View Poll Results: Should we let the UN into Iraq?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes: Weapons inspectors, reconstruction, the whole shebang

    7 58.33%
  • Sorta: Weapons inspectors but not government or reconstruction

    2 16.67%
  • Kinda: No weapons inspectors, but they can help with everything else

    0 0%
  • No: We can find the WMDs, we can form the Gov't

    3 25.00%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by yardie
    [B]

    Well I didn't spoke to anyone who agreed with the WHO's advisory. The polls were taking after the WHO annoucement were overwhelmingly in favour of the Canadian government's decision to appeal the WHO ruling. The fact that the WHO rescind edthe advisory a few days after indicates that they didn't do their home work. BTW The U.S. CDC also thought that the WHO decision was off base.
    Interesting. The Canadian official that I heard speaking only talked about how many tourist dollars that they would lose, never how safe it was. He came across as being very put out that someone would put a crimp in his projected tourism.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    BobbyMike said: That's why they are called Op/Ed. That's short for Opinion/Editorial.

    Sorry but you're wrong there. The "title" OpEd (used without a slash) was coined by the New York Times because the articles were on the page in the newspaper OPposite the EDitorial page.
    Sorry about my misunderstanding. You learn something new every day. I should have just said editorial which by definition means expression of opinion.

    Originally posted by jhappel
    Now as to your purported statistics in regtard to the Holocaust - I too would be very interested to learn where you came up with those numbers, first off the number of Jews killed was not 5,500,000 but rather in excess of 6 million so right away we know the the source of the numbers is wrong.
    Where did you get your numbers? Why are your unattributed numbers better than mine? Hey, lets all do some research! We might all learn something!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by septimus

    That was never the primary justification for the war until we got there and discovered that all the other justifications were false. In his campaign speech on the aircraft carrier, Bush still is saying that there were links bewteen al qaeda and iraq - there is simply no reasonable evidence for that.
    I never said that was *the* justification. I just said that is why I supported the action.
  4.    #44  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I never said that was *the* justification. I just said that is why I supported the action.
    ach, sorry. my mistake
  5.    #45  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Christians were his support group?
    Well, obviously good xns wouldn't support hitler... but there is evidence that the pope may have supported him (or at least ordered non-opposal...).

    ...I'm not clear on why we're talking about the holocaust, anyway--wasn't that just a rhetorical tactic?
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by septimus

    Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but everything I've seen has been discredited. The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis. Provide links to difinitive evidence, please. I have yet to see it.

    Once again, was this a just war? could be, I'm not sure, but I think that it could be. But if it is just, it is not yet been shown to be just on the basis of either WMD or connections to al queda. It looks to be justified because of the liberation of the Iraqi People---but if that is the only standard, then we ought to be liberating a good portion of the planet.
    What is the function of an Al Samoud missiles that were found? Delivering donuts to Israel or Kuwait? Once again you are submitting your opinion of the items/info found as "subpar by any reasonable analysis", saying basically that you're right and anyone who thinks differently is unreasonable. Are you also saying that Saddam had no links to terrorists/terrorism?

    You're spinning again.


    Originally posted by septimus
    oh please. This is just ad hominem.

    There's no "fact" on Bush's side here either, just "opinion." And his "opinion" is unreasonable in my and most of the world's view. The difference is that when I express my opinion all that happens is the neocons here get their underwear in a bunch, when Bush expresses his opinion he does it with bombs.
    What I'm seeing is a very vocal minority that is getting it's "underwear in a bunch" because their opinions were ignored and they're being proved wrong.

    Originally posted by septimus
    Look, the Administration has admitted that this is as much about showing american power as is it about anything else--and it always was.
    No, they said that there were many reasons to go through with this action and they chose to emphasize the ones that were the most serious.

    Originally posted by septimus
    the only "hyperbole" here is saying that the claim that the WMD evidence is scant is somehow analogous to the claim that the holocaust didn't happen. It's the same hyperbole that drives people to call them freedom fries: a blind refusal to admit that the justifications for the war are morally relative and not morally absolute. I'm okay with that, but not when everybody is pretending that the justifications are absolute. They aren't.
    No. it's the same thing as ignoring evidence of the holocaust and saying something else happened. Fact is fact, opinion is opinion. Time will prove one side of this issue right or wrong, but the Left isn't satisfied with that, they would rather sway opinion so that fact will be ignored.

    "Get everybody all worked up so that they won't see reason!!!"

    What I'm seeing is a furious indignation that a leftist world view that is totally unsupported by reality (ie how things actually interact) is being shown to be false by the actions of those who don't believe in it.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7.    #47  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    What is the function of an Al Samoud missiles that were found? Delivering donuts to Israel or Kuwait? Once again you are submitting your opinion of the items/info found as "subpar by any reasonable analysis", saying basically that you're right and anyone who thinks differently is unreasonable. Are you also saying that Saddam had no links to terrorists/terrorism?

