Sociology Talk :: View topic - Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latitude

Sociology Talk
Sociology Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latitude
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Sociology Talk Forum Index -> Bush Politics

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joe Irvin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

"4117 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:h8hn741g22fpfrj01gbkn5i055ib8un4gg@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:43:04 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:crCdnZM02e1WNubVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@posted.localnet...
Joe Irvin wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote:

That's akin to Little
Georgie feeling it's okay to do anything just because Little Osama
can. The US has set itself up as the moral authority of the world and
should act accordingly.

No, the US has not set its self up as the moral authority of the world
... It has reacted to Isamic jihadist killing American innocent people.

You know, sometimes I regret that Clinton didn't do the same - and
declare
war on Missouri after the Oklahoma City bombing.

I know this may sound off the wall to you, but why the state of Missouri?
... wild hair? Clinton could declare anything, all he wanted, but its
Congress that has the authority to "declare war, grant Letters ..." This
may
upset you but even Prez Clinton would have to go to Congress for your
declaring 'war on Missouri.' You should peruse the US Constitution
sometime.

So where is the Congressional Declaration of War against Iraq?

There is no Declaration of War against Iraq ... The Prez got permission from
Congress. We were in the midst of a cease-fire agreement. You remember
'talking' with Saddam to try and get him to adhere to the agreement he
signed on to. Maybe you should have been in on the 'talks' since that is
your answer to our war against the Islamic jihadists. Maybe the Prez was a
little hasty of going to war, the talks only lasted about 10+ years.

Quote:

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Kurt Lochner
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: !Bookmark: Steven 'Canbyon': "I make more money doing nothin

"senile, craven" <semencanyon@tampabay.rr.com> whined like a cry-baby:

Quote:

Kurt Lochner found amusing the desperate cries for attention from:

"senile, craven" <semencanyon@tampabay.rr.com> sniveled reflexively:

4114 Dead replied to:

Kurt Lochner was castigating the intentional ignorance of:

"senile, craven" <semencanyon@tampabay.rr.com> sniveled the usual:

4114 Dead replied:
- - - - ---
I would be talking to them. In case you haven't noticed, a hell of a
lot more people--including lots and lots of Americans--have died since
America decided it was too proud to talk to people it didn't like.

Jamieson can't even get along with good Americans who have no
intention of killing him...

Oh, so you're admitting that your intention is to harm
someone who doesn't share your personal prejudices?

Lochner will never learn how to read..

Still with your juvenile personal attacks? How predictable..

Probably why he has such a poor education and can't find a job...

Aww, you're just jealous that I'm degreed, self-employed and
enjoying several vocations that you couldn't even begin to
learn, much less practice in your entire squalid lifetime..

... Lochner is well into middle age and still paying rent [..]

Nope, wrong on both insinuations by a long ways..

Quote:

Success in ANY vocation has alluded the poor loser

"alluded"?? *>LOL!<* Keep telling on yourself, sparky..

Quote:

--And it still escapes you why no-one shares your silly opinions..

One major difference between Lochner and me is [..]

Is that I am what I claim I am, and can back it up with a degree,
transcripts, documentation, documentaries, video productions and
audio from just about every band I've played in besides..

--Yet all your money doesn't seem to make you happy. Too bad..

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

4117 Dead
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:36 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:

Quote:

"4117 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:h8hn741g22fpfrj01gbkn5i055ib8un4gg@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:43:04 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:crCdnZM02e1WNubVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@posted.localnet...
Joe Irvin wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote:

That's akin to Little
Georgie feeling it's okay to do anything just because Little Osama
can. The US has set itself up as the moral authority of the world and
should act accordingly.

No, the US has not set its self up as the moral authority of the world
... It has reacted to Isamic jihadist killing American innocent people.

You know, sometimes I regret that Clinton didn't do the same - and
declare
war on Missouri after the Oklahoma City bombing.

I know this may sound off the wall to you, but why the state of Missouri?
... wild hair? Clinton could declare anything, all he wanted, but its
Congress that has the authority to "declare war, grant Letters ..." This
may
upset you but even Prez Clinton would have to go to Congress for your
declaring 'war on Missouri.' You should peruse the US Constitution
sometime.

So where is the Congressional Declaration of War against Iraq?

There is no Declaration of War against Iraq ... The Prez got permission from
Congress. We were in the midst of a cease-fire agreement. You remember
'talking' with Saddam to try and get him to adhere to the agreement he
signed on to. Maybe you should have been in on the 'talks' since that is
your answer to our war against the Islamic jihadists. Maybe the Prez was a
little hasty of going to war, the talks only lasted about 10+ years.

Actually, he didn't. Congress agreed to allow him to use any means
necessary to contain Saddam, provided he got the support of the
Security Council of the UN to agree that Saddam was in violation of
the agreements from before. He didn't.

