The Iraq Thread 2

[ralphwiggum 6]

avon, please stop posting irrelevant comments.

you costed me my 8000th post.

and for precaution, anyone who mentions a thing about my 8000th post will earn a 24hr PR for posting OT comment.

[Schoeler 0]

Uh, that's nasty!   The oil price connection is the major thing that stabilizes the dollar. It's a brilliant economical arrangement - by tying the currency to a limited natural resource you guarantee a very stable value. So this is a very serious blow. Should this switch set a precedent for the rest of the world, it would be an unprecedented disaster for the US economy.

The price of oil is the thing that stabilizes most of the world's currencies.  The Dollar also stabilizes a lot of the global economy.  For example, the U.S. is responsible for around 28-30% of the global economic share.  But where things get really interesting is when you start to look into global economic growth.  Since 1995, over 60% of the global economic growth can be attributed in some way to U.S. spending, particularly foreign investment and consumer spending.  Also 60-70% of all dollars in circulation are being used abroad.  I think its somewhere between 11 and 17 nations that now actually use the dollar as their own currency.

Combine that with the fact that any oil price shock acts like a major tax increase in the U.S. economy driving down consumer spending and foreign investment, while simultaneously slowing U.S. economic growth (each $10 increase in the price per barrel slows the U.S. economy by as much as 0.5% out of an average 3% annual growth rate) and you have a lot of economic problems throughout the entire world.  Remember, the economy is now global.  Like it or not, all our economies are interelated in complex and often intangible manners.  Whats bad for the global economic leader is in effect bad for everyone.

I'm doing research on this right now for my class in international political economy, so I'll post some interesting articles on the role of oil in the global market place tomorrow.

[Acecombat 0]

Hi Acecombat

As hidebound as ever the similarities between your self Avon, FSPilot and Bernadotte are realy quite remarkable the four of you should get married; with such similar attitudes to life and those around you....

Walker, you know fuck all about my attitudes to life and those around me.

Ditto dude ...

Perhaps Mr. Walker is a marriage broker or something.

Quote[/b] ]Er missed that one it was not a ground swell of the American public that decided to invade Iraq it was the American Administration that invaded Iraq. The fact that it means the US media conive in fooling the american people is no different than the process in any other 'Power Elite'

*cough* wheres democracy *cough*

*cough* dictatorship *cough*

I thought you guys lected your leaders there doesnt that mean who you elect reprsents your country ?

[walker 0]

Hi Acecombat

For the record once again I am an Anarchist I dont vote. I just pay taxes and live in a country that is a democracy. Why do I continue to live there? It is where I was born my family are there and it is the only place in the world with Gritstone Climbing.

Lumping disparate peoples together is a habit that both you, Avon, FSPilot and Bernadotte have. I thought the four of you could do with a taste of it.

I fight against my government. I have been on my governments Awkward list since I was 20. This is not say I dont support wars. I did support the war against Iraq. I supported it because of the reasons given by TBA and TBA2.

I also want to see TBA and TBA2 removed from power if as now apears to be the case the WMD is not found.

I would have supported a war in Iraq to oust Sadam Husein and his regime if that had been the anounced reason for going to war but I would have prioritised it SLORC first. Then there would have been a medium size list of countries, where there is an opresive regime that has no curbs on its length of time in power or it was egaged in opressing people outside its borders or a significant minority whithin them.

For the record Saudi Arabia, The US and Israel are on that list and the UK keeps hopping on and off it but that could be down to the fact I get a higher exposure to pro UK media.

Do I expect any such thing to happen? No.

Will I stop arguing for it? No.

Would I prefer the changes to take place peacefully? Damn Right.

Would I be prepaired for it to take place over time if it saved lives? Probably. It is though sometimes worth people dieing for some causes yes even inocents.

Should the people who kill or cause the death of inocents suffer for their incompetance? Yep; if its worth dieing/killing for, it is certainly worth feeling guilty or going to jail for.

Example

A helicopter pilot/gunner is told to fire a rocket on a known terrorist.

The pilot/gunner is aware that there is a danger that inocents will be killed.

The pilot/gunner examines their personal ethics/morals and decides to fire.

Inocents are killed.

Should the pilot/gunner feel guilty? Yep.

Should they go to jail? That is for courts to decide. I guess it would depend where the court was.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Example

A helicopter pilot/gunner is told to fire a rocket on a known terrorist.

The pilot/gunner is aware that there is a danger that inocents will be killed.

The pilot/gunner examines their personal ethics/morals and decides to fire.

