Porn In Iraq

[Tony]

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200309102135000223216&dt=20030910213500&w=RTR&coview= ..full article

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Outside the cinemas on Saadoun Street, groups of men loiter round film posters of naked women, whose private parts are crudely super-imposed with underwear drawn in colored pen.

Behind doors in Baghdad's main movie strip, there is no such teasing.

Barely a seat is empty as hundreds of men, most puffing cigarettes, sit in total silence and darkness to enjoy scenes of nudity and sex for 1,000 Iraqi dinars ($0.50) a time.


The irony is that the "liberals" who opposed the war would be condemning the Iraqis to the same oppression that they themselves oppose in this country. Hypocrisy abounds on the left.

[Mr Manifesto]

Yes. Only 6000+ civilians had to die, with massive damage to Iraq's infrastructure, plus years of hardship under the US-lead sanctions, for Iraqi men today to enjoy nudie pics. I feel so hypocritical.

[Furious]

Forget Iraqis looking at nudie pics, I want nudie pics of naked female Iraqis! :roll:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Yes. Only 6000+ civilians had to die, with massive damage to Iraq's infrastructure, plus years of hardship under the US-lead sanctions, for Iraqi men today to enjoy nudie pics. I feel so hypocritical.

:confused:

I must agree.

I must say, I think it's nice and all that Iraqis now have access to porn. But jeez, was it really worth it?

For some reason, I don't think this is exactly what the Bush administration had in mind when they talked about bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. I wonder how many of the fundy crowd of Bush supporters are happy about it?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Yes. Only 6000+ civilians had to die, with massive damage to Iraq's infrastructure, plus years of hardship under the US-lead sanctions, for Iraqi men today to enjoy nudie pics. I feel so hypocritical.

You decry the crippling effect of sanctions, then claim Saddam was no threat because the sanctions kept him confined. You should feel hypocritical.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Furious
Forget Iraqis looking at nudie pics, I want nudie pics of naked female Iraqis! :roll:

I'm sure you can find them on the internet somewhere.

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help, hell I say we can make them all states for that matter if they want to become states, but I'm opposed to a president lying to the public to get support for a war that is desinged to help a few people make billions of dollars and secure American intersts at the expence of the Iraqis.

I'm sure that this will end up being better than having done nothing at all, but I also think that there were many, many,, many better and more honest ways to help the Iraqis, which could certianly included war, just a different kind of war with different objectives and different level of international support and an honest agenda with the American public.

Let's face it, the true irony here is that most people who did support the war would probably not have supported a war that was purely billed as a way to help the Iraqi people, and many of those that opposed the war, including myself would have supported a war that was billed as purely designed to help the Iraqi people.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help

Just out of curioisity, how exaclty are you going to tell when a country wants US help, if the country is run by a dictator who doesn't allow people to express their opinions?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I'm sure you can find them on the internet somewhere.

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help, hell I say we can make them all states for that matter if they want to become states, but I'm opposed to a president lying to the public to get support for a war that is desinged to help a few people make billions of dollars and secure American intersts at the expence of the Iraqis.

I'm sure that this will end up being better than having done nothing at all, but I also think that there were many, many,, many better and more honest ways to help the Iraqis, which could certianly included war, just a different kind of war with different objectives and different level of international support and an honest agenda with the American public.

Let's face it, the true irony here is that most people who did support the war would probably not have supported a war that was purely billed as a way to help the Iraqi people, and many of those that opposed the war, including myself would have supported a war that was billed as purely designed to help the Iraqi people.

Jesus Christ emblazoned on a water tower. For once I actually agree completely with M. Direct statement, no innuendo, to the point. My hat is off.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help, hell I say we can make them all states for that matter if they want to become states, but I'm opposed to a president lying to the public to get support for a war that is desinged to help a few people make billions of dollars and secure American intersts at the expence of the Iraqis.


How do you figure it was at the expense of the Iraqis? Many thousands more people were dying from inadequate medical care because Saddam funneled off money from the oil for food program to continue his construction of palaces than died in our invasion. And do you actually have any evidence that a few people are going to make billions (not just money, but billions of dollars) on Iraq, or are you just exagerating to make a point about cronyism?


I'm sure that this will end up being better than having done nothing at all, but I also think that there were many, many, many better and more honest ways to help the Iraqis, which could certianly included war, just a different kind of war with different objectives and different level of international support and an honest agenda with the American public.