    No. What you're saying is that is is completely unreasonable to believe that the evidence for the war is subbpar.

    You're spinning again.

    What I'm seeing is a very vocal minority that is getting it's "underwear in a bunch" because their opinions were ignored and they're being proved wrong.
    Well, given that you're already blindly accepting opinion as fact and calling everything that opposes you opinion, it's no suprise that what you're seeing is wrong.

    No, they said that there were many reasons to go through with this action and they chose to emphasize the ones that were the most serious.

    right. It was a matter of emphasis. .

    No. it's the same thing as ignoring evidence of the holocaust and saying something else happened. Fact is fact, opinion is opinion. Time will prove one side of this issue right or wrong,
    will it? Or will it prove that this administration is more adept at spinning the "facts" than any other in history? I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just seeing it for what it is, not what we want it to be. Comparing a reasonable view of this evidence with morons who disbelieve in the holocaust is nothing more than a veiled flame. Stop it.

    It is reasonable to think that the justifications presented for war were not enough. Why do you think the planet saw the biggest mass protest in world history (sorry, you guys prefer Bush's term: "focus group")? Why do you think it was so important for people to discredit the French here -- because any direct reasonable engagement would reveal how empty Bush's rhetoric is.

    but the Left isn't satisfied with that, they would rather sway opinion so that fact will be ignored.
    What's with this "the left" stuff? Ah, more ad hominem. Why is it that it's okay to bash "the left?" these days? Furthermore, you seriously need to quit spinning this "Fact vs. opinion" stuff. I'm not trying to dissemble here, I see the facts, you see the facts. I think the facts don't support the opinion that we should have gone to war, you do. This disagreement does not mean I'm trying to change the facts.

    What I'm seeing is a furious indignation that a leftist world view that is totally unsupported by reality (ie how things actually interact) is being shown to be false by the actions of those who don't believe in it.
    Tell you what, I'll start calling myself a right-winger. Then will you listen?
  8. #48  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Mmmm more christians then jews killed in the holocaust? that doesnt sound right...
    Hitler went after Jews, homosexuals, jehova witnesses, gypsies etc.
    Never heard he targeted christians...actually that was his support group...
    Sounds kind of odd to me. (Not saying it is wrong data, just doesnt make sense) where did you get that data from?

    Or are you adding the soldiers to your death toll? I personally dont since they were not targeted by the holocaust. They were war casualties.. the two were tied closely but were 2 seperate issues IMHO..
    Just curious..
    here's some totals 6 million Poles - approximatel half were Jewish, the other half were Christians

    Polish Holocaust

    I keep finding different totals for exactly how many Jews lost their lives. Here's a total from The Jewish Virtual library that gives a national breakdown ad a total of 5,933,900. I have no interest in claiming that the Jews were not as persecuted as non-jews/Christians. I had heard that the total number of people killed in the camps were 12,500,000 of which 5,500,00 were Jews. I did the math myself. I've also been reading that the total killed was closer to 11,000,000. If you subtract the JVHs number of 5,933,900 from that you get closer to 5 million nonjews/Christians.

    Don't forget that Hitler was not a Christian, he was a Ayran mysticist (closer to anthroposophy) and killed thousands of German Christians who spoke out against his barbaric actions (in those same camps)

    I'm trying to find an online source for my earlier numbers. I got them from Max I. Dimonts book Jews, God, and History , but I can't find the exact quote. I'll probably have to just type it in...yechh
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by septimus

    No. What you're saying is that is is completely unreasonable to believe that the evidence for the war is subbpar.

    You're spinning again.
    No, I said that your bald assertation that the evidence was subpar to anyone reasonable was your opinion not fact.


    Originally posted by septimus
    Well, given that you're already blindly accepting opinion as fact and calling everything that opposes you opinion, it's no suprise that what you're seeing is wrong.
    Now you're making me laugh. I said look at the evidence, not what some pundit spewed. If you have a differing opinion after seeing the evidence, fine - but call it your opinion.

    Originally posted by septimus

    right. It was a matter of emphasis. .
    That was the quote from the administration. Did you misunderstand it?


    Originally posted by septimus
    will it? Or will it prove that this administration is more adept at spinning the "facts" than any other in history? I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm just seeing it for what it is, not what we want it to be. Comparing a reasonable view of this evidence with morons who disbelieve in the holocaust is nothing more than a veiled flame. Stop it.
    A "veiled flame"? Kinda like "The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis." or in other words, if you don't agree you're unreasonable?

    Originally posted by septimus
    It is reasonable to think that the justifications presented for war were not enough. Why do you think the planet saw the biggest mass protest in world history (sorry, you guys prefer Bush's term: "focus group")? Why do you think it was so important for people to discredit the French here -- because any direct reasonable engagement would reveal how empty Bush's rhetoric is.
    "focus group"? We call it protest around here. Who are "you guys"? people that don't agree with you?

    I thought that it was important to show (discredit?) that the French had ulterior motives for protesting the action, like the fact they were doing an end run around the UN sanctions.

    Originally posted by septimus
    What's with this "the left" stuff? Ah, more ad hominem. Why is it that it's okay to bash "the left?" these days? Furthermore, you seriously need to quit spinning this "Fact vs. opinion" stuff. I'm not trying to dissemble here, I see the facts, you see the facts. I think the facts don't support the opinion that we should have gone to war, you do. This disagreement does not mean I'm trying to change the facts.
    Well maybe you should say things like "IMHO The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis." instead of just saying "The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis.".


    Originally posted by septimus
    Tell you what, I'll start calling myself a right-winger. Then will you listen?
    Oooh I hate them right-wingers. I only like drumsticks.

    Seriously, connect what you say to facts (not editorials) and I'll listen. Really. That's how I became a conservative (or a neo-con or whatever). I homeschool my kids (not an undertaking one does lightly) because I didn't see public education as viable alternative to my kids because the fruit just wasn't there. The curricllums were bland and shallow and almost forced stupidity into children. I also saw the alarming trend in labeling kids with ADD/AHD to be scary. I like facts because it's very easy to verify them if you take the time.

    We may (will?) have differing opinions about what we observe, but that's no reason to get hinky with each other (not saying that you're the one getting hinky all by yourself).

    I don't mind agreeing to have a difference of opinion.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10.    #50  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    That was the quote from the administration. Did you misunderstand it?
    Unfortunately, no. I understand it all too well.

    "focus group"? We call it protest around here. Who are "you guys"? people that don't agree with you?
    Yah, I was "othering" in response to the "leftists" stuff. The "focus group" was what Bush called the protestors.

    I thought that it was important to show (discredit?) that the French had ulterior motives for protesting the action, like the fact they were doing an end run around the UN sanctions.
    I'm not saying the French are blameless, but I do stand by the assertion that all the conveniently-timed anti-French stuff came when they were making their arguments against invasion--arguments that were not absurd by any stretch of the imagination.

    Well maybe you should say things like "IMHO The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis." instead of just saying "The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis.".
    k. I guess that's a Rhetoric thing--as an English teacher I get so much "I think" in papers that I have to drill it out of students, i.e. "Of course it's what you think, it's your writing. It's assumed that this is what you think." IOW: unless I am specifically saying so, I guess you can assume the IMHO is implied in what I say.

    Oooh I hate them right-wingers. I only like drumsticks.
    I'm partial to the thigh.
    Seriously, connect what you say to facts (not editorials) and I'll listen.
    I guess the best facts I can point to is that not a single one of Powell's UN points have panned out at all (even the plagarized ones...). I guess I can't tell what "facts" we're arguing about here, because the line between "facts" and "spin/opinion" is so hard to draw given that we're dealing with limited information.

    I don't mind agreeing to have a difference of opinion.
    That may be where we are at--but I get the feeling that you still feel that my opinion is somehow incommensurate with the "facts." As for me, I'm having a difficult time seeing how anyone can fail to see this path to war as being intentional paved with something less than "facts."
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Don't forget that Hitler was not a Christian, he was a Ayran mysticist (closer to anthroposophy) and killed thousands of German Christians who spoke out against his barbaric actions (in those same camps)
    Ah now I see your confusion, Hitler did kill a lot of christians, but not because they were christian, while for the jews he did kill them because of their ethnic/religious background.

    As for the christians being his support group, in interbellum Germany probably 80% (rough estimate) of the population was christian. Given that fact and the fact that the mayority supported him it is 1+1=2 that makes me say thay Hitlers biggest support group consisted of christians.
    You are right that Hitler was a christian, how had ties to the christian organizations to get his way...

    I'll look into the link for the numbers, when I have more time (am in training this week..)
    But s quick reply (without having read those links) you mention the polish holocaust only.. a lot more jews were from or killed in Poland, so if you focus on Poland only you may get an incorrect view..
    <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?
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by septimus
    ...

    I guess the best facts I can point to is that not a single one of Powell's UN points have panned out at all (even the plagarized ones...). I guess I can't tell what "facts" we're arguing about here, because the line between "facts" and "spin/opinion" is so hard to draw given that we're dealing with limited information.


    That may be where we are at--but I get the feeling that you still feel that my opinion is somehow incommensurate with the "facts." As for me, I'm having a difficult time seeing how anyone can fail to see this path to war as being intentional paved with something less than "facts."
    Fair enough!
    Last edited by BobbyMike; 05/05/2003 at 06:26 AM.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  13. #53  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Ah now I see your confusion, Hitler did kill a lot of christians, but not because they were christian, while for the jews he did kill them because of their ethnic/religious background.

