Re: OT: Assumptions and Beliefs

Michelle Steiner wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker

As long as liberals keep using terms like that we are all safer, it's
music to my eyes. But I don't think China would be sitting in the UN
after it starts gobbling up land to control the world's oil supply.

Who said "we are all safer"? China has been gobbling up land, as has
been pointed out to you. Secondly, no nation has been gobbling up
land to control the world's oil supply.

I asked what China had to do with it in the first place. And ask
yourself why Iraq invaded Kuwait.


But as for the first point, China has already conquered and
incorporated Mongolia and Tibet. As for Iraq trying to expand its
territory, we took care of that fifteen years ago.

What's the relevance of China to Iraq? And no, as I pointed out,
Saddam wasn't living up to his agreement, it wasn't "taken care of".

No, you didn't point it out; you alleged it.


I indeed pointed it out. I also pointed out that you reject facts
you don't like and then say they I have none. There's plenty of evidence
that Saddam was in violation of Un sanctions and mandates, not to
mention shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zones. Since you are
the only individual I've seen deny it, I'll consider the source.


The relevance is that you claimed that we invaded Iraq because it had
tried to conquer another nation and expand its territory.


....in order to control the oil supply in the region.


I showed
that China has done that to at least two other nations, and we haven't
attacked them for it. Therefore, the real reason must be something
else, and that your explanation fails.


You made the assertion, not me. I don't see the relevence of China
to Iraq, how does that fail?



BTW, Saddam hadn't gassed anyone since the 1980s, and there was no
evidence that he had any gas in 2003.

Where was the evidence that he got rid of them as per his
agreement? You have lots of opinions but few facts.

Where is the evidence that he had any gas in 2003? You have lots
of opinions but few, if any, facts.

You ignored the point and simply hurled another accusation. How
liberal of you.

That's a lie; I didn't ignore anything. How right wing of you.


Yes you did. I said he didn't do what he was mandated to do under
UN supervision. You said where's the proof that he had them. That's a
denial and dodge.


There's plenty of evidence that he didn't dispose of his gas WMD as
per the UN mandate and surrender terms.

What evidence? What evidence is there that he had any gas WMD after
1991?


The evidence is that no UN official witnessed any supposed disposal.
Your inability to grasp that is telling.


Can you address that point directly instead of accusing me of having
no facts?

I see; you can accuse me of having no facts, but I can't point out
that you have no facts. How hypocritical of you. How right wing of
you.


Look Einstein, I said there was no evidence that he destroyed anything
and your response is where's the evidence that there's no evidence
and the facts are on your side anyway?


Your ignorance of the facts doesn't make the facts go away.

Your allegation that there are facts does not make the facts exist in
the first place.


I alledge that are are too indifferent to look anything up for yourself.

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/timeline.asp


http://encarta.msn.com/text_761558349__1/Chemical_and_Biological_Warfare.html
Despite efforts to lessen the chances of biological and chemical warfare, worries persist that some countries continue to ignore the
international norm against these weapons. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq agreed to a United Nations (UN) mandate that all its
chemical and biological arms be accounted for and destroyed. UN inspectors were to have access to any location in the country, but
Iraq?s government repeatedly hindered weapons inspections for several years. In December 1998 the United States and Britain flew air
strikes against Iraqi military targets in response to Iraq?s failure to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors.


No one, including his own generals, assumed that he disposed of them.

They never knew whether he had them at all.


http://encarta.msn.com/text_761558349__1/Chemical_and_Biological_Warfare.html
Use of poison weapons has been alleged in only a few of the hundreds of wars and skirmishes since World War I?and has been verified
in even fewer. The handful of proven cases include Italy?s limited use of chemical arms against Ethiopia in the 1930s, and Egypt?s
use of chemical agents against Yemen in the 1960s. But the international agreement to avoid such weapons was most flagrantly
violated by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Although Iraq denied using chemical weapons, UN inspectors repeatedly found Iraqi forces
were doing so. Iraq also used chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens during the war. Experts estimate that 45,000 Iranians
died as a result of Iraq's attacks, while between 3,000 and 5,000 Kurds were killed.


Since some have been found in warheads, no one assumed/assumes he did
get rid of them unless they are repeating party line rhetoric for
propaganda purposes.

Traces in 20-year old warheads do not constitute a stockpile.


Some doesn't mean stockpile, I didn't use those words but it isn't reasonable
to assume the best case scenario given the track record.



Well, let's see... There's a government and there are insurgents
fighting to overturn that government. Yup, a civil war.

Nope, not yet. Hopefully never. Redefining terms to suit yourself
is a poor substitute for critical analysis.

That's the reason I don't redefine terms to suit myself.

You just did.

Wrong again.


Try again.


Who agrees with you that Iraq has broken out in civil
war?

Everyone who has an objective view of the situation.


Can you be any more specific? Who says it's a civil war?
Is Google not co-operating?


There are many fundamentalist Christians who literally believe,
3The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the
Church.2

It is a Christian principle since it's in the Bible but women have
done pretty well in Christian dominated cultures so I don't think
you made your case.

Yeah, like being property of their fathers, and then of their
husbands.

Like most women everywhere but I think you'll find women's situations
have improved dramatically, especially in Christian dominated
cultures. Actually many key women leading the movement in the US were
Christians and had strong ties to the Abolishionist movement, largely
a Christian en devour.

Now how did slavery get into this? We were talking about the
treatment of women. Yes, women's situations have improved
dramatically, no thanks to the majority of Christian men, who fought
against it.

As the article says, women, many of them Christian, especially in the
leadership, saw similarities in their plight and the slavery issue. Many
attached themselves to the movement. Yes, there was male opposition
but obviously not enough to derail their cause.


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761574034
In the United States, widespread religious revivalism at the
beginning of the 19th century inspired the early women¹s rights
movement. Large numbers of middle-class women joined evangelical
societies whose efforts centered on religious conversion and on moral
and social reform. These women campaigned to improve the lives and
save the souls of prostitutes, increase the wages of working women,
and expand employment opportunities for women. They also campaigned
to abolish alcohol, an effort that became known as the temperance
movement. Temperance workers considered alcohol to be a primary cause
of sexual violence, prostitution, promiscuity, adultery, and the
destruction of working-class families. Many prominent early American
activists for women¹s rights, including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia
Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Blackwell,
gained important organizational and political experience in the
temperance movement.

All women; no men.


Well, yes. There were no men in the women's leadership.


Like not being able to own property of their own accord or
borrowing money of their own accord. Like being prevented from
aborting their own pregnancies. Fortunately for us, the
fundamentalists have lost a degree of control, but if they had
their way, we'd go back to all that.

You are spouting ignorance and intolerance. Oddly enough, while you
are condemning ignorance and intolerance!

More unsubstantiated baloney from you. But unsubstantiated baloney is
what I've come to expect from extremist right wingnuts like you.


That sounds rather extreme.


and made careers there because we know that we have to be able
to defend ourselves against real enemies. People like you want to
fight anyone for any contrived reason, just like any street thug,
but on a larger scale.

So Iraq is thuggery? You think that's a common thought in the
military, do you?

Our invasion of Iraqis thuggery on a grand scale.


So, since you left the military became a bunch of thugs. Nice.
Did you get an honorable discharge?


But it's so much easier to buy into the Bu*** than to actually
think for yourself.

How ironic.

Well, this exchange has proven to me that you are simply following the
Rove-Cheney party line that Bush implements,


You like things nice and tidy dont ya?


and that you have nothing
of substance to say. It's also demonstrated that you are a hypocrite;
you insult and demean, but then whine when someone responds in kind.


I noticed that you brought no support into your argument. Was that
an oversight or would it take it too far from your emotional appeal?


In other words, you're not worth any more of my time or energy. Go
ahead and have the last word if you will; I'm done with you in this,
and any possibly related, threads.


I awould gree that you didn't manage your time well, but you could have.


.