War was the only thing that could fundamentally change the situation in Iraq. There's plenty of specifics to be critical about, there always are in such large operations, and I'm not a fan of the way much of it was handled either. But it needed to be done. I'm glad to see that you're acknowleging that aspect of the question to a degree that I haven't seen you do before. As for the military action itself (setting aside questions of diplomacy regarding other countries' participation), is there actually anything you would have done differently?


Let's face it, the true irony here is that most people who did support the war would probably not have supported a war that was purely billed as a way to help the Iraqi people, and many of those that opposed the war, including myself would have supported a war that was billed as purely designed to help the Iraqi people.

That's presumptuous of you to claim that you know what war supporters would have done had the case for invasion been based only on human rights issues. But here's a little question for you: why, exactly, does the way the war was "billed" determine whether or not it was the right thing to do? If it was a good thing to take out Saddam for humanitarian reasons, why does someone else having a different reason for wanting to take him out change that? I don't think it does.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200309102135000223216&dt=20030910213500&w=RTR&coview= ..full article




The irony is that the "liberals" who opposed the war would be condemning the Iraqis to the same oppression that they themselves oppose in this country. Hypocrisy abounds on the left.

That is so sweeeet!

Thousands dead and wounded, hundreds of billions spent, all just to make it safe for people to publicly sell porn in Iraq.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Jesus Christ emblazoned on a water tower. For once I actually agree completely with M. Direct statement, no innuendo, to the point. My hat is off. You're a commie, Ed. A flaming, pinko, marxist commie.

:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed:You're a commie, Ed. A flaming, pinko, marxist commie.

:D

Yup and I'm moving to Denmark:D

I ever tell you my idea about licensing all that neat commie imagery after the fall of the iron curtin? I mean the powerful stuff with Lenin looking stern and indecipherable cyrillic script with marching, ernest looking young men and women workers? http://www.iisg.nl/exhibitions/affiche/met/l03-212.jpg

I figured I could reuse the images for capitolist marketing purposes. Hell, I'd even wear one of silly commie hats that that fat chinese guy wore.

Think of a nice, powerful picture of Stalin selling Condoms for example.

"Protect yourself the way the state protects you: Vulcanized Commiedoms, all protection, no feel"

Great send up stuff, I assure you.

Problem was that since they didn't believe in copyright (their stuff was so turgid that I guess that they figured "why bother") the images are all sorta in the public domain. I could break my commiedom campaign and the next thing you know Che would be hawking "Red" tomatoes, of Fidel toilet seats and so on.

Another great marketing idea that never was ...sigh...

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Yup and I'm moving to Denmark :D AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Was that too subtle? :D)
Another great marketing idea that never was ...sigh... I've had hundreds. "Shades for mammoths". Never worked out.

It's tough being a pioneer.

[American]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I'm sure you can find them on the internet somewhere.

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help, hell I say we can make them all states for that matter if they want to become states, but I'm opposed to a president lying to the public to get support for a war that is desinged to help a few people make billions of dollars and secure American intersts at the expence of the Iraqis.

I'm sure that this will end up being better than having done nothing at all, but I also think that there were many, many,, many better and more honest ways to help the Iraqis, which could certianly included war, just a different kind of war with different objectives and different level of international support and an honest agenda with the American public.

Let's face it, the true irony here is that most people who did support the war would probably not have supported a war that was purely billed as a way to help the Iraqi people, and many of those that opposed the war, including myself would have supported a war that was billed as purely designed to help the Iraqi people.


Bizarre. You're clearly aligned with a certain group, but you've just committed blasphemy against their mantra on american foreign policy (regardless of who is or isn't president).

I still don't get you.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
Bizarre. You're clearly aligned with a certain group, but you've just committed blasphemy against their mantra on american foreign policy (regardless of who is or isn't president).

I still don't get you.
Gosh, could this possibly mean that your good/bad, black/white, liberal/conservative ways of dividing the people of the world are not completely foolproof? Did you know that conservatives are clearly aligned with religious zealots? Does that describe you? No? Guess what! People can have different views on different issues. I hope this doesn't spray multicolored graffitti on your black and white mural of the world.

And speaking of this, the thread started with Tony making an assumption that liberals oppose pornography. Duh. Liberals are usually in favor of freedom of expression. It is conservatives like Ashcroft that cover naked statues.

[Lord Kenneth]

*sheds a tear*

Freedom... it's so beautiful... and erotic...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

And speaking of this, the thread started with Tony making an assumption that liberals oppose pornography. Duh. Liberals are usually in favor of freedom of expression. It is conservatives like Ashcroft that cover naked statues.

Huh? I made no such assumption. How did you arrive @ that conclusion?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ed


Yup and I'm moving to Denmark:D

I ever tell you my idea about licensing all that neat commie imagery after the fall of the iron curtin? I mean the powerful stuff with Lenin looking stern and indecipherable cyrillic script with marching, ernest looking young men and women workers? http://www.iisg.nl/exhibitions/affiche/met/l03-212.jpg


In case anyone cares, the subtitle of the Image reads: "What the October revolution gave the female worker and the female farmer."

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Malachi151

As far as I am concerned I support global American military action to overthrow all dictators and help any country that wants US help, hell I say we can make them all states for that matter if they want to become states, but I'm opposed to a president lying to the public to get support for a war that is desinged to help a few people make billions of dollars and secure American intersts at the expence of the Iraqis.

I'm sure that this will end up being better than having done nothing at all, but I also think that there were many, many,, many better and more honest ways to help the Iraqis, which could certianly included war, just a different kind of war with different objectives and different level of international support and an honest agenda with the American public.

Let's face it, the true irony here is that most people who did support the war would probably not have supported a war that was purely billed as a way to help the Iraqi people, and many of those that opposed the war, including myself would have supported a war that was billed as purely designed to help the Iraqi people.

Wow. Ed beat me to it, but I agree almost completely ("almost" because I'm not sure I'll give blanket support to "any" country or to overthrow "any" dictator; I'm a bit more reserved based on limited capabilities).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh? I made no such assumption. How did you arrive @ that conclusion?
I interpreted this quote:
The irony is that the "liberals" who opposed the war would be condemning the Iraqis to the same oppression that they themselves oppose in this country. Hypocrisy abounds on the left.
To mean that the "women's rights" liberals were opressing the Iraqis by trying to deprive them of porn. If this is not the case, then what exactly are you accusing liberals of?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tricky

I interpreted this quote:

To mean that the "women's rights" liberals were opressing the Iraqis by trying to deprive them of porn. If this is not the case, then what exactly are you accusing liberals of?

10 bucks says you will still not understand his point even after he has another attempt at expressing it.....

I think Tony saw a great troll thread in the making but his literary skills just came up short.....

I initially thought he was applying for the JREF money as he seemed to be claiming an ability to read the minds of all "liberals".

So what is it Tony? claiming mindreading abilities or just another quiet night out trolling?

[LW]

Originally posted by Grammatron

In case anyone cares, the subtitle of the Image reads: "What the October revolution gave the female worker and the female farmer."

I got the October revolution, worker, and farmer parts, but my Russian run short of understanding the rest of the sentence.

But then again, I've learned most of my Russian from old books about WWII.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You decry the crippling effect of sanctions, then claim Saddam was no threat because the sanctions kept him confined. You should feel hypocritical.

Another false dichotomy, brought to you by Ziggurat.

You can have sanctions that prevent countries from obtaining WMD's. But these sanctions were ridiculous- they were 'comprehensive' (read: blanket) sanctions that kept medicines and foods that would never be used as weapons from getting to the Iraqi people.

Like to learn more? Click here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/index.htm).

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Crossbow


That is so sweeeet!

Thousands dead and wounded, hundreds of billions spent, all just to make it safe for people to publicly sell porn in Iraq.


Though I, personally, was against war, the billions spent were NOT for people to sell porn in Iraq...It`s just a side effect of a freer society.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron


In case anyone cares, the subtitle of the Image reads: "What the October revolution gave the female worker and the female farmer."

No, you have it wrong. It reads

"Stayfree Maxis: Can absorb the whole State"

The hammer in her hand is "The easy applicator device that comes with every box"

The thought was that I wouldn't really change the captions, just overprint with a "translation".

It is pretty catchy though.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Was that too subtle? :D)


Oh, yes, my friend. You, me, your extended family scratching out an existance on the wind-swept tundra! Fighting off herds of hyper-agressive Tundra Mammoths(tm) with the only weapons a peace loving socialist state leaves it's citizens: Unsharpened Imperial Elk Antlers.

Yes, we will gambol and frolic on the tundra during the 15 minute day and then drink ourselves into oblivian during the 23 hour 45 min. night.

I will orate for you, your family, assembled dire wolves, tundra mammoths(tm) and the entire 237 person strong population of Copenhagen my New Socialistic-Communistic world order wherin everything comes to me. Soc-com (pronounced "soak 'em) will use as it's symbol the conjoined, writhing, naked bodies of "Uncle Joe" Stalin and Che, forever symbolizing something too good and pure for me to write down here.

Yes, and the cry of pleasure and understanding from the hairy, fur clad multitudes will be as foreshadowed by your own:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could not say it better myself.:D

http://www.linie.de/deutsch/produktinfo/images/bild_produktinfo.jpg

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You can have sanctions that prevent countries from obtaining WMD's. But these sanctions were ridiculous- they were 'comprehensive' (read: blanket) sanctions that kept medicines and foods that would never be used as weapons from getting to the Iraqi people.


The food for oil program DID allow plenty of food and medicine to go to Iraq. Saddam just happened not to care about that, prefering to divert funds for his own purposes. The blame lies on his shoulders, not those who imposed the sanctions.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001682127_sanctions31.html

Sanctions did not prevent the sale of medical equipment to Iraq. But here's the kind of medical equipment Saddam was actually interested in purchasing:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/lithotripter.html

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


The food for oil program DID allow plenty of food and medicine to go to Iraq. Saddam just happened not to care about that, prefering to divert funds for his own purposes. The blame lies on his shoulders, not those who imposed the sanctions.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001682127_sanctions31.html

Sanctions did not prevent the sale of medical equipment to Iraq. But here's the kind of medical equipment Saddam was actually interested in purchasing:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/lithotripter.html

Did you read my link, Zig? Oh, you didn't.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

To mean that the "women's rights" liberals were opressing the Iraqis by trying to deprive them of porn. If this is not the case, then what exactly are you accusing liberals of?


Ok, I thought you would be able to understand, but I guess I have to spell it out.


The right to look at porn is a right "liberals", traditionally, have supported, while "conservatives" have opposed or tried to control. By opposing this war and the liberation of the Iraqi people, you would be condeming the iraqis to the same oppression you oppose in america.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


10 bucks says you will still not understand his point even after he has another attempt at expressing it.....

I think Tony saw a great troll thread in the making but his literary skills just came up short.....

I initially thought he was applying for the JREF money as he seemed to be claiming an ability to read the minds of all "liberals".

So what is it Tony? claiming mindreading abilities or just another quiet night out trolling?

I wouldn’t expect you to understand, being one of the more ignorant people here. You can’t even tell the difference between religion and race.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



Ok, I thought you would be able to understand, but I guess I have to spell it out.


The right to look at porn is a right "liberals", traditionally, have supported, while "conservatives" have opposed or tried to control. By opposing this war and the liberation of the Iraqi people, you would be condeming the iraqis to the same oppression you oppose in america.

So let me see if I have this right, according to the TLOP (Tony Logic of Porno):

Those who supported the war are Liberals since the war has enabled people to sell porn in Iraq.
Whereas those who did not support the war are Conservatives since it was illegal to sell porn in Iraq while Saddam was in charge.

Right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow


So let me see if I have this right, according to the TLOP (Tony Logic of Porno):

Those who supported the war are Liberals since the war has enabled people to sell porn in Iraq.
Whereas those who did not support the war are Conservatives since it was illegal to sell porn in Iraq while Saddam was in charge.

Right?

Wrong

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Did you read my link, Zig? Oh, you didn't.

Which part? The link you posted had NO information on sanctions on the page itself, just various links to other pages, some of which did contain information on the sanctions. I browsed through some of them, but I'm not going to dig through everything when it's not even clear to me what your point is. Is there some page IN PARTICULAR you think I should be reading? Is there actually some fact you want to point out? Or do you just want to pretend that being able to post a link to a site critical of the sanctions proves something? And are you claiming that this site presents some sort of objective treatment of the issue?

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, no wonder you didn't read it.

Try this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm) link.

My bad. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Ok, I thought you would be able to understand, but I guess I have to spell it out.


The right to look at porn is a right "liberals", traditionally, have supported, while "conservatives" have opposed or tried to control. By opposing this war and the liberation of the Iraqi people, you would be condeming the iraqis to the same oppression you oppose in america.
Ah, I see. That was somewhat byzantine, but I now see what you are saying. However, you are using the logical fallacy of Argument by extended analogy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#extended_analogy). To oppose the war does not mean I oppose freedom for the Iraqi people. I simply don't think this was the way to do it. We have replaced one set of evils with another.

BTW, I'm guessing that you have no problem with porn either. Does that make you a liberal?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Well, no wonder you didn't read it.

Try this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm) link.

My bad. :D

:) OK. I'm in the process right now. So far, what I've gotten out of it is that sanctions were far from optimal. It was a huge operation and the US was ham-fisted in its approach. But it seems to be brushing under the rug all the reasons that motivated the US to try to crack down and tighten the sanctions. For example, it says "a dispute over pricing methods has greatly reduced Iraq’s oil sales" without giving any information about what this dispute was. I'm not positive yet if this is what they're refering to, but I know one serious issue was that Iraq was basically selling way below market value in order to get illegal kickbacks and favors (which could be used to circumvent sanctions, by smuggling through Syria for example), and the US wanted to change the way pricing was arranged to crack down on this. No mention of that at all. In fact, I'm seeing little mention so far about Saddam's abuse of the program. Proposals such as "Free trade (excepting military goods) must be re-established" sound nice, but I remain unconvinced that this is workable - that is, that you can prevent the smuggling of military goods in a basically free trade environment. Other proposals, such as "It [Iraq] will renounce all plans to buy, build or use weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems" are patently ridiculous. Saddam's word is worse than useless, how can anyone possibly think that he would really give up the pursuit of such weapons permanently? That they even ask for such a promise basically shows that they have little concept of the threat Saddam really represented, and consequently I have no faith that they actually thought hard about how to ensure that Saddam could not continue his weapons programs under the conditions that they would prefer for Iraq sanctions. And for a page that presents itself as arguing against sanctions on humanitarian grounds to say that the “No-Fly zones” should be eliminated is ironic in the extreme. The no-fly zone is what kept Saddam from committing more masacres of the Kurds. But the authors don't seem to notice or care, as far as I can tell.

In other words, I remain very much unconvinced by this page.

[Mr Manifesto]

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree.

[nightwind]

Oh, my gosh. Iraqis sitting around watching porn. Now we will probably see an increase in both pimples and insanity in the Iraqis. What have we done? :eek:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by nightwind
Oh, my gosh. Iraqis sitting around watching porn. Now we will probably see an increase in both pimples and insanity in the Iraqis. What have we done? :eek:

It's only a matter of time now till "Fedayeen gone Wild!" hits the shelves. Then our victory will be complete! :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Ah, I see. That was somewhat byzantine, but I now see what you are saying. However, you are using the logical fallacy of Argument by extended analogy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#extended_analogy). To oppose the war does not mean I oppose freedom for the Iraqi people. I simply don't think this was the way to do it. We have replaced one set of evils with another.



Once again you misunderstand. Im not saying "liberals" opposed freedom for the Iraqi people, but "liberals" were willing to let them rot under the yoke of tyranny.

BTW, I'm guessing that you have no problem with porn either. Does that make you a liberal?

I dunno, you tell me.

:)

[clk]

Originally posted by Tricky

However, you are using the logical fallacy of Argument by extended analogy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#extended_analogy).

Ah...his argument looked kind of like a strawman, but not quite, so I wasn't sure what kind of fallacy it was. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk


Ah...his argument looked kind of like a strawman, but not quite, so I wasn't sure what kind of fallacy it was. Thanks for pointing that out.

The only fallacy is in Tricky's comprehension of my point. No offence Tricky. :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Once again you misunderstand. Im not saying "liberals" opposed freedom for the Iraqi people, but "liberals" were willing to let them rot under the yoke of tyranny.
I don't really misunderstand you, and I know you truly believe that the war was for a good purpose. Actually, I agree that the purpose was good, but the methods were bad. I feel that we replaced tyranny with "slightly better tyranny", and I don't think it was worth the cost in lives or dollars.


Tricky said
BTW, I'm guessing that you have no problem with porn either. Does that make you a liberal?
Originally posted by Tony
I dunno, you tell me. :)
Okay I will. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Nobody can be catagorized with a single word. Remember that.

[peptoabysmal]

Barely a seat is empty as hundreds of men, most puffing cigarettes, sit in total silence and darkness to enjoy scenes of nudity and sex for 1,000 Iraqi dinars ($0.50) a time.


Hey, they can smoke indoors! Perhaps Iraqis have more freedoms than the US? :eek:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Tricky said
BTW, I'm guessing that you have no problem with porn either. Does that make you a liberal?

Okay I will. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Nobody can be catagorized with a single word. Remember that.


What issues am I conservative on? I can't think of any.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I feel that we replaced tyranny with "slightly better tyranny", and I don't think it was worth the cost in lives or dollars.


That has yet to be seen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually, I agree that the purpose was good, but the methods were bad.


What methods were bad?

[Pyrian]

Tony:
What methods were bad?1) Pissing off the rest of the civilized world.

2) Failing to send in enough troops to maintain any semblance of order or even to protect the few sites we promised to protect.

3) Cost: contrast the price tag footed by the U.S. tax payer as compared to the previous Gulf War. If you want to be really amusing, compare it in percentage terms.

From the standpoint of pure military victory, it's hard to argue with the results in terms of accomplishing a basic occupation with minimal force. Unfortunately, very basic objectives remain unaccomplished, and we really can't leave until Saddam is accounted for.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pyrian
1) Pissing off the rest of the civilized world.


Doing the right thing isn't always popular.

2) Failing to send in enough troops to maintain any semblance of order or even to protect the few sites we promised to protect.

That was more of a mistake than a method.

What sites are you talking about?

3) Cost: contrast the price tag footed by the U.S. tax payer as compared to the previous Gulf War. If you want to be really amusing, compare it in percentage terms.

Apples and oranges.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Oh, yes, my friend. You, me, your extended family scratching out an existance on the wind-swept tundra! Fighting off herds of hyper-agressive Tundra Mammoths(tm) with the only weapons a peace loving socialist state leaves it's citizens: Unsharpened Imperial Elk Antlers.Hmmm. Gotta admit, this doesn't sound too bad.
Yes, we will gambol and frolic on the tundra during the 15 minute day and then drink ourselves into oblivian during the 23 hour 45 min. night. Better and better!
I will orate for you, your family, assembled dire wolves, tundra mammoths(tm) and the entire 237 person strong population of Copenhagen my New Socialistic-Communistic world order wherin everything comes to me. Soc-com (pronounced "soak 'em) will use as it's symbol the conjoined, writhing, naked bodies of "Uncle Joe" Stalin and Che, forever symbolizing something too good and pure for me to write down here.(Just when it sounded like paradise). Will we really have to listen to your sermons? Remember, most of the huddled masses would rather be drinking themselves into oblivion, and everyone is armed with sharpened antlers!
Yes, and the cry of pleasure and understanding from the hairy, fur clad multitudes will be as foreshadowed by your own:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could not say it better myself.:D It seems you are not aware that the above is the traditional battlecry of mammoth hunters kept waiting from imbibing fermented mammoth milk. The imminent violence upon the source of delay, usually isn't pretty.:D

[Pyrian]

Tony:
Doing the right thing isn't always popular.Weren't you the one talking about apples and oranges? I didn't say it was wrong to invade Iraq, I supported the argument that the methods were bad, including the worst diplomacy I've seen in my lifetime.Tony:2) Failing to send in enough troops to maintain any semblance of order or even to protect the few sites we promised to protect.That was more of a mistake than a method.

What sites are you talking about?A mistake rather than a method? What kind of semantic nonsense are you trying to wiggle away with, here? I could be referring to any number of sites, but the specific issue is with rampant post-invasion looting in general.Tony:3) Cost: contrast the price tag footed by the U.S. tax payer as compared to the previous Gulf War. If you want to be really amusing, compare it in percentage terms.Apples and oranges.Good apples and rotten oranges at best. But in point of fact, I think money and invasions compare rather nicely, especially of the same country. At worst we'd have to adjust for inflation and a wider goal - and then adjust back for the pathetic state of Iraq's military. The conclusions are inescapable - I'm paying for this invasion and I didn't have to pay for the last one. This relates directly to point 1, BTW.

[Leroy]

Barely a seat is empty as hundreds of men, most puffing cigarettes, sit in total silence and darkness to enjoy scenes of nudity and sex for 1,000 Iraqi dinars ($0.50) a time.

OMG! JESUS CHRIST! HOLY CRAP! what was your point to this idiotic thread? Was it to somehow justify the war on Iraq? What was it?

What about porn in the U.S. you numbnuts!

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Tony


The only fallacy is in Tricky's comprehension of my point. No offence Tricky. :)


And I ask again, what was your point to this thread? :confused: