*moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: *moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?

  1. #1

    Post What's up with the weak U.S.?

    An Essay On Hypocrisy


    The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.

    Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.Sl is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

    The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

    I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

    Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones-- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non- combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

    If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

    The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

    Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.

    (Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

    When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

    Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

    In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

    What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

    I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

    I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."

    When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

    Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

    These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

    Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign tartgets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

    It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

    When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone:
    "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

    Sincerely


    Timothy J. McVeigh

    'nuff said........


    Source

  2. #2
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628

    voice of reason?

    This is precious. Consider the source.. Here's a guy who is pissed with the U.S.gov't (for whatever reason) so he uses that as an excuse to kill a bunch of children and innocent paper pushers. Real nice.

    I don't think he has an credibility no matter who eloquent he may he think he is.
    He is correct on ONE point. War does suck.


    I think you should post some of Charles Manson's writings up there too.

    P.S. pretty weak pun.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  3. #3
    Originally posted here by KorpDeath

    I don't think he has an credibility no matter who eloquent he may he think he is.


    LOL.....


    Perhaps some people feel the same about your President and his army of half witted, redneck sidekicks....


    As usual, you've missed the point......Perhaps North Korea will teach you some manners?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Spyrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    741
    I think the main difference is that the world knows the US and Russia whoever else teh main powers are England whatever arent going to just go launching nukes when their neighboring countries decide to piss them off. I think Iraq, with Saddam as a leader, is probably a bit more hostile and willing to blow iran off the face of the map just as north korea will have no problem launching a nuke at the US, S. Korea or Australia (US has naval bases mighty close to there) Something also to think about

    edit: And to my knowledge the US doesnt plan on using nuclear or "dirty" bombs to attack Iraq. I believe for once the US is doing what it shoud and waiting for UN approval. I want war no more than the next man. But I do believe that they should not be holding these types of weapons.
    Duct tape.....A whole lot of Duct Tape
    Spyware/Adaware problem click
    here

  5. #5
    AO Soccer Mom debwalin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,185
    Most who know me know I don't support the war, and I do believe that despite the source, there are some credible comparisons in that essay.


    However....perhaps you should check the number of Aussie soldiers and govt officials following right along behind our President. If he's dumb what does that make them?

    Deb
    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

  6. #6
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    I didn't miss the point. You don't have one.

    Anything coming from him (McVeigh) is moot.

    He gave up his credibility when he planted the bomb.

    We didn't ask to be attacked in WWII, but we finished the job, didn't we?

    Go ahead and insult my president. He's not doing a popluar job, I'm sure he gets that crap all the time. He can't even pronounce nuclear.

    I tell you what, you go hide behind McVeigh's words all you want, he's a coward. So what does that make you for using him as your argument?


    The entire country of North Korea can come over to my house for Chips and salsa
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    as long as were quoting mad men:

    The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

    unibomber manifesto


    DYING MAN - Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature’s fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit - such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

    Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man
    (1782)
    Marquis de Sade

    they all 'seem' to make some sense at first glance
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  8. #8
    Webius Designerous Indiginous
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,123
    Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.Sl is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
    Lets think. The end of the cold war. The signing of the Treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 70's by multiple nations. And let me also remind you that its Russia, that has the most nukes still active, not the US. He needs to get his facts strait.


    I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."
    Actually I think he has some studying to do. Talk about not getting your facts strait.

    Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones-- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non- combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
    And what about the fact that Japan attacked us first? Remember Pearl Harbour? What about the countless battles in the seas and thousands that died from that? How bout we put up all those pictures next to each other also.

    If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
    Lets remember this was over 50 years ago, and it ended an already bloody war. They killed thousands at pearl harbor, we killed thousands in Japan, and ended the war, and stopped more death because of it. How many would have died in the continuation of the war if we didn't drop the bombs? And what about the kamikaze fighter pilots. I don't see president Bush strapping bombs to our boys and girls and making them go kill themselves blatantly.

    I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction."
    And the reason for this is because of sick ****s like him who do things with them.

    What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
    War sucks, get over it.

  9. #9
    Originally posted here by debwalin
    However....perhaps you should check the number of Aussie soldiers and govt officials following right along behind our President. If he's dumb what does that make them?

    Deb

    Exactly. Our Prime Minister is blindly following Bush like a scared child follows a bully in the school playground. Although, there were quite a few thousand in attendance at Sunday's Peace March.


    I don't think the Aussie soliders have much of a say as to wether or not they want to go, Deb. Although, 11 sailors have been sent home from the Gulf for refusing anthrax vaccinations. Not many, but it's a start.



    Originally posted here by KorpDeath
    I don't think he has an credibility no matter who eloquent he may he think he is.

    I think you should post some of Charles Manson's writings up there too.



    Charles Manson, wasn't a Decorated Gulf War Veteran like Mcveigh was. So your Government thought quite highly of Mcveigh in one point of time, unlike Manson. What a childish comparison. Perhaps if you put a little more thought into your posts and actually provided links to some proof to back your argument you wouldn't come across as such a moron.

    There's no need to send nasty PM's, either......

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    81
    When it comes down to it, we've got a guy who wasn't happy with the U.S. government and blew up a building with a bunch of children and government employees. The U.S has done the same thing to other countries. We can always find people contradicting themselves if we look hard enough. How many times have you said you don't respect liars and then didn't call a friend back after you said you would? I know I have a few times. Some here keep assuming that everyone with a flag by their title backs up their country 100% so they use that as arguments of hypocracy against each other.
    I am a american hypocrite that doesn't agree with everything bush says
    that was a pretty nasty pm
    What does it matter what someone that you have never met says on a forum that has no influence on your country? I can tell you : nothing. Were just here to express our opinion, thats why we shouldn't take anything personally.That goes to basically everyone here.
    I read somewhere you shouldn\'t always believe what you read so what the Hell am I supposed to do?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •