Naked Bambi Hunts

[ScrmnPeeler]

You're right Spragwa, I'm with you, I now believe that Saddam should be placed back in power and the U.S. should beg forgiveness from the Iraqi people. We had no place taking any action. Whups, Castro here's some foriegn aid. I think we should have tried to understand Hitler, or contain the Rising Sun. How much should we pay North Korea this time?

At what point should we have taken action; and exactly what action would you have taken? (That's a serious question aimed directly at you Spragwa)

Part Two: What is the current level of relevancy held by the United Nations since many member nations choose not to enforce any of their own resolutions?

[pigsteak]

tomdarch,

sorry I have missed the fun of the past few posts...first off, i guess you missed my part about arguing the "other side", no matter what....please direct me to where I said I supported (or opposed for that matter) GW's actions? I was only trying to expand Sprag's argument out....consistency is very difficult to find in this world.

let me break it down for you, since you seem to be living a bad dream in your head....most people (thru many avenues) have chosen a political, ecological, and religous ideology based partly on group think, partly on the news they read and hear, on bar room banter, family upbringing, choice in college, and spousal veiwpoints...so here is what happens..we all formulate this set of ideas in the back of our mind, and then we set out to justify why we hold them...if you are conservative, you HAVE to hate the clintons, if you are liberal, GW HAS to be a simpleton, etc.....

many arguments are made based on this "idea" floating around in the back of our head..then we go about picking up "facts" to justify it. you do it, I do it, W does it.

GW wanted Saddam out, and he found a way...(btw, I opposed the invasion)

you have decided to hate conservatives, so you will find a way, and will further entrench yourself in group think. (and all along the way feel quite smug about your "reasons" why) and others here have decided to be flag waving patriots, and hate those dastardly dem's....

so take a whack at my other question, which seemed to float under your "attuned" radar...if you truly loved the crags wanted to "preserve them", you would do one of the following
1) never drive from Chicago to the Red with less than a full car load
2) stay home all together, and lessen the impact by one person (or 4 since you would be bringing a full load)
3)agree to year long closures at the overused crags to re-vegetate...

Now why does this seem ridiculous? because you have ascertained that it is your "right" to use these lands, and that "selfish" desire to climb is more important than ANY impact you may have on the land....so we start looking for ways to "minimize" our impact.....puleeze!!!!! people, freakin stay home if you want to lessen the impact....see, we don't really care about the impact..what we care about is the crags not getting closed to our user group...

[pigsteak]

and sprag..it is apparent clinton failed in his diplomacy with a "dictator", and it is becoming quite clear that W has also failed in being truthful as to our true intentions (no, not oil..but relieving this century of a bad man)....I wonder aloud if Gore were president, if the liberals would still be making this outcry..I doubt it..it would be the republicans..don't forget that the vast majority of the house and senate BACKED W on the war...where were they then?????

again, it is just the nature of politics...there is no "truth" to be discovered on these issues....the truth is in how you frame the argument.

[freaky farkel]

All Billary did was bomb Iraq in order to draw attention away from his errant cigar.

[SikMonkey]

No, what Clinton did was not diplomacy, it was more appeasement. Diplomacy can be defined as "the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you find a big enough stick". We could have lived with that. Clinton was saying things more along the line of "Nice Doggie! Good Doggie! Doggie wants another treat? Here you go! Doggie needs more food? Here! OH, Doggie shouldn't drop mustard gas on Doggie's neighbors! That was a bad Doggie, but just don't let it happen again, ok? Good Doggie!". That was more Clinton's style. ...and the cleanup detail I was referring to was Afghanistan. When all is said and done, Iraq is just a continuation of it.

Some simple logic:
Bin Laden is a bad guy (label given to him based on past actions).
Bad guys are known to do bad things until someone makes them stop.
Saddam Insane is a bad guy (again, based on past actions).
From this logic you must infer that Saddam will continue to do bad things until he is dealt with. GW simply made him stop doing bad things, just like he did Bin Laden.