Inocents are killed.

Should the pilot/gunner feel guilty? Yep.

Nope.

Quote[/b] ]Should they go to jail?

Nope.

What do you do with the Geneva Convention, Part III, Section I, Articles 28 & 29? Quote:

Quote[/b] ]Article 28

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Article 29

The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

And what should the world do with buffoons that beg to spare these terrorist's live so that they can blow up a bus or cafe or supermarket the next day, only because they're Jewish, even if there isn't a weapon on a single one of them?

Don't go preaching ethics and morals to others when yours are so corrupt to begin with.

[walker 0]

Walker, you know f**k all about my attitudes to life and those around me.

Edited by me Walker **

Hi Bernadotte

You put them up on this forum for all to see.

You lump disparate peoples together.

As such your actions are part of the problem not the solution.

That you believe you are doing it for an ethical/moral reason I do not doubt.

As does the helicopter pilot/gunner in the example above.

Perhaps you should consider haveing the good grace to feel guilty about it.

To make it clear people are not their country or its Administration when you are talking about a countries Administration talk about that not the country or its people, because in doing so you are verbaly fireing on inocents as well.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

Does this make you feel happier

As it is exactly the same moral/ethical dilema

Example

A terrorist/freedom fighter is told to bomb a check point with known enemy army present.

The terrorist/freedom fighter is aware that there is a danger that inocents will be killed.

The terrorist/freedom fighter examines their personal ethics/morals and decides to explode the bomb.

Inocents are killed.

Should the terrorist/freedom fighter feel guilty? Yep.

Should they go to jail? That is for courts to decide. I guess it would depend where the court was.

Example

...Inocents are killed.

Should the pilot/gunner feel guilty? Yep.

Nope.

I think you need to reconsider this answer in the true light of your own ethics/morals as I am sure a real pilot/gunner does, and lives with the night mares. Perhaps you will better understand it if consider it like this

Quote[/b] ]Should the terrorist/freedom fighter feel guilty? Yep.

I suspect your original answer to be in haste and the heat of the moment.

Quote[/b] ]Should they go to jail?

Nope.

and in the impartial court of Avon they would not.

What do you do with the Geneva Convention, Part III, Section I, Articles 28 & 29? Quote:

Quote[/b] ]Article 28

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Yes it is a defence in law, for courts to decide. Nice to see you confirming the acceptance that such laws apply presumably in Israel/Palestine/the occupied teritories.

Does not stop the combatent from feeling guilty or having nightmares though.

Quote[/b] ]Article 29

The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

And what should the world do with buffoons that beg to spare these terrorist's live so that they can blow up a bus or cafe or supermarket the next day, only because they're Jewish, even if there isn't a weapon on a single one of them?

Err what buffoons?

To whom are you applying Article 29?

Don't go preaching ethics and morals to others when yours are so corrupt to begin with.

So you know: I will continue to preach my ethics/morals to who so ever will listen. Whether they are worth while is for the individual to decide.

By the way in what way do you find my

Quote[/b] ]...ethics and morals to others when yours are so corrupt to begin with.

Please be specific so that I may correct them.

Apology to the Mods for draging this thread into the Middle East thread not my intention and yet the result of my actions

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Walker, you know f**k all about my attitudes to life and those around me.

You put them up on this forum for all to see.

I rarely post in the Iraq thread and you know that.  So if you chose this thread to comment on my ME posts then you are truly a coward because; (1) you know that I probably wouldn't notice it and (2) a Mod would arrive to save you from any debate on my ME posts over here in this thread.

You lump disparate peoples together.

Really.  How do figure?

That you believe you are doing it for an ethical/moral reason I do not doubt.

LOL... Feel free to doubt it because it is not true.

To make it clear people are not their country when you are talking about a countries Administration talk about that not the country or its people, because in doing so you are verbaly fireing on inocents as well.

To make it even more clear, you are not referring to the Iraqi people, are you?  I've always made great efforts to distinguish the Palestinian and Israeli people from their respective governments.  Please show me where I have failed to keep it clear.

And if you do find the courage to respond to this or if you feel tempted to comment on my ME posts in the future then please don't try to hide them from me in other threads.

With Kindest Regards Bernadotte

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]For the record once again I am an Anarchist I dont vote. I just pay taxes and live in a country that is a democracy. Why do I continue to live there? It is where I was born my family are there and it is the only place in the world with Gritstone Climbing

Then someone explain to me what the **** the westerners cry for when they sook for democracy in areas where dictators are present , it means america (orwhere you live i am guessing) is a regime in itself which hides itself in words such as 'administration'

I mean you use the word TBA for bush and regime for saddam ?? The old clever word manipulative trick ...

I cant see how Saddam is different then Bush atm , both arent responsible for their acts , both do as they please , both lie to their people , both use their army's for their personal agendas.

It seems no western country allows it people to have a say in their foreign policy's which affect their image infront of others.In other words its a partially installed democracy , which is hijacked midway by bureaucrats in the higher corners of the govt.

Quote[/b] ]I would have supported a war in Iraq to oust Sadam Husein and his regime

Quote[/b] ]I also want to see TBA and TBA2 removed from power if as now apears to be the case the WMD is not found.

You are contradicting your ownself ...you are ready to demolish saddams regime with force yet , on facts which arent real

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

Since you replied in this thread you do at least read it.

So the danger of you missing the barb holds no water in reality but I accept some possiblity that you might not have seen it in theory. Not I hasten to add my intention. I would have drawn it to your attention in a PM at some point in the near future.

I see no MOD saving me I am probably infact in for a roasting for starting a flame war. "PS a mate not a MOD just warned me of the same"

In regards of the lumping disparate people together you use Israel in the same statements that you use PA in several of your posts. That you are in the main a considered person I do not doubt.

So the statement stands.

As ever Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

Would you people calm down a little.

Walker uses TBA for the Bush Admin. and TBA2 for the Blair Admin. , he is from England, the UK, or Britian. Americas 3 best allies.

Interesting views on the pilot firing rockets from someone............

[Acecombat 0]

Well my apologys then for summing you up as an american then walker

But still my argument stands on since you still live in a democracy i.e Britain or England or UK or whatever

[walker 0]

Hi Acecombat

Administration/Regime diference in degree of there

An Administration can theoreticly be removed by a vote at the end of a term in office or by legal means in the control of people employed to act as a check or balance.

A Regime can not; hence the need for war/revolution/peoples revolt.

Occasionaly democratic governments via manipulation of the media or religion or the predjudices of their peoples become elected regimes. As I said in my posts above I include the US and the UK in the list.

Westerners hmm disparate people lumped together I dont say arabs in that denegrating light please consider how you phrase things

As to removing Sadam via force. Yep I hold by that.

Your statement about those who support a decision to go to war hiding behind the adminstation is a perfectly valid one.

Statement of fact. I dont hide behind my countries administration. I do believe that the adminstration is the first port of call in reperations; check my posts on the matter.

Once again for the record: the country I live in went to war on a country the administration of the country I live said had WMD that was a threat to the country I live in. I supported that war on those grounds.

The Administration of the country I live in has not found said WMD or evidence of its existence. As a consequence if no WMD is found I believe my country must make such reperations as are considered reasonable to make restitution for the effects of said war.

Regime change was not the given reason for the use of force so the adminstration of country I live can not hide behind it.

Once again for the record I support military means to remove a government where there is an opresive regime that has no curbs on its length of time in power or it was egaged in opressing people outside its borders or a significant minority whithin them. I want the adminstration of the country I live in to make it clear before it aplies military force that that is the reason it is doing it and I want it consider what methods to apply the force in. I also want it to apply such force on a list of said regimes via list of priorities. SLORC would be at the top of such a list.

As to methods now that is a totaly different kettle of fish.

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Since you replied in this thread you do at least read it.

Rarely.  (...Because it's quite interesting and would take too much of my time.)

So the danger of you missing the barb holds no water in reality but I accept some possiblity that you might not have seen it in theory.  Not I hasten to add my intention.

I don't believe you.

I would have drawn it to your attention in a PM at some point in the near future.

I don't believe you.

In regards of the lumping disparate people together you use Israel in the same statements that you use PA in several of your posts.

I will refer to the government of the Palestinian people as Palestine as soon as such a state exists.  I often use the term Israel to refer to the Israeli government just as you and others have used the term US and Britain to refer to those governments.

So the statement stands.

...as a double standard.

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

Your beliefs are your own but facts are facts and here you are.

I am usualy carefull about refering to adminstrations rather than countries. Could you tell me the post where I mixed it up so I may apologise and correct it with a notified edit.

I am me not

Quote[/b] ]you and others

dont blame others for what I say.

So now you lump the Palestinian people in with their future goverment. people are not their country or its Administration an adminstration is and should be the servant of the people not the other way round and a country is just a coloured section on a map.

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Your beliefs are your own but facts are facts and here you are.

To use Walker-speak...

Fact:  That you believe you were going to PM me "at some point in the near future."

Fact:  That I don't believe you.

I am usualy carefull about refering to adminstrations rather than countries.

Using Israel to mean the Israeli government in a political context doesn't seem to be confusing to anyone else.  However, you have adopted this as your basis for lumping me together with AceCombat, theavonlady and FSPilot.  Are you on drugs?

I am me not "you and others" dont blame others for what I say.

And please don't blame AceCombat, theavonlady and FSPilot for what I say.  (There you go with the double standard again.)

So now you lump the Palestinian people in with their future goverment.

No I didn't.  Here is what I said once again, for your benefit:

I will refer to the government of the Palestinian people as Palestine as soon as such a state exists.

...people are not their country or its Administration ... and a country is just a coloured section on a map.

...perhaps, according to Walker-speak.  But I hope you'll forgive the rest of us for relying on the dictionary:

country  n.  A nation or state.  The territory of a nation or state; land.  <span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>The people of a nation or state;</span> populace: The whole country will profit from the new economic reforms.

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

This facts thing has you a bit confused does it not.

Can not have facts about beliefs they are either a belief or a fact and never the twain shall meet.

The lumping you, AceCombat, theavonlady and FSPilot together was perfectly reasonable with your similar beliefs about those around you but I do blame theavonlady for what you say and vice a versa and Acecombat for what FSPilot says and vice a versa.

Now have you nouse to fathom why?

Nation states hmm me Anarchist dont like the mucky things. Hear its a nice game though.

Kind Regards Walker

PS is the Avatar you use Sid?

[Crazysheep 1]

Enough with the personal arguments.......that's what PMs are for, and it's boring for me (and probably others, know I shouldn't just think of myself) since I just use this forum as a news resource and rarely post.

[walker 0]

Sorry Crazysheep

I will now desist

Kind Regards And much apologies to all walker

[Bernadotte 0]

This facts thing has you a bit confused does it not.

Not just me, be assured.  Remind me not to try Walker-speak again.

In more direct terms, it may be a fact that you claimed that you were going to send a PM, but that doesn't mean you weren't lying.

The lumping you, AceCombat, theavonlady and FSPilot together was perfectly reasonable with your similar beliefs about those around you...

Again, merely claiming that a statement is perfectly reasonable is not necessarily enough to convince others that the statement is not perfectly absurd.

Walker, I strongly recommend being more specific and citing reasonable examples if you don't want to be regarded as an elitist arrogant blowhard.  Btw, you can always spot a phoney anarchist as one who ultimately adopts the methods of those he opposes.

[Akira 0]

So....

How about those Cubs?

[Schoeler 0]

Well my apologys then for summing you up as an american then walker  

But still my argument stands on since you still live in a democracy i.e Britain or England or UK or whatever  

We DO NOT live in a democracy. The United States is a representative republic. This means that the people DO NOT make the decisions of our government. We DO however decide who does get to make those decisions for us. The problem is, once those people are elected it takes 2 years to replace them if they are in Congress, 6 years to replace them if they are in the Senate and 4 years to replace them if they are the President. If they are on the Supreme Court, we don't get the option of replacing them at all. This means that in a representative republic, the people in power can enact and implement powerful and quick changes to our government and its agenda, while any change by mandate of the people is slow in coming. The mandate of the people of America will be seen in November of 2004. If we retain the Bush Administration, you can bitch about us as a people then. Until then my suggestion is simply to keep your mouth shut, or, and here's a giant intellectual leap, actually learn something about the things you are arguing about.

[denoir 0]

Here's a bit of good news. Just shows what a good job good old fashioned diplomacy can do. No need for saber rattling. Bush & Co should take notes.

[EiZei 0]

Here's a bit of good news. Just shows what a good job good old fashioned diplomacy can do. No need for saber rattling. Bush & Co should take notes.

But it was from the beginning about liberating the poor opressed iraqis? right? RIGHT?!

[Bernadotte 0]

Here's a bit of good news. Just shows what a good job good old fashioned diplomacy can do. No need for saber rattling. Bush & Co should take notes.

But it was from the beginning about liberating the poor opressed iraqis? right? RIGHT?!

It was about saving the world from the threat of Iraqi WMDs.

Well, actually it was about saving the US, Britain and Iraq's Mid East neighbours from WMDs.

Alright, maybe it was only about saving Iraq's Mid East neighbours.

Err... Better change that to one of Iraq's Mid East neighbours.

In fact, not even a nextdoor neighbour.