View Poll Results: Will they find WMD in Iraq

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, left there by the Saddam gov.

    12 42.86%
  • Yes, 'planted' by US gov.

    4 14.29%
  • No

    8 28.57%
  • Don't know/ not sure

    4 14.29%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 82
  1.    #61  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    And by the way, how do you know that the relatives "didn't have anything to do with the suicide attack"? Can you actually say for certain what causes one person to strap a bomb on themselves, and not another?

    As to the destruction of houses. I can't say that I would have come up with that choice if I was in their shoes. I like it better than blowing up a busy marketplace or a busload of schoolkids though. Houses can be rebuilt. Lives cannot be replaced.
    So in your logic the family of the Colombine killers had something to do with it too and theis house should be destroyed too?
    Seems like a bit far fetched maybe but if you think about it, it is the same kind of (flawed) logic.
    Yes, there is a chance the families were involved however you dont want to take that for granted...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    So in your logic the family of the Colombine killers had something to do with it too and theis house should be destroyed too?
    Seems like a bit far fetched maybe but if you think about it, it is the same kind of (flawed) logic.
    Yes, there is a chance the families were involved however you dont want to take that for granted...
    What logic? I simply asked how he knew they weren't involved. I never said, nor implied, that they "got what they deserved". If you read my post you should have also seen that I wouldn't have chosen to destroy the relatives houses. You're reading a little too much into my response.

    As to the Columbine shootings I would prefer not to comment on what/who I think helped cause that tragedy as I will be sure to inflame somebody if I do.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3.    #63  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    What logic? I simply asked how he knew they weren't involved. I never said, nor implied, that they "got what they deserved". If you read my post you should have also seen that I wouldn't have chosen to destroy the relatives houses. You're reading a little too much into my response.

    As to the Columbine shootings I would prefer not to comment on what/who I think helped cause that tragedy as I will be sure to inflame somebody if I do.
    Sorry if I read too much into it... I must have misinterpreted your post..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #64  
    Everyone is making noises... not just Canada. It seems the only one not making noises is the U.S.A. Its funny that the U.S and Israel always vote the same way in the U.N.

    Anyhow, I think it is absolutely immoral to bulldoze a suicide bomber's family. This doesn't accomplish anything positive. In fact, they simply create more suicide bombers.


    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    And then again, maybe that's why Canada has been making noises
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Sorry if I read too much into it... I must have misinterpreted your post..
    It's ok. Considering the source (you) I was inclined to to believe you had as you're pretty fair minded.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Everyone is making noises... not just Canada. It seems the only one not making noises is the U.S.A. Its funny that the U.S and Israel always vote the same way in the U.N.

    Anyhow, I think it is absolutely immoral to bulldoze a suicide bomber's family. This doesn't accomplish anything positive. In fact, they simply create more suicide bombers.


    I was joking about Canada . In reference to clulups' "So what we have is a country in possession of WMD, with a very strong army and an ever growing fundamentalist and extremist part of the population, a country known for taking other territories by force (ok, sometimes in selfdefence...) and violating UN resolutions. If this country was my neighbor, maybe I wouldn't like the situation too much either... " Some people could say the US would fit that bill. Therefor Canada could be nervous. It was a joke.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #67  
    OK. I understand.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    I was joking about Canada . In reference to clulups' "So what we have is a country in possession of WMD, with a very strong army and an ever growing fundamentalist and extremist part of the population, a country known for taking other territories by force (ok, sometimes in selfdefence...) and violating UN resolutions. If this country was my neighbor, maybe I wouldn't like the situation too much either... " Some people could say the US would fit that bill. Therefor Canada could be nervous. It was a joke.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Anyhow, I think it is absolutely immoral to bulldoze a suicide bomber's family.
    Unless they helped plan/carry out the bombing, right?
  9. #69  
    Well there would be some justification if the family helped plan the bombing. But why not arrest members of the family and try them instead of bulldozing the home. This seems like overkill to me.

    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Unless they helped plan/carry out the bombing, right?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well there would be some justification if the family helped plan the bombing. But why not arrest members of the family and try them instead of bulldozing the home. This seems like overkill to me.
    I see your point if the involvement was slight.

    I guess to those who have to make the decisions on how to respond to planners of suicide bombings "overkill" is exactly what they want. Deterrent effect? Questionable, certainly not provable. Sense of justification? Bingo.

    Glad I don't have to make those decisions.
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by yardie
    This seems like overkill to me.
    I guess one could argue the old eye-for-an-eye rationale, since the bomber did (or intended to) kill/maim innocent people.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  12.    #72  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    I guess one could argue the old eye-for-an-eye rationale, since the bomber did (or intended to) kill/maim innocent people.
    It must be eye-for-an-eye...
    But I think that doesnt get you anywhere.. look at northern ireland, they kept that going for years...

    Like ghandi said: an eye for an eye makes the world blind..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    It must be eye-for-an-eye...
    But I think that doesnt get you anywhere.. look at northern ireland, they kept that going for years...

    Like ghandi said: an eye for an eye makes the world blind..
    Not that I disagree, but what lasting affect did he have on India? Ethnic differences are still at a boiling point in that country. Pacifism is an interesting ideal, but it completely falls apart when confronted with a determined and violent foe.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Not that I disagree, but what lasting affect did he have on India? Ethnic differences are still at a boiling point in that country. Pacifism is an interesting ideal, but it completely falls apart when confronted with a determined and violent foe.
    Unlike America, he gained indepence for his country without mass bloodshed.

    They have a democratic gov't, and so on. I can think of a few other colonized states (ex. much of Africa) that have not fared so well.

    OTOH, I'm not entirely sold on pacificism, but I'm moving towards it. The diffficulty is that war is really effective short-term.

    ...as for ethnic tensions, that is a nasty situation that hasn't fully played out yet. It's too bad we found ourselves having to prop up the Pakistani dictator, there's a situation (India/Pakistan) where we should really be worried about WMDs.
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by septimus

    Unlike America, he gained indepence for his country without mass bloodshed.

    They have a democratic gov't, and so on. I can think of a few other colonized states (ex. much of Africa) that have not fared so well.

    OTOH, I'm not entirely sold on pacificism, but I'm moving towards it. The diffficulty is that war is really effective short-term.

    ...as for ethnic tensions, that is a nasty situation that hasn't fully played out yet. It's too bad we found ourselves having to prop up the Pakistani dictator, there's a situation (India/Pakistan) where we should really be worried about WMDs.
    Without mass bloodshed? Are we talking about the same country?

    I agree with you on the turmoil between those two nations. Either one having WMD is disturbing because of their (recent) histories of extreme ethnic/religious inspired violence.
    It would be nice if they got involved in a "Space Race" instead.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #76  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Without mass bloodshed? Are we talking about the same country?
    I suppose its apples and oranges. Americans had French support & were fairly well off in terms of money and arms. India had none of the above. Our revolution resulted in 25,000 dead, I can't find stats on India just now.
  17. #77  
    Originally posted by septimus

    I suppose its apples and oranges. Americans had French support & were fairly well off in terms of money and arms. India had none of the above. Our revolution resulted in 25,000 dead, I can't find stats on India just now.
    Me either....
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  18.    #78  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Not that I disagree, but what lasting affect did he have on India? Ethnic differences are still at a boiling point in that country. Pacifism is an interesting ideal, but it completely falls apart when confronted with a determined and violent foe.
    I think nobody has a lasting effect... good or bad...
    Hitler didnt have a lasting effect on Germany, Gandi didnt have a lasting effect on India...MLK didnt have a lasting effect on the US..
    Pacifism is something you have to keep 'fighting' for otherwise it gets overrun by violent voe's... luckily it works the other way too, look at Hitler and Saddam..
    But all 4 will have left their mark on the world.. and that is lasting...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Pacifism is an interesting ideal, but it completely falls apart when confronted with a determined and violent foe.
    just re-read this. I think that pacificism does work against a determined and violent foe - to say that Britian, South Africa's administration, the southern US. et al weren't determined nor violent isn't right..
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by septimus
    just re-read this. I think that pacificism does work against a determined and violent foe - to say that Britian, South Africa's administration, the southern US. et al weren't determined nor violent isn't right..
    Economic sanctions aren't exactly pacificsm. Neither is forced integration. If everyone would have played by the rules with economic sanctions in Iraq, I think that wouldn't have had to end in armed conflict either. Of course, the 'pacifist' UN Security Council members would never acknowledge that.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions