View Single Post
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

frlcnt wrote:
>>You forget that we had over forty nations
>>supporting us in the build up to war.

>
> You mean like these:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html
>
> Yep, Latvia has our back.
>
> Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the
> nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant


You elitist snob.

> and even they
> were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about
> the presence of weapons of mass destruction.


Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war. Those reasons
are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David
Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media
overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed.

Here, read it yourself you old cow:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml

Please note the following:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities
and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from
the United Nations.

The very scale of this programme when coupled with the
conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of
Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move
to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

Etc.

The Iraqi people are much better off than they were. Once again you're
on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central America, and
you're choosing it again. Shame on you.

>>More are now coming on board. Even
>>our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the
>>French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing.

>
> Are you sure that's a done deal?


Others coming onboard? Yes.

>>I was addressing the United States population.

>
> The US population was bamboozled right along with Ethiopia. Right-wing
> zealots, like you, believe anything the State Department tells them.


Your opinions are way off base. Conservatives are generally wary of what
transpires at Foggy Bottom. Please count me in the wary group, so long
as the career officers run the show.

> You're dangerous.


Thanks, I'm glad my presence and my opinions bother you.

>>If you disagree that a
>>majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find
>>whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations
>>have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts.

>
> The highest approval rating I could find was 73%.


Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration.

> This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of
> mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE.


Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already
uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN
resolutions. Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be
corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then?

> Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend
> serving in the military.


Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines.

> This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a
> matter of personal interest than political support.


Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or
reserves if they'd support these actions and see. The kind of people you
find in military families are the kind you don't like; they tend to
believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their
President regardless of party. I think you're really reaching in trying
to minimize the level, and depth, of support.

What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed
the war?

> (snip)
>
>>>(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
>>>Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

>>
>>Plenty of reasons.

>
> Like?


Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most
unconscionable manner. His repression served only himself, his family,
and his cronies; the rest of Iraq languished. Like our other wars, we
will leave the nation better off than we found it. Power is restored,
schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure
and hospitals.

Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran.
Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan. With Saddam out of play, the
Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD
programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along). The fact
that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to
withdraw our troops from that nation.

Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists
safe passage in and through his borders. We attacked one al-Qaeda camp
in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions. Saddam had Abu Abbas
killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've
forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship
Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi)
received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in
Afghanistan.

> (snip)
>
>>This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
>>vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
>>and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
>>according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
>>full display.

>
> If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as
> a matter of their personal choice?


Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus
protected from such actions.

> I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a
> duck is blasted out of the sky.


Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected. Whitetails are more likely to
bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from
arrows or bullets. Do you also seek to ban driving?

> (snip)
>>>In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
>>>tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
>>>majority.

>>
>>Animals are neither tortured

>
> Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or
> burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily
> granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the
> study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and
> Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because
> no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus.


No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important
research.

>>or murdered.
>>specific legal definition.

>
> Bullshit!


No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact
rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still
hyperbole.

> People can use language in whatever way they want to
> highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word.


I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point
out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with
your feelings, I'll lead with intellect.

> Lucily, it's not
> within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese.


Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just
know that it isn't intellectually stimulating. You'll only preach to
your choir.

> Kittens suffocated to study cot death are murdered, senselessly, cruelly
> murdered.


Only according to your emotive use of the word, which really means "the
unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated
malice." To parse what you said, kittens are not human and do not fit
the definition; and in such circumstances as you allude, they aren't
killed with malice, but rather with the intent to expand knowledge. Go
ahead and emote, you're still wrong.

>>I know you don't care about specific
>>definitions in your rush to condemn others,

>
> Language is a living thing. You have to accept this.


Oh, but I do. Words DO have meanings, though, and it's something you
also must accept.

>>but you're not sincere

>
> Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that
> people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All
> this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe.


You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for
others and other species. You are misanthropic, and you only use
"compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind.

>>you
>>are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
>>processes among their own species

>
> Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes.
> What's your point?


Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have
rights -- ontologically, naturally, or legally.

> The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows
> them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them
> are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're
> more socialized than humans.


Anthropomorphism and misanthropy.

<...>
>>ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized
>>minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists.

>
> Terrorists kill non-combatant people without prior warning.


Killing isn't the aim of terrorists. It's not easy to scare those whom
you kill. Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault,
it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation
rather than reason.

> AR activists are liberators and vandals.


No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of
violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts
mainly because you have neither. Your views are radical and have no
popular appeal, which is why public sentiments are growing against your
radical movement.

Does liberation include setting loose animals which will kill livestock
and other members of its own species who aren't littermates? That's
insane, Mary. You're only a lawless and antisocial charlatan. Your
principles shallow and your contempt for mankind is deep.

>>Review the
>>list of articles in my previous replies to you.

>
> If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists?


You'll find text of your nasty little communique about Huntingdon, as
well as news accounts about ALF/ELF terror activities.