    As for the christians being his support group, in interbellum Germany probably 80% (rough estimate) of the population was christian. Given that fact and the fact that the mayority supported him it is 1+1=2 that makes me say thay Hitlers biggest support group consisted of christians.
    You are right that Hitler was a christian, how had ties to the christian organizations to get his way...

    I'll look into the link for the numbers, when I have more time (am in training this week..)
    But s quick reply (without having read those links) you mention the polish holocaust only.. a lot more jews were from or killed in Poland, so if you focus on Poland only you may get an incorrect view..
    Ahh, now I see your confusion...

    here's a quote from that Dimont book, it sums up what others have also said about Hitler:

    "We must recognize the fact that Nazism was not anti-Semitic but anti-human. Because Nazi beliefs of racial superiority had no basis in fact, Nazism was like a nightmare, unfolding without a past or future in an ever-moving present. Because none but German Aryans were qualified to live in the Nazi view, it stood to reason that everyone else would be exterminated. The chilling reality is that when the Russians overran the concentration camps i Poland they found enough Zyklon B crystals to kill 20 million people. Yet there were no more than 3 million Jews left in Europe. The ratio of contemplated mass killing was no longer 1.4 Christians for every Jew, but 5.3 Christians for every Jew. Nazi future plans called for the killing of ten million non-German people every year.

    If the Christian reader dismisses what happened in Germany as something which affected a few million Jews only, he has not merely shown his contempt for the seven million Christians murdered by the Nazis, but has betrayed his Christian heritage as well. And, if the Jewish reader forgets the seven million Christians murdered by the Nazis, than has not merely let five million Jews die in vain but has betrayed his Jewish heritage of passion and justice. It is no longer a question of the survival of the Jews only. It is a question of the survival of man."

    The Christians were killed because of their religion/who they were. Many died because they stood up to the Nazis (supporting their beliefs as Christians). The so called Christians that supported him were, in fact, not very Christian. This wasn't about religion, it was about racial identity. You were either a German Aryan, or you weren't. The Nazis started with the Jews, Gypsies, etc. because they felt they would get less resistance from everybody else.

    Hitler wasn't a Christian. He didn't believe in the sovereignity of Jesus Christ. He dabbled in the occult and killed Protestants and Catholics freely. Please don't make the mistake of labeling him a Christian, it is very offensive to we Christians.

    You also make the mistake of assumingthat all the people who supported him knew what was going on. The average "Hans" only knew what the Nazi propagandists told them. Part of the reason that I don't think something like that could ever happen in a "civilized country" again is the widespread access to the internet that we have. It's much harder to control a populances world view when the can freely and easily go beyond the borders of their own nation for information.

    Gotta go to work...
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    BobbyMike said: That's why they are called Op/Ed. That's short for Opinion/Editorial.

    Sorry but you're wrong there. The "title" OpEd (used without a slash) was coined by the New York Times because the articles were on the page in the newspaper OPposite the EDitorial page.
    Hm...I always thought it meant Opinion/Editorial, too.


    Now as to your purported statistics in regtard to the Holocaust - I too would be very interested to learn where you came up with those numbers, first off the number of Jews killed was not 5,500,000 but rather in excess of 6 million so right away we know the the source of the numbers is wrong.
    I think everyone is missing the point of BobbyMike's post.
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    By whose definition? Mainstream Christians consider them a cult as they believe you must be a Jehovah Witness to get into heaven (like Mormons or the followers of Rev. Moon).
    My unofficial understanding is that Catholics believe the same thing--they are typically considered "Christians," yes?
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by septimus
    xns
    What is that? If I didn't know you better, DB, I would think you did that intentionally to insult us Christians...
  17. #57  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    "We must recognize the fact that Nazism was not anti-Semitic but anti-human[.....]It is a question of the survival of man."
    Now, Bobby-Mike, didn't you mean to say "In Dimont's HO, 'We must recognize the fact that Nazism was not anti-Semitic....' "
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    My unofficial understanding is that Catholics believe the same thing--they are typically considered "Christians," yes?
    Do they officially? I thought the present Pope had made some remarks concerning this that something else. Once again I don't have an actual quote, just a vague memory.

    FYI some really "stickly" born-agains don't see Catholics as Christians because they say Catholics pray to the Saints and Mary.

    I for one am in favor of doctrinal walls coming down.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    What is that? If I didn't know you better, DB, I would think you did that intentionally to insult us Christians...
    Naw, his fingers were just tired from all his typing
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Now, Bobby-Mike, didn't you mean to say "In Dimont's HO, 'We must recognize the fact that Nazism was not anti-Semitic....' "
    :raspberry:
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions