Iraq War explained

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:10 pm

This is actually from last march, but still terribly amusing...

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Victor Forsythe

Dedicated to the Love it or Leave it crowd

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security
council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq
had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves,
didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that
has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the
early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power- hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry
lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is
the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our
ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the
invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden
himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,
proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden
on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could
easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we
act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory
in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution
1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security
council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security
council?

WM: Absolutely ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Curren! t public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however
they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is
about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of
mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: ! Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons
exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot
allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens
of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way
we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change
the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must
now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as
find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us
at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France,
with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to
boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

SED · Post by **SED** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:46 pm

Well, that was clever.

For my sake, I'm content to believe we invaded Iraq because it has shitloads of oil and sits smack in the middle of the middle east.

Nobody should criticize the invasion unless they have a realistic plan to get the world economy unplugged from petroleum. They should also be willing to revert to a preindustrialized state. Are you willing to give up your car, your public transit, your products derived from petroleum (plastic in any form, food from fertilized crops, water pumped from rivers, reservoir, acquifers, etc.)?

We need oil for practically everything now. It's a bad deal to let hostile dicatorships control it. I'm thinking the Sudan would love a few hundred thousand GIs to settle their shit for them, as well.

Pax Americana--it's the answer. If we're going to consume so much, we should at least impose order on the world.

Hey Chimp, that all goes for you, too.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:59 am

SED wrote:
For my sake, I'm content to believe we invaded Iraq because it has shitloads of oil and sits smack in the middle of the middle east.

Well shit, at least you're honest. But a possible alternative to bombing the fuck out of a country that has lots of oil would be, say, to BUY the oil from them.

Wait, but starting a war will save us a few bucks a barrel in the long run. And if we work things just right, we could end up with a fat military outpost in the region. Screw it, let's bomb those suckers!

Nobody should criticize the invasion unless they have a realistic plan to get the world economy unplugged from petroleum. They should also be willing to revert to a preindustrialized state. Are you willing to give up your car, your public transit, your products derived from petroleum (plastic in any form, food from fertilized crops, water pumped from rivers, reservoir, acquifers, etc.)?

You're talking about inevitabilities, invasion or no invasion. The only difference is WHEN we run out of oil. Either way we need a viable alternative to petroleum as fuel, so it hardly makes for a justification for war.

Pax Americana--it's the answer. If we're going to consume so much, we should at least impose order on the world.

Again, I respect the honesty, but I hardly think the American people would've been behind this war had the government tried to sell it this way.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:23 am

SED Wrote:

We need oil for practically everything now, its a bad deal to let hostile dictatorships control it

Pax Americana--it's the answer. If we're going to consume so much, we should at least impose order on the world.

Hey Chimp, that all goes for you, too

-------------

Hey SED

What a crock of shit - impose order on the world - isn't that what the nazis wanted to do?

Who are the 'we' you speak of? The good guys? The white guys? The non muslims?

Isn't the 'muslim' now to the redneck white trash uneducated underclass of your 'fair society' what the Jew was to the Nazi. Less than human, an irritant, better off dead - what the fuck is camp 'X-Ray'

Know what I am getting at?

Didn't Lou Reed call it the Statue of Bigotry.

Your Pax Americana would be a hostile dictatorship. One armed to the teeth.

There won't be any natural resources left in the world to 'consume' one day pal. Can't even be bothered.

SED · Post by **SED** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:32 am

Chimp--

The Pax Americana I refer to already exists, and has since the end of the Second World War. Great Britain along with the whole of Europe and the Pacific Rim would be experiencing the kind of dictatorship you seem to think W. Bush and Co. are interested in forming.

American style capitalism with its robust military industrial research consortiums and educational institutes is not the sole producer of stability and consumerist prosperity (which you enjoy, Chimp; you hardly live on bananas) but it does enable its existence.

So no, we're not Nazis, but if it weren't for us, you might well have a Hitler Youth meeting hall in your school or local library, right there in Old Blighty today. Sounds like you might even have been in one yourself, if the commies hadn't filled your head with nonsense first.

We couldn't have saved your asses so well unless we were convinced we could and ought to. To be fair, England helped. But even if it had withstood the Nazi/Communist forces, it could never have freed Europe on its own.

I think a Baathist is far more similar to a Nazi, don't you?

It's worked out wonderfully, hasn't? I mean, we got the Bomb first. That literally made a world of difference. Sure, it's hard for us to be so mighty and have such great ideals. There's no inherent tie between great power and morality, as Saddam (or any given monarch) has shown, so natually it a challenge, even for us.

But we are American. We can do it, and we will. We can take a little criticism, too. and is why we continue to evolve as the planet's dominant socioeconimic entity.

That's why we get so much, criticism too. You can say whatever you want about the US or any of its religious groups and no mullah can send a squad of jackbooted thugs to beat your wife and children. You seem almost kind in the way you don't bully up on Islamic countries, whose governments almost as rule make a serious business out of supressing dissent.

So go for it, if it makes you feel good. Tear the US a whole new asshole. It won't change anything, It won't even bother us. It's actually kind of interesting and often funny when you start serving up those half-baked geopolitical ecrumpets

It's just a natural you Euros should be so overwrought with jealousy and fear, though you have much less to worry about with us, rather than an Islamist Bloc.
IMO, you really ought to display more gratitude, because at least we didn't annex England formally. For Pete's sake, we even let you keep that quaint little monarchy of yours. I guess it does a lot for tourism, which your overcrowded island depends on.

Without NATO (which is mostly us anyway), the Balkans would still be shooting themselves to pieces. Muslims were by far the most oppressed people in that conflict. American troops form the bulk of the security forces and always have. No UN or Euro sponsored peace ever held more than a few weeks. Thousands more muslims are alive now than would have been under a Slobo and Radavan regime.

So we do care.
Islam and modern capitalism are antithetical to one another. Any religion which espouses violence is a crock of shit.

But what's your plan Chimp? How are you going to disconnect the hydrocarbon capitalist tango? If you manage come up with a plan, instead of bitching an moaning like you do, I suggest writing it in English. More people speak it than any other language, for reason obvious even to a simpleton.

Rest assured, though you shrill and squawk liked spoiled child, we will not abandon you. We're family, afterall.

Just don't get me started on the French.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:45 am

SED Wrote: It's worked out wonderfully, hasn't? I mean, we got the Bomb first. That literally made a world of difference. Sure, it's hard for us to be so mighty and have such great ideals.

'A world of difference', interesting choice of words, certainly made for a different world - Hiroshima, Nagasaki - "I am become the bringer of death" - Oppenheimer

Yeah man, its fantastic the atomic bomb isn't it? Brilliant.

'High Ideals' - we are talking about the same country that deliberatly failed to treat syphillis in a group of black men in the South to study the effects right? Heard of The Tuskagee Syphillis Experiment? The same country that gave intradermal injections of live human cancer cells into 22 debilitated non-cancer patients in 1963 without their consent in the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital. Research funded by U.S.P.H.S. and American Cancer Society. How about the Cincinatti Radiation experiments ? Cancer patients during 1960-72 in Cincinnati were exposed to large doses of whole body radiation as part of an experiment sponsored by the U.S. military. Radiation Sickness - vomiting, nausea, burns, death.

How about the US troops exposed to radiation during the Cold War, when the AEC and the DOD had troops witness detonations, clean-up contaminated sites, and participate in biomedical experiments. Consistently assuring them that radiation was safe. Some of the military personnel were given radioactive substances to ingest. Lucky buggers eh?

From 1944 through 1974, the U.S. government sponsored more than 4,000 human radiation experiments. This all came to light in '93 during the Clinton administration.

But hell, hang on maybe we mean the same country responsible for the introduction of eugenic ideas into Germany; let's be straight here - that process was evolutionary, and stemmed in large part from the eugenic ideas and legislative policies in the USA during the first half of the Twentieth Century ie: The Nazi policy of mass sterilisation of mentally handicapped people followed very similar policies that were applied across the USA where bodies like the International Eugenics Movement held enormous 'scientific' influence.

If only the "commies hadn't filled my head with nonsense"' huh? The dreaded reds under the beds eh? are you a fan of Red Dawn?

SED also wrote: We couldn't have saved your asses so well unless we were convinced we could and ought to. To be fair, England helped. But even if it had withstood the Nazi/Communist forces, it could never have freed Europe on its own.

The flippant nature of this remark about the MILLIONS of young men from both our countries and many others (1/3 of males form New Zealand) that died in the war against the axis "save your ass" etc makes me wanna fuckin' puke. But I would point out SED that we weren't fighting the Russians - In fact they took Berlin, surely you know this?

I repeat - can't even be bothered - Lookin' forward to Mc World are you. Well done. Want that with fries?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:19 am

SED a few tidbits of clarification

The EU and the US have economic parity and power. Our behind closed doors government is concerned about this and the rise of China. Check the map, look at events over the past decade or so and tell me we aint tryin to ring them in.

as far as WWII and us saving the world goes, well, we need to remember napoleons misstake and recall that Hitler made the same error in judgement; he went after the russkies in winter. If dear old adolph had not tried to fight the war on both sides of him who knows how the whole affair might have shaken out.

islam is not a religion that espouses violence any more than christianity is. Ooops, uh, what I meant to say was...
anyhow, help me out and remind me whether Tim McVeigh was a shiite or a sunni? perhaps you can make that call on our other domestic terrorists, er, freedom fighters for me as well.

and as far Islamic countries being apparently universally tyranical lets recall a few points of history and geopolitics.
1. The democracy in Iran was overthrown by the U.S. and he Shah was installed. Vicious and corrupt was he.
2. Iraq had a woman representative in the league of nations when a womans right to vote in The U.S.A. was still a hotly debated issue. Again, British and American colonialism put a stop to that liberal nonsense straight away.
3. Let's not forget that tired old song about who put saddam in power.
4. The nasty house of Saud. Our best buddies.

while we are on the subject of history, do a little checking into how 'slobo' was vetted and rose to power. It follows a similar pattern.

as far as the 'hydrocarbon capitalist tango' is concerned I rather like Patience's profound point 'buy it'. Wow, how 'free market's, free trade' of me.

One final note, when are people who take your position going to understand that people who take my position aren't communists? We are modern socialists.

SED · Post by **SED** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:41 pm

Never said you were a commie, Stuart.

I'll weigh in on the details later, but my "position" is that on the whole, humanity has benefitted enormously from influence of American style capitalism and that our massive military power keeps things stable.

I also never celebrated the creation of nuclear weapons. It just was a dammned good thing for everyone, especially the inhabitants of modern Europe, that the US got the ahead of the Germans or Russians.

BTW how many nukes is England sposed to have, anyway?

S.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:24 am

I would say that those of us living in the U.S. have enormously benifited from our economic system and a sense of stability. I would say, however, that there are millions and millions who have gotten a kick in the nuts instead.

Stability only serves you well if you are living in a situation that is positive. Obviously stability benefits most greatly those who have power. Life in prison is stable but I am not up for it. Iraq was stable for decades but still unpleasant.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:14 am

SED

Well, that was clever.

For my sake, I'm content to believe we invaded Iraq because it has shitloads of oil and sits smack in the middle of the middle east.

I have to concur with those comments.

My better sense screams in the back of my head to just let this thread go without my commentary yet I continue to type.

Oops, hold that thought... I've reconsidered.

All of you are entitled to your opinions, have a nice day.

less ornery,

Joel

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:32 am

I thought I would share this definition with all of you.

Pax Americana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The term Pax Americana (Latin: "American Peace"), denoting the period of relative peace in the Western world since World War II, places the United States of America in the role of a modern-day Roman Empire (based on Pax Romana and Pax Britannica).

During this period the USA has been involved to a greater or lesser extent in various regional wars (probably most famously, the Vietnam War), and has maintained espionage and covert operations in many other areas.

The term "Pax Americana" is used by critics of American policy to describe a supposed effort to suppress countries which do not cooperate with American policy (so called rogue states). This usage by critics seems meant to imply that the Roman Empire was immoral in some way or is perhaps sarcasm. Also, some supporters of American foreign policy also use the term, so it is not necessarily a derogatory term.

Many supporters of the USA do not consider the country to be imperialist, and argue that it has a long history of isolationism - which subsided only after major shocks in 1900, 1917, and 1941 (and, some would argue, in 2001). Many people believe that the United States has sought, or has found itself forced into, a quasi-imperialist role by its status as the world's sole superpower. However, the term "isolationist" in this context applies to the global stage; the United States has never been isolationist with respect to the Western Hemisphere, which it has considered to fall within its sphere of influence, and has a long history of military intervention within this region of the world, in the spirit of the Monroe and Truman Doctrines.

The fiercest debates between isolationist and imperialist factions were probably at the end of the 19th century, when those who favored U.S. control of Hawaii and the Philippines, the "jingoes", including Theodore Roosevelt, debated hotly those who favored traditional American policies of avoiding foreign entanglements, including Samuel Gompers, Andrew Carnegie, and others (who came from a very wide variety of backgrounds and were opposed on almost every other issue). At that time, the term "imperial" was indeed used as a positive goal by jingoes and as a negative term by opponents. When Theodore Roosevelt ascended to the Presidency on the assassination of William McKinley, in 1900, US foreign policy began to undergo its first major shift away from isolationism towards a policy of foreign intervention.

Generally, supporters of US foreign policy regard interventions by the USA as forced upon it by moral necessity or self-defense (including defense of US national interests abroad, which are often interpreted by critics as purely economic interests such as access to petroleum reserves). Criticism of American foreign policy is sometimes labelled as Anti-Americanism by those on the right, although the precise meaning of this term is nebulous. Supporters of American foreign policy tend to describe world affairs in moral terms, rather than in terms of realpolitik or moral equivalence. This can create a perception that the US right believes the US is morally infallible, which causes some critics to view the United States as arrogant and disrespectful of the rule of international law. A common counterargument is that many of the institutions of international law (e.g. the United Nations) have no real moral or political authority, since a significant number of their member nations are not democracies and/or have a poor human rights record.

SED · Post by **SED** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:01 pm

Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response.

Can honestly say I don't have time to respond at the moment, but your effort (Joel) certain calls for some attention.

SED

Wind_Borne · Post by **Wind_Borne** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:38 pm

I get such a kick out of it when I hear people suggest that big oil wanted to get access to Iraq's oil.

Econ 101 folks -- you make a lot more selling what is scarce than what is plentiful!

Example: De Beers

If the world's readily accessible diamonds were allowed to reach the market, then high grade diamonds would cost $10 a carat. De Beers keeps almost all the diamonds off the market to create a perceived scarcity that drives the value of diamonds.

Iraq is about geopolitics -- some of it noble, some not. Oil is a sideshow.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:12 pm

Iraq is about geopolitics -- some of it noble, some not. Oil is a sideshow.

it is about both

at the beginning of the cold war an american president went so far as to say the cold war itself was a sideshow distraction from the real issue of petroleum and control of the middle east.

I think your mentioning of supply and demand principles is not really relevant. It's not about selling the commodity, it's about controlling a large enough portion of the commodity in order to have influence and not be so vulnerable to OPECs whims (obviously cronies will get even more wealthy along the way but I suspect that is just gravy). Certainly you might argue that instance as being geopolitics. I Don't see the need to differentiate.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:42 am

Well now,

I am really, finally really, enjoying this thread.
Now I am able to say ( do to the events of current) that the Bush familly, friends and and followers have the genetic inferiority of a sick plant.

You dont need oil for everything and yes there have been alternatives to not just oil but fules for vehicals since the days that porche invented the first hybrid. ( i dont need to look it up. anyone can do thier own reaserch.)

anyone that has belived all the way up to now whatever the CIA, FBI, NSA, or Bush/shadow governments and or the British have been saying, then hey it is sort of excusable. it can be somewhat overlooked for several reasons.

after today on though, all belivers will from now on be considered suckers or morons.

P.s. Anybody that thinks or calls me ever again a liberal, democrat or independant/republican has not been reading anything I've written and needs to go to the sharks......site or something. I've stated many times on this board the facts about politics and religion and find Burningman a better way of life.

Improvements need to be made still but it still beats the religion and politics that exists today.

And yes....Cars can run on air.

http://www.theaircar.com/

SED · Post by **SED** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:53 am

[P.s. Anybody that thinks or calls me ever again a liberal, democrat or independant/republican has not been reading anything I've written and needs to go to the sharks......site or something. I've stated many times on this board the facts about politics and religion and find Burningman a better way of life. ]

I won't call you any of those things, but I've read enough of your scribbles to call you a fucking idiot. You wouldn't know fact if walked up and slapped your fat head.

Everything uses oil. Everything depends on hydrocarbon combustion or petroleum resinoids. That's plastic, BTW.

You're a fucking moron if you imagine otherwise.

The only right the various warring factions in Iraq or any other place have to "their" oil is their ability to govern themselves. Muslim culture can't even trust itself with its own women. Do you imagine they can handle oil, or modern economics or even civil discourse?

Anyone who has a real problem with Bush's territorial imperative can go ahead and deed over all their stuff to some local Indian tribe. It's all stolen, anyway.

Muslim culture established itself by conquest. Nothing wrong with that, but there it is. Muslim nationalists are only the latest oppressors.

Not that you couldn't make a cogent argument that American Capitalism is oppressive, but at least with it you get the Playboy Channel and any sort of consumable good science and marketing can deliver. Not to mention Free Speech, Right to Assembly, bear arms, etc.

Did I mention what a fucking idiot you are, Tony?[/quote]

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:02 pm

SUCKER!

ah ha ...ha ha..ah..ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Glad to know that your skull is still too big for your brain.

are you upset because you voted for Bush.

better yet

Everything uses oil. Everything depends on hydrocarbon combustion or petroleum resinoids. That's plastic, BTW.

Big time Sucker you are.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here and beyond that will tell you that oil (petro) is not the only way to make plastic.

That's right I forgot, do to genetics you are not desinged to accept logic.
I bet you still think cars cant run on air.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:12 pm

I also forgot to post how hilarious it is that you have such a hard time figuring out how to use this interphase.

so clicking the quote button is too hard huh?

oh and as for the Playboy chanell.....who needs it.......

ha.

If that's your favorite pastime............ha ha ha ha

G.W.B. · Post by **G.W.B.** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:25 pm

Whoa,

SED.....SED.....hey SED. are you there?

Hey you have to speak up for people like me.

dont give up.

you were doing really well.

Lilly Flower · Post by **Lilly Flower** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:27 pm

I think his head exploded.

something about the air car plastic thingie.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:33 pm

Hey SED? stick to being a banana.

You're better at it.

Lilly Flower · Post by **Lilly Flower** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:39 pm

NEXT !

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:53 pm

SED wrote:
I won't call you any of those things, but I've read enough of your scribbles to call you a fucking idiot. You wouldn't know fact if walked up and slapped your fat head.

Right up until here, I could give you some credit for explaining your viewpoint. I wasn't entirely won over, but your previously well-stated arguments made me ackowledge that this isn't a black and white issue, and it's implications go beyond the usual slogans for and against. Your passion hadn't overwhelemend your manners, and I dig that.

Anyone who can't argue their side without resorting to namecalling isn't worth listening to.

Stop the personal attacks, both of you. Argue the point, not the person.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:57 pm

technopatra wrote:
SED wrote:
I won't call you any of those things, but I've read enough of your scribbles to call you a fucking idiot. You wouldn't know fact if walked up and slapped your fat head.
Right up until here, I could give you some credit for explaining your viewpoint. I wasn't entirely won over, but your previously well-stated arguments made me ackowledge that this isn't a black and white issue, and it's implications go beyond the usual slogans for and against. Your passion hadn't overwhelemend your manners, and I dig that.

Anyone who can't argue their side without resorting to namecalling isn't worth listening to.

Stop the personal attacks, both of you. Argue the point, not the person.

Did I call SED a bad name?

I'm truely sorry if I did.....I apologize technopatra.

Just one other point I would like to make.

NeXT was and still is one of the most awsome computers produced by Steve Jobs.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:07 pm

ok ok,
I'll stay on topic here.....no joking.

2 words to this whole thing that will solve all the world problems and to Iraq War explained. here goes........

HEMP & AIR.

cars can run on air and plastic can be made from hemp.

Dont tell me about you would need a lot of hemp because those who banned it years ago knew that. Plus I think it should be mandatory for the entire planet to experience a smoke just once so they speak about things from experience. (only the green please) plus everyone would get along better.

a healthy mind is a terible thing to waste.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:16 pm

Muslim culture can't even trust itself with its own women.

Iraq had a woman delegate to the league of nations back when a woman's right to vote in this country was still a hotly debated issue.

please don't make sweeping statements like that before you read a little history on the region.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:21 pm

stuart wrote:
please don't make sweeping statements like that before you read a little history on the region.

Uhhh......uuhhhhh.....dont

do

it

dont try and.......

ok.....I'm over it.

hey,

I know I'll get bashed for this but I know some Muslim women that not only are fine but are acceptionally smart. from the middle east no less.
that's not a bad thing is it..........other than being smart and good looking.

also, was'nt math and physics invented or developed in iraq? well before the british envaded it way back when and renamed it Iraq. (story something like that.) not asking SED.

BlueBirdPoof · Post by **BlueBirdPoof** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:17 pm

We got the zero (apparently originally invented by Indians--from the subcontinent) by way of Arabs. In fact, there was a whole lot of knowledge, medical, scientific, cultural that they held onto or developed when we (the culturally European) were in our dark ages. Including Greek and Roman writings that the Christians weren't interested in.

Iran/Iraq were formerly Persia, rather than being a "pure Arab" culture. (Sweeping statement--I know.) For centuries, they were depicting bodies in art which is, I believe, expressly forbidden in the Koran. That area is also the "Fertile Cresent" where agriculture, cities and "civilization" are believed to have first arisen. (Those dates change as new archeological discoveries are made and in any case, both Egypt and China had much more lasting cultural continuity.)

As noted--A VERY ROUGH OUTLINE. To me this is a very basic understanding of history--how regions and emerge as leaders and then dissapere depending on time and change and 1000 other things. I've compressed millenia to a couple of paragraphs, so lots of things are grossly oversimplified. I felt, in this instance that an imcomplete answer was better than none.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:36 pm

BlueBirdPoof wrote:We got the zero (apparently originally invented by Indians--from the subcontinent) by way of Arabs. In fact, there was a whole lot of knowledge, medical, scientific, cultural that they held onto or developed when we (the culturally European) were in our dark ages. Including Greek and Roman writings that the Christians weren't interested in.

Iran/Iraq were formerly Persia, rather than being a "pure Arab" culture. (Sweeping statement--I know.) For centuries, they were depicting bodies in art which is, I believe, expressly forbidden in the Koran. That area is also the "Fertile Cresent" where agriculture, cities and "civilization" are believed to have first arisen. (Those dates change as new archeological discoveries are made and in any case, both Egypt and China had much more lasting cultural continuity.)

As noted--A VERY ROUGH OUTLINE. To me this is a very basic understanding of history--how regions and emerge as leaders and then dissapere depending on time and change and 1000 other things. I've compressed millenia to a couple of paragraphs, so lots of things are grossly oversimplified. I felt, in this instance that an imcomplete answer was better than none.

OK....That's it

Only the most intelligent need apply.

you are truely awsome BlueBirdPoof. this is a start.

anyone else care to take a shot. SED here is your chance.I'm not trying to meke anyone feel insulted....I just want to get this out of the way as quickly as possible so that Burningman can be the standard of the world.

it is really important we all accomplish this feat. feet...? ok hey.....I have a foot feddish.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:57 pm

I hate to say it SED, but I agree with De Facto on this one- there are many viable alternatives to oil -maybe not enough for us to suddenly go cold turkey, but enough to start seriously moving away from it. Solar, wind, tidal, biodiesel (I have heard that hemp does make very effective fuel), not to mention greater fuel efficiancy can all eliminate our dependance on the Middle East for energy. And I weep with frustration to think of what might have been done if only a tenth of the money spent on going to war with Iraq had been spent on researching and developing those alternatives.

Iraq War explained

Iraq War explained

[b]Pax Americana[/b]