Quote:

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:45:52 -0700, 4117 Dead <zeppp@finestplanet.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Congress agreed to allow him to use any means
necessary to contain Saddam, provided he got the support of the
Security Council of the UN to agree that Saddam was in violation of
the agreements from before. He didn't.

Of course, Jamieson can't support that claim.....

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

mariposas rand mair fheal
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

In article <crCdnZM02e1WNubVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@posted.localnet>,
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Quote:

Joe Irvin wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote:

That's akin to Little
Georgie feeling it's okay to do anything just because Little Osama
can. The US has set itself up as the moral authority of the world and
should act accordingly.

No, the US has not set its self up as the moral authority of the world ...
It has reacted to Isamic jihadist killing American innocent people.

You know, sometimes I regret that Clinton didn't do the same - and
declare war on Missouri after the Oklahoma City bombing.

oregon

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Jeffrey Turner
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

Jim Austin wrote: So why aren't you over in Iraq, coward? --Jeff -- The struggle with evil by means of violence is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud, in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Jeffrey Turner
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

Joe Irvin wrote:

Quote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:0L6dnT0pBLJqPubVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:MM6dnZoYCoLl0ufVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

4114 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:08:34 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

... the history of the last 25+ years tells shows that. Look
around the world its Islamic jihadist killing other Muslims or
people of other religions, or just people who don't want to
convert to Islam. The Islamic jihadist kill left wingers as easy
as they kill right wingers. Wake up.

Wake up? You're living in a nightmare.

You mean the 25+ years I mentioned above never happened??? The
Islamic jihadist aim is to kill innocent people. Look around the
world its Islam the religion of peace thats killing innocent people
... thats the nightmare, bro and you cannot see it before your
eyes.

Twenty five years ago the CIA was arming the jihadis and Reagan was
calling them "freedom fighters."

About 60+ years ago Russia was an ally and Germany and Italy were
enemies of the US ... foreign policy is fluid and is always subject
to change, but you knew that.

The Americans just killed another 40

innocent people at a wedding in Afghanistan. They are worse than
the
jihadis.

It was probably an accident ...

We'll just drop bombs on your town and send an "oops, sorry" to your
next of kin, OK? I'm sure you feel all warm and fuzzy about that.

Its not what I feel 'warm and fuzzy' about. Its about why you snip my
response and didn't answer the questions I asked: "Islamic jihadist
target 'innocent people,' you don't know that and put the
US military on the same moral scale as jihadists? " and "Is targeting
innocent people for death the same morally as accidentally
killing innocent people in a war? " These are two reasonable questions.
Why can't you respond?

Those deaths weren't accidents. When you decide to go to war, you
decide that you will kill some number of innocents.

I was taking war as a given. That is true innocent people are killed in
war. So I may reason from what you are saying that we should NOT go to
war because innocent people may get killed? So Islamic jihadists should
have there way with us because if we respond we may kill innocent people,
no matter how many innocent people they are killing. What you seem to be
missing is that although the US sometimes kills innocent people in this
war against the Islamic jihadists they DO NOT target innocent people.

Of course they do. They even target their own people, like Pat Tillman.

So you are telling me that American military fire power was directed
knowingly on the American military personnel on purpose? Sir have you ever
heard of 'friendly fire accidents', do you know what the term friendly fire
means? You seem to rather believe a lie when the truth is in front of you
fact. This was in the all the media. I can't help you but hear is a
definition, maybe you can figure it out.
"Discharge of a military weapon that injures or kills a member of one's own
armed forces or an ally. Modern circumlocution for attacks on soldiers by
their own side, a decidedly unfriendly act but a well-established reality of
war. It even occurred in hand-to-hand combat because men were not recognized
as being friendly or because, in the press of battle, a weapon drawn back to
strike a foe might hit a friend instead."

You get kids scared, give them weapons and they start shooting wildly
without thinking when something happens. So they kill their comrades
and they kill civilians because you put them in this ridiculos
situation. Why were they there? Looking for people who kill innocents.
So now you just get them a mirror. But at least they aren't killing
scared innocent Americans like Joe Irvin, so they must be morally
superior, like Joe hisself.

Quote:

And there were no "Islamic jihadists" in Iraq.

Not at first, but I never said our reason for going into Iraq was to
hunt/kill Islamic jihadists. I don't know where these ideas come from?

America has a million and one excuses for killing innocent people
around the world.

Quote:

Now the Islamic jihadist target innocent people ... there is a
difference ... can you see it. I know the results are the same, death,
but there is a difference. What you should ask yourself is which kind
of govt you would rather live under.

In the U.S., the Christian fundamentalists are more likely to control
the gov't than the Islamic fundamentalists.

Could you name the 'Christian fundamentalist' Prez candidates running in the
last 20 years? Can you name any Congressmen of either party that are
running as a 'Christian fundamentalists'? Even if they were Christian
fundamentalists running why shouldn't they be allowed to run? Are you
familiar with the Constitution? ... read the 1st amendment. Another lie
that you had rather believe than the truth.

So why are you so scared of Islamic fundamentalists?

Quote:

But I understand that you
are in such fear that you can't think straight.

I don't believe lies when the truth is in front of me.

The truth is rarely put right in front of you.

Quote:

Months to put a full invasion force halfway around the world? Oooh.
And it didn't take that long to prepare for the other two wars either.
Not to mention the dozens of other wars the U.S. has fought in the last
century.

Quote:

You're scared out of your wits.

Quote:

That's
the only reason I used that number. And stop being so afraid.

Well it was a misdiagnosis. I would like to know if you are a college
professor though.

I'm not a college professor.

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Joe Irvin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

"4117 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:d7pn74lt5oejhpe3kf14mplumnmaugedi8@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:36 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"4117 Dead" <zeppp@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:h8hn741g22fpfrj01gbkn5i055ib8un4gg@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:43:04 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:crCdnZM02e1WNubVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@posted.localnet...
Joe Irvin wrote:
wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote:

That's akin to Little
Georgie feeling it's okay to do anything just because Little Osama
can. The US has set itself up as the moral authority of the world and
should act accordingly.

No, the US has not set its self up as the moral authority of the
world
... It has reacted to Isamic jihadist killing American innocent
people.

You know, sometimes I regret that Clinton didn't do the same - and
declare
war on Missouri after the Oklahoma City bombing.

I know this may sound off the wall to you, but why the state of
Missouri?
... wild hair? Clinton could declare anything, all he wanted, but its
Congress that has the authority to "declare war, grant Letters ..." This
may
upset you but even Prez Clinton would have to go to Congress for your
declaring 'war on Missouri.' You should peruse the US Constitution
sometime.

So where is the Congressional Declaration of War against Iraq?

There is no Declaration of War against Iraq ... The Prez got permission
from
Congress. We were in the midst of a cease-fire agreement. You remember
'talking' with Saddam to try and get him to adhere to the agreement he
signed on to. Maybe you should have been in on the 'talks' since that is
your answer to our war against the Islamic jihadists. Maybe the Prez was
a
little hasty of going to war, the talks only lasted about 10+ years.

Actually, he didn't. Congress agreed to allow him to use any means
necessary to contain Saddam, provided he got the support of the
Security Council of the UN to agree that Saddam was in violation of
the agreements from before. He didn't.

Look, I know you answer to the problem was to talk ... anything that goes
against that is a violation. It makes no difference that talking for 12
years to try and get Saddam to agree to do something he had agreed to ... it
had not worked. That he had ignored somehing like 16 UN resolutions and was
presently ignoring UN res 1441 which gave the UN/US/coalition forces the
power to use force. This was a cease-fire agreement, IMO, nothing was
needed to resume except that Saddam hadn't complied with the cease fire
agreement. "Resolution 1441 had implied that we might try for a second
resolution before any military action against Iraq, but it did not require
us to get one." War and Decision, D Feith. That the Prez again went to the
Congress to get approval to use force: "defend the national security of the
US aganst continuing threat posed by Iraq. Enforce all relevant UN Security
Council resoultion regarding Iraq." War and Decision, D Feith. How big a
fool do you (UN) want to be made by Saddam to blow off UN Res 1441 plus the
many other resolution he ignored? Could, not just Saddam, but anyone in the
whole world think that the the UN was effective or that the US/coalition was
credible? The oil producting states in the middle east/Arabs would see
that they had to listen to Saddam rather than count on the US. In our
talking to try and get Saddam to comply is there anything he could have done
to make you use force short of him sticking a knife in the neck or our
negotiators? How long would you have wanted to talk? There comes a point
when Saddam doesn't have to talk he has accomplished everything we wanted
.... Sanctions were dead, money was rolling thru the corrupted oil for food
program. Talking was a ploy to stall for time.

Quote:

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Joe Irvin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:e9GdnZ3WbozaL-HVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@posted.localnet...

Quote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:0L6dnT0pBLJqPubVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:MM6dnZoYCoLl0ufVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

4114 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:08:34 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

... the history of the last 25+ years tells shows that. Look
around the world its Islamic jihadist killing other Muslims or
people of other religions, or just people who don't want to
convert to Islam. The Islamic jihadist kill left wingers as
easy as they kill right wingers. Wake up.

Wake up? You're living in a nightmare.

You mean the 25+ years I mentioned above never happened??? The
Islamic jihadist aim is to kill innocent people. Look around the
world its Islam the religion of peace thats killing innocent
people ... thats the nightmare, bro and you cannot see it before
your eyes.

Twenty five years ago the CIA was arming the jihadis and Reagan
was
calling them "freedom fighters."

About 60+ years ago Russia was an ally and Germany and Italy were
enemies of the US ... foreign policy is fluid and is always subject
to change, but you knew that.

The Americans just killed another 40

innocent people at a wedding in Afghanistan. They are worse than
the
jihadis.

It was probably an accident ...

We'll just drop bombs on your town and send an "oops, sorry" to your
next of kin, OK? I'm sure you feel all warm and fuzzy about that.

Its not what I feel 'warm and fuzzy' about. Its about why you snip my
response and didn't answer the questions I asked: "Islamic jihadist
target 'innocent people,' you don't know that and put the
US military on the same moral scale as jihadists? " and "Is targeting
innocent people for death the same morally as accidentally
killing innocent people in a war? " These are two reasonable
questions. Why can't you respond?

Those deaths weren't accidents. When you decide to go to war, you
decide that you will kill some number of innocents.

I was taking war as a given. That is true innocent people are killed in
war. So I may reason from what you are saying that we should NOT go to
war because innocent people may get killed? So Islamic jihadists should
have there way with us because if we respond we may kill innocent
people, no matter how many innocent people they are killing. What you
seem to be missing is that although the US sometimes kills innocent
people in this war against the Islamic jihadists they DO NOT target
innocent people.

Of course they do. They even target their own people, like Pat Tillman.

So you are telling me that American military fire power was directed
knowingly on the American military personnel on purpose? Sir have you
ever heard of 'friendly fire accidents', do you know what the term
friendly fire means? You seem to rather believe a lie when the truth is
in front of you fact. This was in the all the media. I can't help you
but hear is a definition, maybe you can figure it out.
"Discharge of a military weapon that injures or kills a member of one's
own armed forces or an ally. Modern circumlocution for attacks on
soldiers by their own side, a decidedly unfriendly act but a
well-established reality of war. It even occurred in hand-to-hand combat
because men were not recognized as being friendly or because, in the
press of battle, a weapon drawn back to strike a foe might hit a friend
instead."

You get kids scared, give them weapons and they start shooting wildly
without thinking when something happens. So they kill their comrades
and they kill civilians because you put them in this ridiculos

Sir you made the accusation that that US troops murderd innocent men and
women just like the Mulsim jihadists and used Pat Tillman as an example. I
proved you incorrect, that Pat was accidentally killed by friendly fire and
not murdered. You can rave on all you want.

Again our military doesn't murder innocent people and if they do they are
held accountable for it. I never denied that innocent people were killed by
the US as collateral damage or mistake. I put no US troops in 'ridiculous
situations' ... its a tactic of the Muslim jihadist cowardly thugs do ...
use innocent men,women and children as shields and to hide behind, and shoot
from hospitals/schools/mosques. Its always the fault of the US isn't it Mr
Turner?

Quote:

situation. Why were they there? Looking for people who kill innocents.

Yes, looking for people who kill the innocent and the US military. The
Muslim jihadist are the ones that wonder into areas where there are many
innocent people and blowing themselves up killing as many innocent as
possible, its not the US military.

Quote:

So now you just get them a mirror. But at least they aren't killing
scared innocent Americans like Joe Irvin, so they must be morally
superior, like Joe hisself.

I never claimed moral superiority. I do know the difference between the
murder of innocent people and the accidental killing of innocent people.
Sir you do not, and that is sad.

Quote:

How do you know this. Even if you are correct until they do the actual deed
it means nothing. But I see the hatred you have for your country to say
such a thing about it. There are things I dislike about our country but I
don't have a hatred for it.
But if I did believe what you said I would also hate my country, it would
deserve hatred.

Quote:

Now the Islamic jihadist target innocent people ... there is a
difference ... can you see it. I know the results are the same, death,
but there is a difference. What you should ask yourself is which kind
of govt you would rather live under.

In the U.S., the Christian fundamentalists are more likely to control
the gov't than the Islamic fundamentalists.

Could you name the 'Christian fundamentalist' Prez candidates running in
the last 20 years? Can you name any Congressmen of either party that are
running as a 'Christian fundamentalists'? Even if they were Christian
fundamentalists running why shouldn't they be allowed to run? Are you
familiar with the Constitution? ... read the 1st amendment. Another lie
that you had rather believe than the truth.

So why are you so scared of Islamic fundamentalists?

Answer my question ... who are the Christian fundamentalists candidates or
the Christian fundamentalists in Congress? I'm not scared of the Islamic
fundamentalists, it the Islamic jihadist that are the problem in the world.

Quote:

But I understand that you
are in such fear that you can't think straight.

I don't believe lies when the truth is in front of me.

The truth is rarely put right in front of you.

Well, try and learn the definition between murder and accidental killing.
I've never met anyone that didn't realize there was a difference. I
apologize you just didn't recognize the truth.

Quote:

Ninety percent of
the dead in recent wars have been civilians, and the U.S. gets into
wars
regularly.

So from that I take if there was no US in the world it would be a more
peaceful place? We are warmongers and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

The U.S. is often too quick to resort to war, but when you're spending
half a trillion dollars a year on war-making I guess you've got to do
something to use up your weapons inventory.

You should get familiar with US History ... the US was unprepared for
both WWI and WWII. It took month for the US to spool up for Gulf War I.

Months to put a full invasion force halfway around the world? Oooh.
And it didn't take that long to prepare for the other two wars either.
Not to mention the dozens of other wars the U.S. has fought in the last
century.

The point was, that the US is basically a peaceful nation, but because of
its standing (military/economic) power in the world it is drawn into
conflicts. There have been shortcomings in the 20th century but measued
against other countries the US didn't exploit other countries.

And the US was unparpared for previous wars. Example WWII. "Meanwhile, the
US had embarked on a mobilization of human, physical, and financial
resources without precedent in history. All the inhibitions, frustrations,
and restraints of the Depression years vanished virtually overnight. Within
a single year the number of tanks built in America had been raised to over
24,000 and planes to over 48,000." A History of the American People" Paul
Johnson. I might also add that it takes or it use to take 8 weeks just to
go thru basic training. Basic training was probably shortend in WWII
because time was important. Ships are not built in a few weeks ... our
Pacific fleet was almost destroyed at Pearl and had to be replaced. I stand
by what I said.

Quote:

No, not scared, vigilant. I have a nice life in probably the best country
in the world. I support the war against Muslim jihadist. I don't turn a
blind eye to people who want to destroy Western civilizaton and replace it
with a bunch of Muslim jihadist thugs that want to kill, make subservient,
or convert to Islam. Who cannot even get along among themselves.

Quote:

That's
the only reason I used that number. And stop being so afraid.

Well it was a misdiagnosis. I would like to know if you are a college
professor though.

I'm not a college professor.

Then there is no excuse for the fuzzy thinking.

Quote:

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Lamont Cranston
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

Joe Irvin wrote:

Quote:

www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-06/01/content_885131.htm

US ranks low, just above Iran on peace index -- 96th out of
121 nations

(Reuters)
Updated: 2007-06-01 09:43

WASHINGTON - The United States is among the least peaceful
nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran,
according to a new index released on Wednesday that
evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.

According to the Global Peace Index, created by The
Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful
nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after
Russia, Israel and Sudan.

"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a
crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture
of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde
McConaghy.

He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and
will continue to be measured."

The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring
peace inside and outside of a country. They included the
number of wars a country was involved in the past five
years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much
money was made in arms sales.

Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes,
relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust
in other citizens.

The results were then reviewed by a panel of international
experts.

"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to
peace," said Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial
director of the intelligence unit that is part of The
Economist Group that publishes the well known magazine.

He said they found in general the most peaceful countries
were the smallest, the most politically stable and
democratic.

"Democracy didn't actually correlate with peace, but a
well-functioning democracy did. Efficient, accountable
government seems to be the leading determinant of peace.
Beyond that, income helps."

Fifteen of the top 20 most peaceful nations are in Western
Europe, and countries with higher income appeared to lead to
higher levels of peace, he said.

The United States ranked 96th out of 121 nations, just worse
than Yemen and just better than Iran, Honduras and South
Africa.

Abruzzese said the United States' score was pulled down by
the number of wars it is involved in, large numbers of
soldiers killed on the battlefield and high defense
spending.

He said the fact the United States has the world's largest
prison population per share of overall population also
pulled down the score.

"It also has relatively high levels of violent crime," he
added.

McConaghy said the index would be revised each year and
increase the number of countries included. Some countries
like Afghanistan and North Korea were not included in the
first index because reliable data for all 24 indicators was
not available.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Joe Irvin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@intheshadows.com> wrote in message
news:g5inq5$l0m$1@news.datemas.de...

Quote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

The point was, that the US is basically a peaceful nation, but
because of its standing (military/economic) power in the world it is
drawn into conflicts. There have been shortcomings in the 20th
century but measued against other countries the US didn't exploit
other countries.

www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-06/01/content_885131.htm

US ranks low, just above Iran on peace index -- 96th out of 121 nations

What can I say Mr Cranston according to the Index the USA is not very
peaceful. I cannot deny that. I noticed though that I think all the
European nations were ahead of the US ... the place where facism, nazism,
and communism orginated and grew ... the millions of deaths and human misery
it caused and is still causing. The place where a couple of WW's have
happened. Where after WWII Europe insisted on the US stationing troops in
Europe so if Russia decided to invade the US would be drawn into the war.
Where the US armed forces allowed these peaceful countries to develope
welfare states because they didn't have to defend themselves. And it goes
right along with a vote a while back where the US and Israel were the top
two terrorizers in the world. Yes, I guess if the US wasn't in the world it
would be a more peaceful place. Maybe we should start putting some of the
peace keeping burden on Iceland Denmark and Norway. I'm sure Denmark and
Norway will have no problems intergrating their large Muslim populations.

Quote:

(Reuters)
Updated: 2007-06-01 09:43

WASHINGTON - The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the
world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index
released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their
peacefulness.

According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence
Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the
least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.

"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure
of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace
Index President Clyde McConaghy.

He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue
to be measured."

The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and
outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was
involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas
and how much money was made in arms sales.

Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with
neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.

The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.

"We were trying to find out what positive qualities lead to peace," said
Leo Abruzzese, the North American editorial director of the intelligence
unit that is part of The Economist Group that publishes the well known
magazine.

He said they found in general the most peaceful countries were the
smallest, the most politically stable and democratic.

"Democracy didn't actually correlate with peace, but a well-functioning
democracy did. Efficient, accountable government seems to be the leading
determinant of peace. Beyond that, income helps."

Fifteen of the top 20 most peaceful nations are in Western Europe, and
countries with higher income appeared to lead to higher levels of peace,
he said.

The United States ranked 96th out of 121 nations, just worse than Yemen
and just better than Iran, Honduras and South Africa.

Abruzzese said the United States' score was pulled down by the number of
wars it is involved in, large numbers of soldiers killed on the
battlefield and high defense spending.

He said the fact the United States has the world's largest prison
population per share of overall population also pulled down the score.

"It also has relatively high levels of violent crime," he added.

McConaghy said the index would be revised each year and increase the
number of countries included. Some countries like Afghanistan and North
Korea were not included in the first index because reliable data for all
24 indicators was not available.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

mariposas rand mair fheal
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

In article <frydnaMqB-Ccc-HVRVn_vwA@comporium.net>,
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

Quote:

were
not are

some people learn from past
some people repeat it

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Jeffrey Turner
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

Joe Irvin wrote:

Quote:

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@intheshadows.com> wrote in message
news:g5inq5$l0m$1@news.datemas.de...

Joe Irvin wrote:

The point was, that the US is basically a peaceful nation, but
because of its standing (military/economic) power in the world it is
drawn into conflicts. There have been shortcomings in the 20th
century but measued against other countries the US didn't exploit
other countries.

www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-06/01/content_885131.htm

US ranks low, just above Iran on peace index -- 96th out of 121 nations

What can I say Mr Cranston according to the Index the USA is not very
peaceful. I cannot deny that. I noticed though that I think all the
European nations were ahead of the US ... the place where facism, nazism,
and communism orginated and grew ... the millions of deaths and human misery
it caused and is still causing. The place where a couple of WW's have
happened. Where after WWII Europe insisted on the US stationing troops in
Europe so if Russia decided to invade the US would be drawn into the war.
Where the US armed forces allowed these peaceful countries to develope
welfare states because they didn't have to defend themselves. And it goes
right along with a vote a while back where the US and Israel were the top
two terrorizers in the world. Yes, I guess if the US wasn't in the world it
would be a more peaceful place. Maybe we should start putting some of the
peace keeping burden on Iceland Denmark and Norway. I'm sure Denmark and
Norway will have no problems intergrating their large Muslim populations.

DE SAM LAZARO: Sweden took in some 9,000 Iraqi refugees in 2006, about
half of all those who reached Europe or North America. The U.S., by
contrast, took in just over 200 Iraqis last year.

TOBIAS BILLSTROEM (Migration Minister): If the U.S. had taken in as many
Iraqi refugees as Sweden has done so far per year it would have been
approximately 500,000 that the U.S. would have accepted so far, if you
compare the amount of the populations.

DE SAM LAZARO: Proportionally?

Mr. BILLSTROEM: Yes.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1112/cover.html

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Jeffrey Turner
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Steel rain: We can't wage war without a wide moral latit

Joe Irvin wrote:

Quote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:e9GdnZ3WbozaL-HVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:0L6dnT0pBLJqPubVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:MM6dnZoYCoLl0ufVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@posted.localnet...

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

4114 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:08:34 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

Joe Irvin wrote:

... the history of the last 25+ years tells shows that. Look
around the world its Islamic jihadist killing other Muslims or
people of other religions, or just people who don't want to
convert to Islam. The Islamic jihadist kill left wingers as
easy as they kill right wingers. Wake up.

Wake up? You're living in a nightmare.

You mean the 25+ years I mentioned above never happened??? The
Islamic jihadist aim is to kill innocent people. Look around the
world its Islam the religion of peace thats killing innocent
people ... thats the nightmare, bro and you cannot see it before
your eyes.

Twenty five years ago the CIA was arming the jihadis and Reagan
was
calling them "freedom fighters."

About 60+ years ago Russia was an ally and Germany and Italy were
enemies of the US ... foreign policy is fluid and is always subject
to change, but you knew that.