Mj

[tomdarch]

tomdarch,

[snip]

GW wanted Saddam out, and he found a way...(btw, I opposed the invasion)

I'm impressed! For what it's worth, it doesn't matter what W wants, I doubt that he does much to drive the administration's policies. The invasion of Iraq was decided upon prior to Sept. 11, 2001 by the so-called "neo-conservatives". (who aren't 'new' and are 'right-wing' but not particularly 'conservative'. After all, they were more than happy to 'invent' the idea of a 'preemptive invasion'.) Why did you oppose it?

you have decided to hate conservatives, so you will find a way, and will further entrench yourself in group think. (and all along the way feel quite smug about your "reasons" why) and others here have decided to be flag waving patriots, and hate those dastardly dem's....

I certainly wouldn't say that I 'hate' conservatives, it's just that they're wrong about so many things and cause a great deal of harm as a result. More often than not, they decide to 'conserve' bad things, or impose a false version of 'tradition' that benefits them at the expense of others. Let's keep in mind that Osama bin Laden is a classic conservative (mostly). That doesn't mean that all conservatives are like ObL, but they often have a lot more in common than any of us would like. (And, no, I am not forgetting that various 'liberal' movements have disintegrated, such as the Russian/Soviet and French revolutions). Remember how wrong American conservatives were about creating a 'president for life' in the constitution, slavery, Jim Crow, preventing women from owning property or voting, anti-Immigrant violence, anti-Semitism, allowing child labor, opposing workplace safety (hell, people had to die to get the 8 hour work day!), the 'communist disaster' of Social Security, segregation - I'll stop there. Actually, many Americans don't 'remember' those things, which helps 'conservatives' sound good when they talk about 'preserving traditional American values'. (Personally, I am all for preserving traditional American values like religious tolerance, the right to an open trial by a jury, freedom of speech, civil and human rights, 'one person, one vote', and so on. But those aren't 'real American' values according to 'conservatives', are they?)

Don't forget that 'liberal' isn't the antithesis of 'conservative'. 'Progressive' is it's opposite. I think that in many cases, you are refering to 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' positions.

so take a whack at my other question, which seemed to float under your "attuned" radar...if you truly loved the crags wanted to "preserve them", you would do one of the following
1) never drive from Chicago to the Red with less than a full car load
2) stay home all together, and lessen the impact by one person (or 4 since you would be bringing a full load)
3)agree to year long closures at the overused crags to re-vegetate...

Now why does this seem ridiculous? because you have ascertained that it is your "right" to use these lands, and that "selfish" desire to climb is more important than ANY impact you may have on the land....so we start looking for ways to "minimize" our impact.....puleeze!!!!! people, freakin stay home if you want to lessen the impact....see, we don't really care about the impact..what we care about is the crags not getting closed to our user group...

It doesn't sound 'ridiculous'. I'm not clear on the benefit (other than 'visual') of your proposal #3 in an area like the Red. If you can provide some evidence of the benefits, then I would be glad to consider rotating crag closures.

Actually, I live in an apartment here in the big city and I don't own a car. (Just as many people are confused on how driving 20 crushed aluminum cans in the SUV to the recycling center isn't 'environmentally friendly', many people are confused on how living in a suburban, single family house is more environmentally harmful than living in visually dirty cities) My last trip down was with two other people in a small, fuel efficient rental car. Your sarcastic proposals don't sound very crazy to me. (I will say that I'm a bit puzzled by climbing-related groups who complain about hydro-electric and nuclear power, but depend on electricity-intensive aluminum gear).

Here's a better alternative - we all agree to have our taxes (particularly gas taxes) raised and the money used to pay for public transportation in general, and in specific a really good national high-speed rail network. (The old argument that Europe has good rail because it has such high population densities actually falls apart in comparison to many corridors east of the Mississippi) That would allow me to get to and from the Red in less time than driving a car (I would still have to rent a car for the final leg, but there would be a massive overall gain in fuel usage and anciliary issues like road usage/construction/maintenance). We'd all benefit - imagine a 2 hour ride to Chicago, then a 5 hour ride to Denver, without the massive gas burn of airplanes - sounds nice, doesn't it?

