes, I admit it that at this point I'm beginning to merely argue back at you, to make 'disrespectful assertions', because, quite frankly, you've gotten extremely repetitive. But like you, I feel compelled to reply.
I do. But you can't live with it. So you feel compelled to continue to harp about 'disrespect' and 'pettiness'.
Again, and maybe this will sink in at some point - in my eyes they got off light considering what they were caught doing. I haven't asked you to find that acceptable to your way of seeing the world. I'm simply telling you that is my way of thinking. You can label it however you wish.
Do I sense some hostility seeping through the pores? It doesn't become such a pacifist.
A great communication medium? It's a message forum. No more, no less. I visit several of them. I do so for my amusement. Does that help you 'shed much light on what motivates' me?
Because I can.
You can do whatever you choose. But if you continue to directly address me I will always have a response. Whether we treat each other civilly is up to you.
I have no problem with your methods. You are what you are. I am what I am. I don't hold what you believe against you, but I get the feeling you dislike me intensely for what I think. But, so be it. But for the record, I never implied you should leave and I think you know that. I said, if you really want to make a difference, and you did imply it, you could find better places to actively do so than on a message forum. If you take that to mean me telling you to leave, that's your problem. I have absolutely no desire for you to leave. If everybody on this board thought alike, I wouldn't be here.
Pardon? Are you actually presuming to tell me how to behave on this board? Shoot my mouth off? I said that I didn't consider the incident a war crime and you took that and ran with it. I gave you my reason; you couldn't deal with it, and started in with little personal digs, and you're accusing me of shooting my mouth off? You really are a fraud.
I've stood behind what I've said to date, apparently much to your discomfort.
What was that about Denial is not a river...?
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Why? I've explained it through 3 posts.
Sparks, if you've read this far through the post, then your question should be answered.
I'm not proud of this, but when I was younger I was incarcerated. I was treated with a hell of a lot more respect than these guys. The American government just doesn't get it, but when someone tries to make a point aka terrorism, the American government doesn't think, it acts, and I must say, quite stupidly! This includes the military. Way to go guys. Hope that grenade doesn't get shoved up your ass!
Coldrake,
Torture
Guantanamo bay. And for the nastier physical torture, it appears prisoners are shipped to other countries who are "less squeamish", in the words of the pentagon.
mutilation
Well, I've not heard of the US doing that. Other than the results of torture.
starvation of prisoners
Guantanamo bay again.
beatings
Guantanamo bay. Two prisoners recently beaten to death during interrogation.
rape of citizenry
If by that you mean sexual rape of civilians, I've not seen reports of this.
forcibly removing citizens from homes
*blink*
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and pretty much every foreign campaign the US has been on has resulted in that.
wholesale slaughter of citizens
Tens of citizens? We saw that a few days ago.
Hundreds? We saw that during the invasion.
Thousands? Total dead in Afghanistan - 3500 civilians or so. In Iraq, 2500 so far. And that's just during direct action, it doesn't cover deaths due to destroyed infrastructure and other effects from the war.
execution of soldiers after surrender.
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6109477
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6119230&fb=Y
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4660067,00.html
And that's just in the last few days. Those annihilated on the highway to basra at the end of the last Gulf war had been ordered to stand down and withdraw from Kuwait twelve hours earlier, and that fact had been widely broadcast. They were by definition covered by the Geneva Convention, article 3, and the UNSC resolution (678) that authorised military action was no longer in force since Iraq was in compliance with UNSC resolution 660.
See, I don't point to the prisoners being stripped and forced to march naked through the streets and say "war crime", because it wasn't one. It was a breach of the geneva conventions and about the worst thing they could have done short of shooting them in public and urinating on the corpses, but it wasn't a war crime.
That doesn't mean that the US hasn't committed war crimes.
ps. You missed some interesting ones - the primary one I've seen in the belgian case against Franks were the bombings of civilian hospitals and the shooting of marked civilian ambulances.
Torture
Guantanamo bay. And for the nastier physical torture, it appears prisoners are shipped to other countries who are "less squeamish", in the words of the pentagon.
mutilation
Well, I've not heard of the US doing that. Other than the results of torture.
starvation of prisoners
Guantanamo bay again.
beatings
Guantanamo bay. Two prisoners recently beaten to death during interrogation.
rape of citizenry
If by that you mean sexual rape of civilians, I've not seen reports of this.
forcibly removing citizens from homes
*blink*
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and pretty much every foreign campaign the US has been on has resulted in that.
wholesale slaughter of citizens
Tens of citizens? We saw that a few days ago.
Hundreds? We saw that during the invasion.
Thousands? Total dead in Afghanistan - 3500 civilians or so. In Iraq, 2500 so far. And that's just during direct action, it doesn't cover deaths due to destroyed infrastructure and other effects from the war.
execution of soldiers after surrender.
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6109477
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6119230&fb=Y
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4660067,00.html
And that's just in the last few days. Those annihilated on the highway to basra at the end of the last Gulf war had been ordered to stand down and withdraw from Kuwait twelve hours earlier, and that fact had been widely broadcast. They were by definition covered by the Geneva Convention, article 3, and the UNSC resolution (678) that authorised military action was no longer in force since Iraq was in compliance with UNSC resolution 660.
See, I don't point to the prisoners being stripped and forced to march naked through the streets and say "war crime", because it wasn't one. It was a breach of the geneva conventions and about the worst thing they could have done short of shooting them in public and urinating on the corpses, but it wasn't a war crime.
That doesn't mean that the US hasn't committed war crimes.
ps. You missed some interesting ones - the primary one I've seen in the belgian case against Franks were the bombings of civilian hospitals and the shooting of marked civilian ambulances.
Sorry, Coldrake, I just can't respect human indignity for mere convenience
It's one of the reasons I laughed so bitterly when I heard Dubya wonder aloud why "they" hate us.
Wrong! I think it was the last time he marked society around hm with the presumption of positive potential.
A great communication medium--the internet--is being wasted by its users all over the place. Why? Largely because Americans would rather find amusement in other people's misery and apparently consider it oppressive to be asked to communicate instead of merely babble.
I mean, if you want to take amusement from other people's suffering, that's ... well, that's not fine by me. But you're a human being and you have the right to aim as high or low as you want. No of course you won't go out and commit these crimes yourself, but you'll certainly cheer on the folks who do.
Now then ... if you care to continue harassing me with your lies designed to perpetuate an avoidance of the issues, you're more than welcome to.
Honesty, Coldrake. Honesty is a very important measure of a person. It's a functional measure.
Try it sometime.
Should we presume that it's only a crime if it ends in someone's death? That's a common standard to your expressions. But no, you haven't made it clear. You've made repeated anti-identifications.
Here's a counterpoint question: Why is the US preparing to prosecute at least one and as many as seven journalists, as well as a handful of military personnel, for attempting to remove property from Iraq?
Inherent in that representation is the recognition of a nation of Iraq, a people of Iraq, and what is theirs. Tell me how they deserve the right to pillage gold-plated rifles but not the right to due process. Please. I'd love to know what you think about that. And why does an American journalist stealing what belongs to the Iraqi people get due process while an Arab in Iraq doesn't get due process at all?
All people are created equal, except we're just a little more equal than the rest? Is that it? Are Americans a separate species which deserves greater freedom and respect?
That's still a nationalist reek coming off you. Convince me otherwise, please. If you can possibly take yourself seriously for the moment.
Of course, that would explain the lies I've documented, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should take yourself just a little more seriously.
:m:,
Tiassa
Yes, human rights for all. How petty.
I hold myself answered.
If that's all it's worth to you ... well, it's your right to think that's an important stake.
If a black man stole your bike, would you expect the court to strip him naked, write "thief" on his chest, and then have armed personnel chase him down the street screaming, "Kunta Kinte!"?
A typical American attitude, it seems. Law and order, except when it's inconvenient, and then we'll pretend that because they're smaller violations, it doesn't really matter.
It's one of the reasons I laughed so bitterly when I heard Dubya wonder aloud why "they" hate us.
Your assessment, your choice, your responsibility.
I can't imagine you would have painted the bright pink, "I am a dishonest person!" on your forehead without a reason.
But then I exceed your comprehension, as is demonstrated by this topic.
Yes, it beats the idea that I should simply hop on the bandwagon merely because other people are apparently incapable of understanding the difference between the principles of the United States of America and what we do now, the difference between respect and what we do now, the difference between human dignity and what we do now.
Arguing against me is something best left for Free Thoughts. Aside from exempting Americans from international agreements in order to foster inappropriate treatment of human beings, what is your point?
I used to hear that whenever someone got five to eight for possessing marijuana. You've managed to cheapen that idea even further.
And that shows you're not utterly devoid of wisdom.
Do me a favor, please: Never wonder why "they" hate us.
Well, since you seem to think you're wasting your time on this board, you ought to go do something. Isn't that approximately what you recommended to me? Go beat up some Iraqi criminals; you probably won't have to stand accountable for it. Why would someone like you turn down the opportunity? I'm sure we can take a collection for your plane ticket and maybe even a lepip.
True, but if I thought violence would solve anything, I wouldn't be. It's no more attractive a color on you, despite what you may think.
One of the biggest stinging tragedies for my brother, for instance, is the nature of communication via the net. I remember how he used to tell me I ought to embrace the e-culture. Authors on the web, the new Golden Age of the written word, the return of literacy to the masses ....
Wrong! I think it was the last time he marked society around hm with the presumption of positive potential.
A great communication medium--the internet--is being wasted by its users all over the place. Why? Largely because Americans would rather find amusement in other people's misery and apparently consider it oppressive to be asked to communicate instead of merely babble.
Well, sure. But it certainly doesn't help my regard for you. I'm starting to think I'm going too easy on you.
I mean, if you want to take amusement from other people's suffering, that's ... well, that's not fine by me. But you're a human being and you have the right to aim as high or low as you want. No of course you won't go out and commit these crimes yourself, but you'll certainly cheer on the folks who do.
And what a sterling statement of your character.
I treat people according to their wishes. You seem to prefer this level of disrespect. It would be impolite to ask you to be more respectful of your fellow human being.
Liar.
Like I said, Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?
It would behoove you to try giving better respect to people than you have so far. _You treat serious issues lightly for amusement. If you don't like the way I or anyone else regards you because of your attitude, perhaps you should consider how stupid you're being before you open your mouth. Hell, I thought it kind advice. Silly me.
And you really are a desperate liar. Observe:
So you say. But do you remember writing this?
Real easy to stand behind what isn't supposed to be taken seriously, eh?
Now then ... if you care to continue harassing me with your lies designed to perpetuate an avoidance of the issues, you're more than welcome to.
Honesty, Coldrake. Honesty is a very important measure of a person. It's a functional measure.
Try it sometime.
Why don't you tell me? Especially in light of my demonstration of the point. See ... turning a line back at me only works if the circumstances agree with use of the quip. In this case, you're still the one in denial, as I have documented your rhetorical inconsistency.
Gee, maybe you should burn my clothes, paint thief on my chest, grab a gun, and chase me down the street shouting "Hirohito! Hirohito!"
No, you haven't. The nearest I can figure is that they're Iraqis over there and we're Americans over here, and you know that idea won't fly with me.
Should we presume that it's only a crime if it ends in someone's death? That's a common standard to your expressions. But no, you haven't made it clear. You've made repeated anti-identifications.
Here's a counterpoint question: Why is the US preparing to prosecute at least one and as many as seven journalists, as well as a handful of military personnel, for attempting to remove property from Iraq?
Inherent in that representation is the recognition of a nation of Iraq, a people of Iraq, and what is theirs. Tell me how they deserve the right to pillage gold-plated rifles but not the right to due process. Please. I'd love to know what you think about that. And why does an American journalist stealing what belongs to the Iraqi people get due process while an Arab in Iraq doesn't get due process at all?
All people are created equal, except we're just a little more equal than the rest? Is that it? Are Americans a separate species which deserves greater freedom and respect?
That's still a nationalist reek coming off you. Convince me otherwise, please. If you can possibly take yourself seriously for the moment.
Of course, that would explain the lies I've documented, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should take yourself just a little more seriously.
:m:,
Tiassa
Uh, no. You can't sidestep what I was talking about. I'm talking about your petty personal attacks, trying to use my daughter against me.
A worthless analogy. You're comparing a black man, no less, stealing my bike ( a weak attempt at tossing racism at me, no doubt) to Iraqis who snuck into a military compound to steal weapons (I would remind you they had a bag of weapons parts on them, but I know you would prefer to believe Iraqi versions over US soldiers). I would think you could do better, but then again...
Then take it to Free Thoughts. My point is what I said it was from the beginning.
So you think there's hope for me?
And what exactly is this topic?
I don't wonder.
You actually think the Internet is being wasted because people actually have some fun on message forums? I'm sorry my life is not as devoid of pleasure as yours. And I'm sorry you can't find anything good in life.
Err...I haven't said I'm wasting my time here. It's you that seems to think that for me. But I do find your insistance I go beat up some Iraqis humorous.
Bring it on.
Hmm...I was under the impression it was you who disrespected me first. You called me indecent and told to be sure not to reproduce. Did you really think that would simply go unanswered?
And that is what you call me telling you to leave the board? You really are senstive, aren't you?
So, because I take a different view on an issue than you, you presume that I'm not giving people on this board enough respect? Grow up.
I agree. Silly you. You either keeping missing the point or refusing to acknowleged it - I don't care what you think of me. You think I'm stupid, I think you're stupid. I can apparently accept it better than you.
Let me rephrase it then to make it easier for you. I've argued on message forums for a long time. I've never found that what people say change people's preconceived beliefs, therefore I don't expect to change minds. It doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I say. You're not going to change my mind, so does that mean you won't stand behind what you say in the future? No, of course not. You'll still believe what you say, regardless of if anybody excepts it.
As long as you keep directly posting to me, I'll keep responding. I already made that clear. As I said, how we do it is up to you.
I think the problem you're having is that I'm blatantly honest, and because I've said things that make you uncomfortable, you've reduced yourself to nitpicking and pathetic little personal attacks, even trying to bring my daughter in to it. That's juvenile.
I must have missed your documentation. All I saw was the same anal BS about nothing you've presented in each of your posts.
I had a thought here but I won't drop to your level.
I don't care if it won't 'fly' with you. I explained it, you don't understand it, that's your problem.
Because some Iraqis who continue to fight American forces need a clear and direct message that attempting to infiltrate an American compound and steal weapons won't be tolerated.
Of course not. There's nothing nationalistic in my thought process on this. If it was the other way around I wouldn't be like these Americans who were yammering about Geneva Convention violations against American soldiers. Nasty shit happens in a war zone. To both sides.
No. Not nationalist. Realist.
No, my bad. I meant in terms of (and excuse the expression) "winning hearts and minds", but I didn't make that clear enough.
In relation to the war crimes however, we both agree that prosecution is the right thing to do - the problem is that the US has specifically defended it's right to carry out these crimes and will not permit independent prosecution or even american-supervised prosecution.
What's that Coldrake? Any port in a storm?
Furthermore, I think the racism is apparent:
And yes, it is a tragedy that the internet has become a source for the perpetuation of functional illiteracy. It's a mere comparison between the "potential" of our world wide web and the reality that it best serves porno and idiocy.
You don't want to be taken seriously; I just don't see why you're making light of such human indignity as this topic discusses. It's your own choice how you would like to be viewed, but flippant and cowardly is, I admit, a strange choice.
Unless, of course, you expect me to sit back while you sling paranoia and lies and say, "Oh, Coldrake! You are such a funny kidder!"
So let's put the question to you directly: Do you want to be taken seriously?
Stop being part of the problem.
:m:,
Tiassa
So illustrative limits of your philosophy and the discussion thereof are petty personal attacks? Paranoia will destroy ya.
You talk about pettiness, yet you try to write the argument for me. As with all people, the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. Remember those two important words? Due Process?
Furthermore, I think the racism is apparent:
That makes it even more clear.
Well, you're human, aren't you?
In general it seems to be a discussion of the crimes being committed and allowed by an occupying force, contradictory to the Geneva Conventions, which conventions that force has subscribed to. More specifically, though, a big part of it is you making excuses for Americans and reserving from Iraqis what you would award to Americans. Well, that's presumptuous; you might refuse due process of your fellow Americans. I haven't asked yet.
Does that, then, mean that your excuses for crimes against Iraqis means that you advocate continued injustice?
Is that the depth of your comprehension? I can't properly skip stones on the surface because the mud is showing. You're the one afraid to stand behind your words; you're the one who wants to write volumes that you don't want taken seriously.
And yes, it is a tragedy that the internet has become a source for the perpetuation of functional illiteracy. It's a mere comparison between the "potential" of our world wide web and the reality that it best serves porno and idiocy.
You don't want to be taken seriously; I just don't see why you're making light of such human indignity as this topic discusses. It's your own choice how you would like to be viewed, but flippant and cowardly is, I admit, a strange choice.
Well, you seem to have some feelings worth expressing despite your unwillingness to stand behind those words. If you want, treat me with the same flippant disregard you expect for your own posts that you don't expect people to take seriously. Everybody around here knows that I take myself somewhat seriously at this board; I can't believe you would have missed that though your reading comprehension is somewhat in doubt at the moment. However, at the moment, you're appearing to take yourself very seriously.
Unless, of course, you expect me to sit back while you sling paranoia and lies and say, "Oh, Coldrake! You are such a funny kidder!"
So let's put the question to you directly: Do you want to be taken seriously?
Yes, but I also count your lack of respect for humanity.
You are; you defend criminals on some ethereal basis that looks and smells like ethnocentrism at best. You decry Due Process. You presume the worst in people. As to that, my biggest mistake was presuming not the worst but something better: that you actually wished to be taken seriously. And I advise against reproduction on a similar scale to advising against unprotected sex. Yes, you can get away with it, but it doesn't mean the decision itself was wise. Look at me: I'm the last mother#^@&er that should be reproducing in the world, but ... what entertains my friends and family is that they're all waiting with baited breath to see how long I can remain an idealist, or how quickly parenthood turns me into a crotchety old f--k.
No. But I figured the response would have at least some merit of integrity. Other posters advising me on the recklessness of my pen in recent days have been much more effective than your poor-man's Krusty the Klown routine.
Well, the counterpoint is that you really are stupid if you can't figure a better way to make your point, but that doesn't really do either of us any good. But what do I expect of someone who isn't willing to stand behind his words? I know, I know, I wasn't supposed to take you seriously. I mean, look at this: You seem so upset at the undeniable fact that your advocacy of criminal behavior is seen in the negative that you're not even discussing those issues anymore. You can bring it on all you want, but at some point we'll start annoying the shite out of our fellow posters. It's not that I'm bulletproof by any means, but that most people see me standing in front of a barn and they shoot the barn. Or the hills behind it. Or the mountains beyond that. Or sometimes their own foot. It's really weird.
Well, my stupidity doesn't necessarily beget more violence. Yours does. You think I'm stupid? You can rest easy because that stupidity isn't going to harm you. You're stupid? Guess what? Aren't we both aware that there are reasons why "they" hate "us"?
Stop being part of the problem.
I don't expect to change a whole lot of minds directly. But one of my rewards is that we're all human beings and all who read my words add them to their living experience. And perhaps it's an insignificant addition, but you'd be amazed at some of the stuff I remember from my life, and I'm sure that, being human, you're occasionally amazed at the minutiae you've archived in your memory. Very often I've come to understand what someone I was disagreeing with was saying at some random point later on. And while it rarely closes the gap entirely, I am entirely aware of the power of the insignificant. I'm an American; in this society, it's a pretty good gamble.
I actually prefer the idea that this is all a big, distasteful joke. It would actually raise my assessment of whatever aspect of you it is I'm getting to know.
Are you admitting that your mind is officially shut tight? That's all you have to do: tell me that you've closed your mind entirely to the situation and I'm perfectly willing to take the hint.
I'm used to being held accountable for every word I say. Would you believe that some people who know me personally think I have no sense of humor? It's all relative, though. They think Seinfeld was funny; I fell over laughing when Bush said "God is on our side". At neither time did the one understand why the other was laughing.
No, Coldrake, you choose to lie.
All I did was say, "Don't reproduce". You could have said, O-tay! But no, you instead introduced the example of your daughter. If you don't want those considerations on the table, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought your daughter into it. What really was the point you got out of that? Telling me that I was "too late" with a cheap line? Great, great. I'm happy for you. Was it worth it? Now that's the question. You don't seem to want to examine the issues in a context you've introduced.
Nope. You didn't. You just tried whining and denying.
O-tay!
Well, I just don't see why Due Process is too good for Iraqis. You haven't explained that at all.
Well, I've come to expect that brand of answer from you, so I can't say I'm surprised.
There is a difference between the nasty shit that happens and the nasty shit that people go out of their way to make. Remember, the US is supposed to be the good guys.
Okay, now explain the assertion. Please.
:m:,
Tiassa
Ermm...OK. Nice footwork.
If so, I apologize. Maybe I was wrong and you weren't trying to paint me as a racist. Maybe you used the black man analogy because you are the racist.
Nope. I was right after all. You were trying to paint me as a racist. Yeah, 'thief' and 'unclean' are clear examples of racism.:bugeye:
You have to actually be arrested to be afforded Due Process. I suppose they could have been summarily arrested, summarily tried, and then summarily executed. Instead they stripped them naked and scrawled those terribly racist words 'thief' and 'unclean', on the advice of locals. If I had a choice of the two I know which I would take.
And yet another abstract from left field that has nothing to do with what I said.
I stand behind everything I say. Doesn't mean I always get it right, but I will admit my mistakes. Can you do as much? I said I'm here because I enjoy it, because it amuses me. If you want to construe that as that I'm never serious, o-tay, although I will admit that I'm not always as serious as you, and don't really expect that I'm going to change people's minds, although I don't see that as a problem, as you apparently do.
I have as yet to 'advocate continued justice' against Iraqis, but then, I still don't consider the incident in question a war crime. That seems to be the crux of our problem, although you've taken that difference in interpretation of it between us and attempted to insinuate that I'm a completely inhumane warmonger. Sparks apparently understood that, although I'm sure he still disagrees with me on the particular incident. But that's OK. That you won't accept it, only makes me assume that you simply are arguing for argument's sake. Isn't that ironic? You're no different from me; your ego demands you get the last word.
Yes, I know you take yourself seriously; I acknowledged that way back when somewhere in this thread. I wouldn't have minded you questioning me in the beginning about my opinion on the incident if you had simply done so respectfully, as you normally seem to in your posts. But you didn't question me. You simply made some crude remarks instead, and only after I responded in kind did you decide to ask the question. I'll ask you again. Did you really think I would not respond in kind to those remarks? You obviously would not let such remarks go, so I find it hard to believe you weren't purposely inviting what this thread has turned into. Am I wrong?
Umm...I wouldn't say upset, but I do admit I don't know how many ways I can say I don't consider it a war crime. You seem to be the one upset that you can't change my mind.
Isn't that what the emoticons are for? To convey emotions?
People generally know by those little smileys when I'm quipping.My mind is officially closed on this incident.
Not at all. But I would think the herb would lighten you up.:m:
Parenthood doesn't have to do that.
So you keep claiming.
Yes, and you could have simply asked me at the beginning why I didn't consider it a war crime. But you didn't, did you?
I suppose I never considered that you would try and then use my daughter in your examples. I've seen you bring your daughter up in posts. I can bring mine up too; that doesn't give any one else license to use them against either you or me.
I don't see "too late" as any cheaper a line than "Coldrake; don't reproduce," but hey, that's just me.
Kettle, meet Pot.
I believe that in a war zone there are situations that need to be handled expediently, and sometimes harshly. I've been there; sometimes situations dictate it. That's all I'll say about that, but such is the realities of war. I don't expect you to understand that. I also don't expect you to understand my dislike of war because you've completely judged me based on this incident. But I know that when there is war, there will be a lot that goes on that wouldn't be expected to happen during peacetime. And I know you will say 'Geneva Convention', but I think the Convention was created by men who tried to make war 'civilized' because, despite all the great speeches after both world wars about wanting to end war, the great powers never really considered that a reality. Instead, they decide to make war more 'civile'. And I suppose to a great degree that can be done, but that doesn't mean war can be made completely clean. The extreme cruelties can, and should, be dealt with, and dealt with severely, but there are some things that I just don't consider criminal in a war, and this incident is one of them, because sometimes expediency achieves the best results as long as we're not talking about physical violence on someone. That has nothing to do with nationalism, but to me is just a reality of war, because it happens in all wars by all belligerents. I'm just an old soldier and I won't apologize for that.
Various
As to the racism - hey: Like I said, would you scrawl "Kunta Kinte" on a black man's chest? "Ali Baba" is quite racist in the sense that mentioned a while ago: Man, why I always gotta be Jerome? Why can't I be Tommy or Philbert? Why do you have to avoid small matters of reality in order to make your points?
All you have to do is hear a Muslim man insulted as Ali Baba the same way a black man is insulted as Kunta Kinte. Get used to it. Americans ruin a lot of words and phrases that might otherwise be effective.
Nonetheless, the only real difference I can figure about why Iraqis don't deserve due process is because they're over there and not here. You haven't given much of a reason that makes any sense. And, in the end, you're left defending violations of the Geneva Conventions. So my question to you is simple: Should the United States rescind its agreement to the Geneva Conventions?
A simple yes or no will do.
You have my most ... heartfelt ... apology. I have no idea what I was thinking; why ever would I ask for justice for anybody on the face of the Earth? It's so ... un-American, isn't it? To want justice for anybody?
Stop advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Tell me, Coldrake, what f--king respect do I owe you?
You're the one who makes the baseless assertion that the failure of the occupying power to honor its obligations to the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime. It's "not a war crime" only because "we won". And we all know that winners don't get tried for war crimes.
In the larger argument, I have serious concerns about the way Americans, for instance, regard history. The regard is fundamentally dishonest, but this seems to be an identifiable (and perhaps thereby possible to solve) conundrum of human behavior. But when we stop and consider the tremendous influence that the US has in the world, and when we place that influence alongside the advertised nobility of the American Way, it just doesn't seem hard to put two and two together in order to figure out how to make the sales pitch a reality. The simple fact is that most Americans don't really care if they're the good guys. They're part of the "Big Kid on the Block", and apathy has risen from comfort. But the fact that we can identify the idea of world peace speaks volumes about its potential. What do we have that didn't exist when the Conventions were passed? In theory, we've only economized and expedited process, so it seems as if the challenges that made world peace problematic in the past--e.g. global address of the root causes of human conflict--are certainly attainable. It's disappointing that the US has made history even more malleable than it usually is, and furthermore that it is history upon which we found our excuse to sit lazily about on our haunches and wait for someone to piss us off. It seems like a big effort to some, but I don't really think it's that hard. Certainly there are fundamental differences between people, but we can't know unless we honestly try.
And in the meantime, accepting conventional acknowledgment of the sad necessity of warfare, we, the alleged good guys, have serious obligations to back that claim. And that means suffering the inconvenience and even the deaths that can result from playing by the rules we've agreed to.
I think of the moron who admitted to executing an Iraqi in the field. You know, I can probably understand to a degree why he did it, and even sympathize some. But it doesn't make it right, and he ought to be happy that when he is tried for his crime, it will be by a body (international) that won't execute him ... unless of course we throw him to the Iraqis as a sacrifice.
And still we come back to the little thing: the Geneva Conventions, so fatally flawed as to be inconvenient.
If we cannot conduct a war according to the "rules" we've agreed to, if we cannot maintain an occupation to the same standards, we should not go forward.
:m:,
Tiassa
Well, it took you a few tries in that one to have a real point to make. Now then, can you tell me why the alternatives are summary execution and summary violations of the Geneva Conventions? Why in the world would you hide behind such a pale logical quirk (you have to be arrested) in order to justify the suspension of Due Process?
As to the racism - hey: Like I said, would you scrawl "Kunta Kinte" on a black man's chest? "Ali Baba" is quite racist in the sense that mentioned a while ago: Man, why I always gotta be Jerome? Why can't I be Tommy or Philbert? Why do you have to avoid small matters of reality in order to make your points?
All you have to do is hear a Muslim man insulted as Ali Baba the same way a black man is insulted as Kunta Kinte. Get used to it. Americans ruin a lot of words and phrases that might otherwise be effective.
Nonetheless, the only real difference I can figure about why Iraqis don't deserve due process is because they're over there and not here. You haven't given much of a reason that makes any sense. And, in the end, you're left defending violations of the Geneva Conventions. So my question to you is simple: Should the United States rescind its agreement to the Geneva Conventions?
A simple yes or no will do.
If you say so.
Generally speaking, yes. What mistake have I made? Oh yes, I'm sorry for not thinking you're a sparkling saint of a soul on the basis that you advocate violations of the Geneva Conventions by American soldiers against Iraqi citizens.
You have my most ... heartfelt ... apology. I have no idea what I was thinking; why ever would I ask for justice for anybody on the face of the Earth? It's so ... un-American, isn't it? To want justice for anybody?
Stop advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Right. We've already established that violating the Geneva Conventions isn't a war crime, even though we've threatened to prosecute Iraqis who violated the Geneva Conventions under the pretext of "war crimes".
I understand that you're advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions. You have chosen by your own declarations to forsake the humane approach. I need not insinuate anything.
Actually, I just have a serious problem with people who pretend they're noble while advocating violations of human dignity and the abandonment of civility for the sake of convenience. That you presume that nobody can change anybody's mind around here and choose to not give honest consideration to the issues is your own choice.
What respect do you think you deserve? You who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions? What respect do I owe you, Coldrake? Apparently a hell of a lot more than you owe anybody else on the face of the planet.
Tell me, Coldrake, what f--king respect do I owe you?
Of course I expected a response. I didn't expect such a cowardly one, though. I had thought better of you.
You could have stopped pretending nobility long ago. What I have before me is someone advocating the suspension of due process, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, and for what? Convenience? I ask you: Did you really think that nobody would call you out? I'll be damned the day I let your brand of disrespect win the day.
You're so right. Violations of the Geneva Conventions are never raised as war crimes.
You're the one who makes the baseless assertion that the failure of the occupying power to honor its obligations to the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime. It's "not a war crime" only because "we won". And we all know that winners don't get tried for war crimes.
There aren't enough emoticons allowed to cover your position.
Noted.
There's not enough herb in the world to make me so stupid as to appear to have a sense of humor to that part of the tribe. Some people you just can't satisfy, you know.
Right, but nobody's betting on the idealism, which has had a zero percent success rate in their view.
Well, what would you have said? That a violation or abrogation of the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime, despite the fact that we were threatening the Iraqis with "war crimes" if they violated the Geneva Conventions regarding our prisoners of war? There are rules we've agreed to. This conduct breaks them. You seem to not care about that. So I ask you: Should the U.S. rescind its obligations under the Geneva Conventions?
I've always found that when people do so, there's generally one of two things going on: Either it's a legitimate point that deserves consideration, or it's a skewed point that only makes sense if I agree to the presuppositions upon which we already disagree. What to do about the one is obvious; what to do about the other is not so.
Well I'm cheap-shooting on behalf of human prosperity. But hey, that's just me ....
Or, as Dr. Jeffries has it, maggot, meet grub.
Are human capabilities static? With a global economy and an increasing sense of global community, is the end of war really so unrealistic? We have tools, we have the minds, and we have enough of the fundamental ideas that we can, in fact, choose to go forward in the name of peace.
In the larger argument, I have serious concerns about the way Americans, for instance, regard history. The regard is fundamentally dishonest, but this seems to be an identifiable (and perhaps thereby possible to solve) conundrum of human behavior. But when we stop and consider the tremendous influence that the US has in the world, and when we place that influence alongside the advertised nobility of the American Way, it just doesn't seem hard to put two and two together in order to figure out how to make the sales pitch a reality. The simple fact is that most Americans don't really care if they're the good guys. They're part of the "Big Kid on the Block", and apathy has risen from comfort. But the fact that we can identify the idea of world peace speaks volumes about its potential. What do we have that didn't exist when the Conventions were passed? In theory, we've only economized and expedited process, so it seems as if the challenges that made world peace problematic in the past--e.g. global address of the root causes of human conflict--are certainly attainable. It's disappointing that the US has made history even more malleable than it usually is, and furthermore that it is history upon which we found our excuse to sit lazily about on our haunches and wait for someone to piss us off. It seems like a big effort to some, but I don't really think it's that hard. Certainly there are fundamental differences between people, but we can't know unless we honestly try.
And in the meantime, accepting conventional acknowledgment of the sad necessity of warfare, we, the alleged good guys, have serious obligations to back that claim. And that means suffering the inconvenience and even the deaths that can result from playing by the rules we've agreed to.
Ever notice how much of the war on drugs is related to marijuana? Remember those ads about the Joint That Dan Bought, and how the money went to terrorists? See, the thing is that in my area, at least, the only "terrorists" pot money goes to are probably Canadians who (gasp!) don't like American beer. So many people grow up here that we're actually suspicious of Thai bud and everyone's suspicious of where their coke comes from. But that's the point amid it all: We do worry about the little things. In the end, and statistically I can promise this, you would prefer the result if a million people were stoned in your area compared to a million people being drunk or coked up. We do worry about the little things. Seattle's parking enforcement is a racket; they do worry about the little things. Perhaps humiliation without due process seems like a little thing, but it looks really suspicious when the only time we overlook the little things is when it is convenient or profitable to do so.
I think of the moron who admitted to executing an Iraqi in the field. You know, I can probably understand to a degree why he did it, and even sympathize some. But it doesn't make it right, and he ought to be happy that when he is tried for his crime, it will be by a body (international) that won't execute him ... unless of course we throw him to the Iraqis as a sacrifice.
And still we come back to the little thing: the Geneva Conventions, so fatally flawed as to be inconvenient.
If we cannot conduct a war according to the "rules" we've agreed to, if we cannot maintain an occupation to the same standards, we should not go forward.
I can accept that it's not nationalism per se, but I dislike any "Us and Them" division. I can't, however, accept that endorsing the little wrongs merely because they are little is right, proper, or otherwise acceptable.
:m:,
Tiassa
Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking to an expert on Muslim culture. I stand corrected. But out of curiosity, how many times have you actually heard a Muslim called 'Ali Baba'?
N...O.
I do.
Stop being redundant.
Saint Coldrake? Hmm...nah. Doesn't even sound right.
No, you've tried to say 'we've' established that.
Well, at least you admit it's my choice.
You owe me no f--king respect, tiassa. But your original desire to be a character assassin instead of simply asking the questions your asking now is why we've ceased talking civily to each other. But what the heck?
Oh yes, I failed tiassa's 'nobility' test. How cowardly of me.
Alright! Now tiassa is really getting his game face on. He's determined that his brand of disrespect will trump my brand of disrespect.
I don't consider the incident in question a violation of the Convention or a war crime. But, I believe I said that already.
:bugeye:
*Note to self: never get a buzz with tiassa.
:bugeye:
At least your consistent.
How could I have missed the nobility underlying your cheap shots?
Even more apropo than mine.
Now that was very eloquently put. That's when your at your best.
Now, see? You're finally making a serious case for your argument instead of merely brow-beating me. And I have to admit, you make a good case when you stick to it.
Well, you've made it obvious you can't accept it.
Okay, I didn't expect the Navy to agree with me, but hey ....
Really.
See ... the public humiliation of citizens of occupied territories is among the things you're not supposed to do when you're the occupying power. This is where I see a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Would you care to separate that from a war crime? No, don't refer me to your prior failures to explain that part of it. I'd love a straight answer.
Actually, more compelling is that some people in the military disagree with you:
I really do think that these are the little things that will lend to further bloodshed. If "they" hated "us" before ... whoa ... I can't say we're doing much to repair relations. Just over 3,000 is enough for me. I really don't wish to invite "them" for an encore.
Wars are among the things that the allegedly-noble (e.g. the US of A) can't really afford to do wrong.
:m:,
Tiassa
A few, actually. It happens.
What I don't get about this is what the alternative is, then. Only apply the Conventions when it's convenient or profitable?
That's helpful.
Really.
Well, I just don't get where you're coming from, then. I'm just trying to respect Sparks' division because it's a division at all.
See ... the public humiliation of citizens of occupied territories is among the things you're not supposed to do when you're the occupying power. This is where I see a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Would you care to separate that from a war crime? No, don't refer me to your prior failures to explain that part of it. I'd love a straight answer.
There is nothing civil in advocating war crimes. Or violations of the Geneva Conventions. Or whatever it is you simply don't want to call such behavior. When in Rome, so to speak. When I'm among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly. Thus, to visit a point I skipped over:
Which speaks volumes to me about your appeal to civility.
Nope. You're consistently failing a common-sense test.
When in Rome, Coldrake ... when in Rome.
And David Koresh didn't think of sleeping with ten year-old girls as a crime, either.
Actually, more compelling is that some people in the military disagree with you:
Of course, the brass at CentCom always disagree with the officer in the field, right?
But Commander Owens does warm my heart; it's good to know there are people in the higher-up who remember what "we stand for".
You never know ... your brain might explode.
I learned long ago, when dealing with the paradoxes of Christianity, that sometimes consistency is all you have.The concept translates well enough as long as I stick to thought patterns of Western origin and nature.
Well, the underlying nobility is often hard to detect when the shite is raining on you. Ask an Iraqi survivor of our precision bombing.
Yep, and from a man who set race relations back twenty years. (Dr. Jeffries, that is.)
See, there's something to be learned about consistency. I explain that bit so much in its various applicable contexts that it seems to me rather like common sense. After a while, I really do wonder what's so difficult for people to understand about it. So when I stumble across people lending their advocacy to violations of the Geneva Conventions ... well ... when in Rome.
Natural shortcomings are one thing. Perpetuating them, once recognized, is entirely another.
I really do think that these are the little things that will lend to further bloodshed. If "they" hated "us" before ... whoa ... I can't say we're doing much to repair relations. Just over 3,000 is enough for me. I really don't wish to invite "them" for an encore.
Wars are among the things that the allegedly-noble (e.g. the US of A) can't really afford to do wrong.
:m:,
Tiassa
- Status