The Americans just killed another 40

innocent people at a wedding in Afghanistan. They are worse than
the
jihadis.

It was probably an accident ...

We'll just drop bombs on your town and send an "oops, sorry" to your
next of kin, OK? I'm sure you feel all warm and fuzzy about that.

Its not what I feel 'warm and fuzzy' about. Its about why you snip my
response and didn't answer the questions I asked: "Islamic jihadist
target 'innocent people,' you don't know that and put the
US military on the same moral scale as jihadists? " and "Is targeting
innocent people for death the same morally as accidentally
killing innocent people in a war? " These are two reasonable
questions. Why can't you respond?

Those deaths weren't accidents. When you decide to go to war, you
decide that you will kill some number of innocents.

I was taking war as a given. That is true innocent people are killed in
war. So I may reason from what you are saying that we should NOT go to
war because innocent people may get killed? So Islamic jihadists should
have there way with us because if we respond we may kill innocent
people, no matter how many innocent people they are killing. What you
seem to be missing is that although the US sometimes kills innocent
people in this war against the Islamic jihadists they DO NOT target
innocent people.

Of course they do. They even target their own people, like Pat Tillman.

So you are telling me that American military fire power was directed
knowingly on the American military personnel on purpose? Sir have you
ever heard of 'friendly fire accidents', do you know what the term
friendly fire means? You seem to rather believe a lie when the truth is
in front of you fact. This was in the all the media. I can't help you
but hear is a definition, maybe you can figure it out.
"Discharge of a military weapon that injures or kills a member of one's
own armed forces or an ally. Modern circumlocution for attacks on
soldiers by their own side, a decidedly unfriendly act but a
well-established reality of war. It even occurred in hand-to-hand combat
because men were not recognized as being friendly or because, in the
press of battle, a weapon drawn back to strike a foe might hit a friend
instead."

You get kids scared, give them weapons and they start shooting wildly
without thinking when something happens. So they kill their comrades
and they kill civilians because you put them in this ridiculos

Sir you made the accusation that that US troops murderd innocent men and
women just like the Mulsim jihadists and used Pat Tillman as an example. I
proved you incorrect, that Pat was accidentally killed by friendly fire and
not murdered. You can rave on all you want.

They were looking right at him and he was waving in an American manner.
The cowardly Americans always claim they didn't mean to kill innocents,
but their "shoot first and ask questions later" habit regularly results
in large numbers of civilian and friendly deaths.

Quote:

Again our military doesn't murder innocent people and if they do they are
held accountable for it.

<quote>
The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha incident or the Haditha
massacre) refers to the incident where 24 Iraqi men, women and children
were killed on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, a city in the western Iraq
province of Al Anbar. At least 15 of those killed were noncombatant
civilians and all were killed by a group of United States Marines[1]. It
has been alleged that the killings were retribution for the attack on a
convoy of United States Marines with an improvised explosive device that
killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas.[2]

As of June 17, 2008, six defendants had their cases dropped and one was
found not guilty. The exception is SSgt. Wuterich, whose trial date has
been postponed.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

Oh yeah, they were really held accountable.

Quote:

I never denied that innocent people were killed by
the US as collateral damage or mistake. I put no US troops in 'ridiculous
situations' ... its a tactic of the Muslim jihadist cowardly thugs do ...
use innocent men,women and children as shields and to hide behind, and shoot
from hospitals/schools/mosques. Its always the fault of the US isn't it Mr
Turner?

Collateral damage implies that you were actually attacking the enemy at
the time. The Americans bomb houses where there are no enemy. Every
bomb they dropped on Baghdad during "Shock and Awe" was supposedly
intended to kill Saddam Hussein, but none even came close. The
Americans killed without knowing or caring who they were killing.

Those cowardly thugs whose nation the U.S. invaded. You are the
cowardly one, hiding under your covers. The U.S. has been bent on total
military domination of the world for quite some time now, so it is their
fault.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Quote:

situation. Why were they there? Looking for people who kill innocents.

Yes, looking for people who kill the innocent and the US military. The
Muslim jihadist are the ones that wonder into areas where there are many
innocent people and blowing themselves up killing as many innocent as
possible, its not the US military.

The U.S. military drops 500 pound bombs onto Iraqi houses. The U.S.
military let the jihadists into Iraq. The U.S. kills all sorts of
foreigners when it wants their oil or other resources, and doesn't
really care who has to die.

Quote:

So now you just get them a mirror. But at least they aren't killing
scared innocent Americans like Joe Irvin, so they must be morally
superior, like Joe hisself.

I never claimed moral superiority. I do know the difference between the
murder of innocent people and the accidental killing of innocent people.
Sir you do not, and that is sad.

You think that you can go to someone's family and say, "Oops, I didn't
mean to kill your mother" and that makes it all better.

Quote:

And there were no "Islamic jihadists" in Iraq.

Not at first, but I never said our reason for going into Iraq was to
hunt/kill Islamic jihadists. I don't know where these ideas come from?

America has a million and one excuses for killing innocent people
around the world.

How do you know this. Even if you are correct until they do the actual deed
it means nothing. But I see the hatred you have for your country to say
such a thing about it. There are things I dislike about our country but I
don't have a hatred for it.
But if I did believe what you said I would also hate my country, it would
deserve hatred.

America is a violent country, and kills foreigners and its own citizens.
There were 152 people executed just by the state of Texas, just during
Bush's terms as governor. Many of them were innocent or had extenuating
circumstances. Several were mentally retarded. The U.S. had excuses
for killing all of them. And then there are the foreigners.

Quote:

Now the Islamic jihadist target innocent people ... there is a
difference ... can you see it. I know the results are the same, death,
but there is a difference. What you should ask yourself is which kind
of govt you would rather live under.

In the U.S., the Christian fundamentalists are more likely to control
the gov't than the Islamic fundamentalists.

Could you name the 'Christian fundamentalist' Prez candidates running in
the last 20 years? Can you name any Congressmen of either party that are
running as a 'Christian fundamentalists'? Even if they were Christian
fundamentalists running why shouldn't they be allowed to run? Are you
familiar with the Constitution? ... read the 1st amendment. Another lie
that you had rather believe than the truth.

So why are you so scared of Islamic fundamentalists?

Answer my question ... who are the Christian fundamentalists candidates or
the Christian fundamentalists in Congress? I'm not scared of the Islamic
fundamentalists, it the Islamic jihadist that are the problem in the world.

Do you know any Islamic jihadists? Any in your city? How are they so
dangerous? I know the U.S. has sent bombers half way around the world
to kill innocents, but I haven't seen anywhere near as much death caused
by your Islamic jihadists. More Americans die in a month on the roads
of America than died in the attacks of 9/11. More get killed by
handguns every year. But you are scared of a minor nuisance. And Bush
resolved Osama bin Laden's main complaint by removing American troops
from Saudi Arabia. If he'd done it two years sooner, 9/11 probably
wouldn't have happened. Later that week he declared "Mission
Accomplished," but whose mission?

Quote:

But I understand that you
are in such fear that you can't think straight.

I don't believe lies when the truth is in front of me.

The truth is rarely put right in front of you.

Well, try and learn the definition between murder and accidental killing.
I've never met anyone that didn't realize there was a difference. I
apologize you just didn't recognize the truth.

Going halfway around the world to kill someone isn't an accident.
Not that the U.S. need bother go that far.

Quote:

It's not. It hasn't spent more than a couple years (if that) in the
last century either not at war or not occupying another country.
Often several of each. And that doesn't even count the covert ops by
proxy armies and military backing of foreign oppression.

Quote:

And the US was unparpared for previous wars. Example WWII. "Meanwhile, the
US had embarked on a mobilization of human, physical, and financial
resources without precedent in history. All the inhibitions, frustrations,
and restraints of the Depression years vanished virtually overnight. Within
a single year the number of tanks built in America had been raised to over
24,000 and planes to over 48,000." A History of the American People" Paul
Johnson. I might also add that it takes or it use to take 8 weeks just to
go thru basic training. Basic training was probably shortend in WWII
because time was important. Ships are not built in a few weeks ... our
Pacific fleet was almost destroyed at Pearl and had to be replaced. I stand
by what I said.

There were a lot of cowardly isolationist right-wingers before WWII, and
still others who had Nazi sympathies. It was hard to get authorization
for a military build-up given right-wing political opposition.

Quote:

With plenty more planned. So we can expect the Americans to
be killing civilians for many years to come. And a lot more than the
3000 Americans who died on 9/11.

So it would be ok if the US went to war didn't kill any more people than
3000. That is the cut off point ... go to war until you reach the 3000
death limit and stop. We let our enemies set the limits of the number
of deaths? May I ask if you are and Ivy League College Professor?

You are in a panic because 3,000 Americans got killed on 9/11.

Why don't you answer the questions I asked rather than to try and Dr Phil
me? I'm not in a panic about anything. You think recognizing a problem
is panic ... its not, its recognizing reality which you seem to have
taken leave of.

You're scared out of your wits.

No, not scared, vigilant. I have a nice life in probably the best country
in the world. I support the war against Muslim jihadist. I don't turn a
blind eye to people who want to destroy Western civilizaton and replace it
with a bunch of Muslim jihadist thugs that want to kill, make subservient,
or convert to Islam. Who cannot even get along among themselves.

You don't support the war, neither with your body nor with your taxes.
The money is all being borrowed. And the American thugs have a record
for killing that leaves the jihadis in the dust.

--Jeff

--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy

Ads</