[SikMonkey]

I'll put it this way. I would rather burn up ALL of our fossil fuel and congest ALL of our air and have the effects felt 50, 100, 200, 300 years later than have some terrorist repeat 9-11 or worse TOMORROW. We are all going to die, I just prefer it to be later than sooner. As for being against war, that's one thing. But when the president makes a decision to attempt to rid this world of a piece of shit like Saddam, we as Americans should stop and say "Hey, the President might just be trying to protect our ass so we should do what we can to support him and the troops", instead of all this "America is so bad. We do terrible things. We are so greedy. We should just say screw ourselves. Let the terrorists do what they want. We shouldn't focus on protecting this country, we should just make sure that endangered tribe of long toenailed pigmies has enough resources to build their own McDonald's " liberal bullshit. If you hate what's going on here and the way things are being run so bad then take your hippie liberal ass and LEAVE. We sure as hell don't want you. As an American, you have that choice. I'll tell you one thing, there is no negotiating with dictators and terrorists. They understand ONE thing and ONE thing only and that is the use of military force to rule by fear and they will use it to no end, and if GW wants to go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he called GW's mom a whore, then I say give it hell. That will be one more night that I can sleep without fear of someone dropping a nuke into the bed next to me, and if you don't think it can happen then I guess the memorial anniversary we will be remembering here in a couple of months shouldn't take place either.

Mj

[ScrmnPeeler]

(Personally, I am all for preserving traditional American values like religious tolerance, the right to an open trial by a jury, freedom of speech, civil and human rights, 'one person, one vote', and so on. But those aren't 'real American' values according to 'conservatives', are they?)

What conservatives are you talking to? Every time you turn around another bleedin heart is on a crusade to ban something someone else likes to do. Sorta like what started this thread. A kid can' t wear a religious shirt to school because some lib was offended. If I drive my suv down the street some tree huggin pencil dick is screaming something stupid about terrorism.

Conservatives believe in free speech, but also understand that you must deal with society's reaction. (ex. You were a Che Guevera T-shirt, and you probably won't be taken seriously when you run for President)

[Spragwa]

SrmnPeeler: It seems that you are as guilty of conservative paranoia as I am of leftist-hippie-liberalism. There has not been one mention of this thread of banning any behavior. Read it. There's none.

SikMonkey: There is also no evidence that Hussein was involved in any way with Sept. 11. Second, though the house and senate backed the war, if you recall the house MADE Bush make his case. They did not simply follow his word like lemmings off a cliff. They required him to present hard evidence as to a threat. He didn't have any so he fibbed. Third, one of the major hurdles Clinton had to face was that the Iraqi people supported Hussein. Hussein's propaganda machine was fairly successful. He convinced his people that they were starving because of the oil ban. Mean while, he took all of the humanitarian aid he could get his hands on and sold it to fatten his coiffers. Of course the people caught on. He couldn't continue paying the bills for the Republican Guard, etc. When people cannot eat, they will turn...maybe Bush will learn this as he propogates the upper/lower class divide through his tax cuts and general economic idiocy.

Pigsteak: I do not believe for an instant that GW gives a fig for the people of Iraq. He never mentioned them until they started surrendering. I truly believe that his motivation is the oil. Iraq is one of the last areas left with vast reserves of high quality crude. Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait and Iraq have the best grade. He and his oil buddies will greatly benefit. Also, who do you think got all of the contracts to rebuild in Afghanistan and Iraq? The two largest recipients were companies on which Vice President Chaney and GW had previously been on the Board. Give me a break. They are materially benefiting from this war.

[SikMonkey]

First, I didn't say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. My point was that even though we knew Osama Bin Laden was an immediate threat, we did nothing and 9-11 was the result. When I said my friends who worked in the Pentagon said we had the intelligence to stop 9-11, I wasn't talking about Saddamite Insane. Seems GW used the simple logic I referred to earlier to figure out that if we left SH in power, 9-11 would repeat itself but with far worse consequences. If we didn't find any "hard evidence", we weren't looking hard enough.

Secondly, don't start with all this "Bush did this to the house and lied about this and he does this with the tax cut and class propegation and blah blah blah" to try and cast him in a negative light for his decision to go to war. Like I said, I will sleep better knowing SH isn't in power. As I also said, anyone who doesn't like it has the freedom to leave. That's one of the great things about this country.

p.s. - are we going to lunch Thursday?

Mj