Steve Nash getting trashed on WBAP (820) right now - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 08:14 PM

<< >> Mavdog the matter with Iraq is very simple. 12 years ago they invaded a soverign nation took control of it for oil.

The procedure was to utilize the UN for that removal and campaign, and the UN voted to do so. We should have that same UN mandate today before attacking Iraq. >>

And do what? You mean do what the 1441 resolution says that was agreed to unanimously? Iraq has NOT lived up to the cease fire agreement in '91 and this is your LAST CHANCE TO DISARM OR SERIOUS CONSEQENCES WILL OCCUR. What's ambiguous about that? So do YOU (and Nash) think he is disarming?? Do you think he has destroyed his antrhax, smallpost, etc.? Is he actively disarming? Has it NOT been 4 MONTHS since 1441? Has he not JUST NOW began to destroy missiles that he said he did NOT have? If the US attacked today, they would be doing NO MORE than what 1441 said.

<< >> They committed atrocious crimes against humanity comparable to what the Nazis' did although not on so grand a scale. We forceibly removed the Iraqi occupying forces and reached an agreement with Iraq to cease fire. Since that time Saddam has consitetantly violated the terms of that cease fire agreement.

Those violations should be dealt with under the same process as before, which was not a unilateral action by the US. >>

You mean NOT AT ALL, as 12 years has shown.

<< [i]>> Techincally that is an act of war. So you could say he has declared war on us repeatedly for 12 years. He has also aided Al Qeda and other groups which have attacked the US.

This is just what Steve is referring to in asking for more research. What factual evidence is there that Saddam has "aided Al Queda and other groups"? None that I have seen.[q/]
Does Sadaam Hussein support terrorism? Does sadaam hussein promote the overthrow of the US?

ARE YOU willing to place your childrens lives in the hope that Sadaam Hussein will NOT give a terrorist WMDS? If you are, you are stupid. Just my opinion.

<< >> So we have everyright to frocibly remove Saddam and other Iraqi elite because they have attacked us.

Show where an attack has been done, to refer to Al Queda and 9-11 is not supported by any facts. Just because Saddam is a muslim, and an enemy of the US, does not prove that he is involved with Al Queda. Are you aware that the Baath Party, which Saddam heads, is secular in philosophy? That puts The Baath Party in direct comflict with the principles of the Islamist movement Al Queda is a part of. >>

What proof do you want? Do you want videotape? If an al queda terrorist uses one of his WMDS on the US is that enough?? How will we prove it? Why do you care so much that sadaam hussein stays in power? Why do you care so much that he continues to build WMDs? Why would YOU put your trust in him? What proof do YOU have that Al Queda performed 911?? Do you have tapes? Have you seen it? It's insane to put miranda rights and courtroom-like proof on this.

<< >> Your argument about invading every country that has weapons of mass destruction is either very naive or totally stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Great use of rhetoric to not answer the question. There are numerous countries that have WMD, should we invade all of them? >>

What are you talking about?? This is a red herring. We are not talking about just ANY country, but one that supports and houses terrorists. And a country that has VOWED to kill YOU and everyone that you know.

<< >> We have the right to attack Saddam because he has committed acts of war against us and our allies whom we are sworn to protect. He has threatened to use those weapons of mass destruction against us and our intelligence indicates that it is highly probable that he will use them against us if the opportunity arrises for him to do so.

What "acts of war" has Saddam done? Again, we should have the UN mandate prior to attacking Iraq, just as we did the first time around. >>

In point of fact we DO have a UN mandate. The '91 was a truce IF he disarmed as well as 1441. Wow 12 years later, it's still not done. Since you believe in UN Mandates, why don't you support the 17 that the UN has passed?? Why do you only pick the one that MIGHT actually disarm him.

<< >> And the argument against Steve not being asked about Saddam again is totally BS. He caused the questions to be asked about the war because of the Tshirt he wore to a press conference. Has he every worn one to a major press conference protesting Saddam's agressions? No, he hasn't. Clearly he has a bias in favor of Saddam.

You know, you've never spoken out against the suicide bombings by Hamas while you've been speaking out against Saddam, so (according to your falacious logic expressed above) you must therefore support the suicide bombers. Shame on you!
That's called putting words in someone's mouth, which is what you attempt to do with Steve, and it doesn't hold water. >>

I could care less WHY he did/did not talk about it. It's his words I have a problem with, they are stupid and support a dictator who wants to kill me and my fellow americans. He supports terrorists who are homicide bombers, I DO NOT trust him to not give a wmd to a terrorist who will blow up a large US city, killing MILLIONs, why do YOU trust him not to? I don't get it.

It's more useful idiots that sadaam uses.

<< >> And BTW Saddam's side is "is the side of wanting to continue to limit the type of activities Saddam can do while not seeking an armed invaion today." He knows if the status quo continues, he can easily proceed with the covert creation of his weapons of mass destruction.

No, Saddam wants those restrictions removed in total. Saddam can only continue with a weapons program if other countries aid him and provide the materials for such a weapons program. >>

Since you are so enamored with "proof" I will agree with this if you can "prove" to me that he cannot create WMDs with the food for oil program? He already has, massive amounts of chlorine gas that is used as a precursor to poison gas. Obviously he can.

<< >> Steve Nash has chosen to take part in Saddam's propaganda machine that calls for peace.

A mischaracterzation IMHO. Steve, and others who speak out for retraint, are not part of anybody's "propaganda machine" but are just expressing themselves. >>

Steve and others speak out for appeasement and inaction. They speak out for sticking their heads in the sand and doing NOTHING seriously. What is his proposals to solve it? Why haven't they worked in 12 years. Even clintoon knew it. But he's of the same sort, backboneless and unserious.

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 08:15 PM

<< Those violations should be dealt with under the same process as before, which was not a unilateral action by the US.

So the world should pass more hollow U.N. resolutions and caw more hollow platitudes while continuing to do business with a mass-murderer? Or maybe we should just launch some more cruise missles into the desert whenever Saddam commits a particularly galling outrage...

NO.

The time for appeasement and cowardice is over. A great good will be done in coming weeks, as A people will be freed and a muderer will be put paid. Not by a "unilateralist" "warmongering" "greedy" American nation, but by an alliance of nations that are the true heirs and originators of the world freedom that allows the babblers of the U.N. to do babble their babbles without fear of the gulag or koncentrationslager...

"The last greatest hope of mankind" has freed millions from tyranny and murder during the last century. We are about to free millions more in this one... >>

BRAVO EVIL MAV, BRAVO!!

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:21 PM

The same kurdish folk suffering from Iraq you want to "rescue from this regime" are tortured, killed and surpressed by the Turkish government, who you just offered to pay some 20 billion of dollars for joining your warfare vs. Iraq.

The same kurdish folk you´re calling the victims in this affair have several terroristic organisations running (the most famous beeing the PKK).

After removing Saddam Hussein there will be three mayor groups left in Iraq, the Shiitic moslems, the Sunnit moslems and the Kurdish people (beeing a minority). Democracy would lead to the Shiitic moslems gaining the power, and who will be there to stop them from doing mass-murderers on the other groups then? Look what happened in former Yugoslavia after it broke up - do you really think it would work in Iraq? What comes next?

The Kurdish people on their way to becoming the new Palestinians on their fight for an own state, surrounded by country not interested in granting them one?

Like the Palestinians, the Kurdish have many friends - as long as they are not in their friend´s country.

Since WW II, how often did WAR really good? How many wars would you call "successful"? Corea? Vietnam? Somalia? Bosnia - hey, give you that one. Desert Storm? If it was successful, why are we here now arguing? Afghanistan? (too early to tell imho, still it was one of the more successful ones, and you still didn´t catch Bin Laden)

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 08:23 PM

<< First of all, thank you Mavdog and aexchange... I was feeling VERY outnumbered.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

<<
He has threatened to use those weapons of mass destruction against us and our intelligence indicates that it is highly probable that he will use them against us if the opportunity arrises for him to do so.

>>

And when do you think it would be most likely that he use these weapons against us?? Any leader, especially a dictatorial one, wants/needs/craves power. Such a leader, as does any human being, has a natural inclination towards self-preservation. As much of a madman as he is, I don't think Saddam differs from this mold. In a way, it's a case of good old Mutually Assured Destruction. I'm not condoning this, and certainly the goal is to eliminate this MAD all together, but because of it as a measure of deterrence I think we've got more time before going in is necessary. For further reading on why we shouldn't go in now if we don't have to, read aexchange's post.

And I can't believe that the 'for us or against us' logic is being used. I can't believe that it still exists. It's sounding like the Communist witch hunt in here, or like a totalitarian regime(overstatement, don't flip out). Nobody is defending Saddam. Though taking the anti-war position is walking a fine line there is indeed a line. The conjectures made about the anti-war camp being pro-Saddam are nothing more than absurd. >>

You mean when you see Bush=Hitler, and that the US is the threat, not sadaam.

Let me ask you a question? If Sadaam WOULD disarm, do you think the US would attack them? Don't just dismiss this, think hard. If he does have anthrax, etc. what good is it? What would you do if anthrax, smallpox or a dirty bomb exploded in NYCity? Who would you point to? Al Queda? Hamas? Would you bomb iraq? How would you KNOW if he had been the one that gave the weapons to them? MAD does NOT work with terrorists. Al Queda wasn't worried about MAD, was it?

And I am not saying that Steve ACTIVELY supports sadaam, but by him being one of the useful idiots, he does.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:26 PM

Then again you´re down to double standards.

Do you want to punish the Iraq for breaking UN rules without the UN?
Or do you want to stop him from threating the US with his 180-miles-range weapons?

I don´t know which of the both options is more funny ...

LRB · 03-06-2003, 08:29 PM

seelenjaeger none of your points against a phantom and generic state are at all similar to my points for a specific response by the United States against a know enemy that has helped kill thousands of innocent civlians in one of their acts of war. These civilians were intentionally targeted. The United States does not target civilians. We go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Which is hard when the opposition places anti aircraft defense on top of civilian buildings, which is a common tactic of Saddam Hussein.

We have the right to defend ourselfs. Your country and others may oppose that right. Just don't blame us if we don't remember you're deserting us in our time of need when you are the one attacked. Of course we're so damn kind hearted we'll still probably help you anyways. We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world. And to our credit we have never once attempted world domination. Yeah we might use our political clout, but we do not conquer nations for our own gain as the Nazis did, or as Napoleon did, or as Stalin did, or as Saddam tried to do. We're not perfect, but we're the best the world has to offer IMO. Seems a lot of the world is really jealous of us.

But be warned we will defend our nation unto the death. Attack us at your own peril. Saddam Hussein will learn that soon enough. If only we had had the same moral courage to deal with Hitler.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:32 PM

about justice:

the one SUEING someone is not the JUDGE .. and this is for some reason.

so please don´t start telling me that Hussein is NOT disarming, because it is not upon you to tell.

Hans Blix is the Judge on this.

His line was straight - start destroying those missiles by Mar, 1st. And so he did.
Not a sign of complete disarmament, but a sign of progress. Reason to launch a war? Definately not.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:34 PM

"the United States do not target civilians"

600.000 german civilians in the last 6 months of WW II.

Bombings.

Bombings on CIVILIANS planned by your generals.

Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

Vietnam.

Don´t tell me those were "accidents". It´s history, true. But then again, why isn´t 1988 considered history.

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 08:40 PM

<< there is a country in this world which has

(a) nuclear weapons
(b) biological weapons
(c) chemical weapons
(d) extremely skilled and armored soldiers
(e) intelligence and surveilleince devices all over the world
(f) acting in disregard of SEVERAL important treaties it has signed
(g) disregarding the human rights convention, threatening to disregard the United Nations and not acting according to other international standards of justice and human rights

and is not only willing to use it´s power and forces but already threatening several countries all over the world to do so, and in addition is threatening and blackmailing other countries to support their political and military strategy.

is attacking this country self-defence?

(this is purely an answer to LRB´s post about the justification of a "self-defence" attack in by no means meant as a justification for anything) >>

I'm assuming you are now comparing the US to Iraq by your clever wordsmith. If this is what you are doing then I find this reprehensible to actually compare the US to Iraq and other tyrants. You may think it's clever, but it's not it's morally bankrupt.

Answer me the rest of it however.

a. Has this country used poison gas to attack it's neighbors and it's own citizens?
b. Does this country provide a safe haven for terrorists?
c. Has this country attacked other countries with the intent to occupy them and subjugate it's people?

As Colin Powell said and i'm paraphrasing
The US has come to the aid of it's allies many,many times and only asked in return for a small plot of land to bury our dead.

Is this the same country you are talking about?

LRB · 03-06-2003, 08:40 PM

<< Hans Blix is the Judge on this. >>

Nope. He's not. George Bush and the United States Congress are the judge for the United States. Hans Blix doesn't even have all the evidence. George Bush does. This is not a court of law, this is the real world. If the UN would actually show some teeth and enforce its own resolutions then maybe we could rely on the UN. Until the the UN is useful only as a tool, and that is hardly ever. We still try to make the UN a useful body, but the fact is it is made up primarily of moral cowards who are afraid to take action. Wish it weren't so, but that's the way it is.

Evilmav2 · 03-06-2003, 08:41 PM

Since WW II, how often did WAR really good? How many wars would you call "successful"? Corea? Vietnam? Somalia? Bosnia

The benficence and success of the actions that you cite lay in our ability to have this argument. Without the expenditures of blood and treasure of the free world, this century might have seen the peoples of the world crushed under the horror of sinister ideologies and despotisms.

Without the courage of the British Empire- standing alone in 1940- and the actions of "new world coming to the aid of the old" in 1941, Europe might today be crushed under the heel of the heirs of Nazi monstrosity...

Without our willingness to contain and confront the fanatical adherents of Soviet subversion and their desire for world conquest, the peoples of Europe might have been decimated by wrathful and pernicious Russians, and the gulag slave labor camps might be a way of life for many many millions...

Without the efforts and the will of the United States and our honorable allies (and for the last 40 years, Germany has traditionally been one of the strongest), the world might be a vastly different place. In the place of parliaments and congresses might lay the squalid machinery of despotism and mass murder...

We have turned back the reeking, corrupt, black tide of murderous despotism time and time again over the previous century. We will continue to do so...

And in so doing, the United States will continue to ensure that we still have the right to have conversations like this...

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 08:46 PM

<< "the United States do not target civilians"

600.000 german civilians in the last 6 months of WW II.

Bombings.

Bombings on CIVILIANS planned by your generals.

Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

Vietnam.

Don´t tell me those were "accidents". It´s history, true. But then again, why isn´t 1988 considered history. >>

I assume again you are comparing us to the nazis? So this was the same as choosing jews and putting them into death labor camps. Do you honestly believe in this type of moral relativism? Or do you think it clever to make these semantic arguments? They are unserious. I hope you are better than that.

LRB · 03-06-2003, 08:48 PM

seelenjaeger you accused me of some statments that I made previously about the Nazis. I appologized to you and the board for those. But your comparsion of the US to Iraq is every bit as reprehensible. I detect a strong anti-American sentiment here. Maybe I could say that Germany wants the US out of the way so that they could go back to gassing Jews. That would be inflamatory and wrong, but it would not be worse that what you have said about my country.

We DO NOT target civilians. That is present tense. If you want to bring the past in, then Germans gas Jews. We both know that is not true.

Why are you so dead set on defending Saddam Hussein?

Why do you so hate America?

Why do you choose Saddam over the US?

Evilmav2 · 03-06-2003, 08:50 PM

Evilmav trivia question of the day:

Who was the first country to bomb civilian targets during the Second World War?

Hint:

It is the same country that pioneered and mastered the industrial methodology involved in gassing millions of civilians, cremating them in ovens, and then turning those remains into soap.

London bound...

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:56 PM

a. Has this country used poison gas to attack it's neighbors and it's own citizens?

No. Nukes. And it´s threatening to use them again.

b. Does this country provide a safe haven for terrorists?

Yes. They call them "CIA agents". And some of the greatest weapon dealers have their residents in the US aswell, imho this counts.

c. Has this country attacked other countries with the intent to occupy them and subjugate it's people?

Yes. Though you are using more subtle weapons than tanks, you´re using economical dependencies.

And no, of course I am not seriously questioning the difference between the US and Iraq, still, if you don´t live in a "free country" but you do live in poverty of economical, philosophical or political kind and you are suffering from the interests of the US (which far more people all over the world do than you might be aware of) you may ask these questions.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 08:59 PM

uhm, where exactly did I compare the US to the Nazi?????

SHOW ME THIS LINE.

And go back in history - Bombing german civilists was a WAR STRATEGY by the allied forces. It was meant to kill civilians, and so it did.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 09:02 PM

And before any justification debate arises: neither the bombings in late 1944 / early 1945 in Germany NOR the use of the Nukes in Japan were justified by military meanings.

Both of those actions occured during a battle already won, maybe shortening it for a week or two, but that´s still targeting civilians.

And show me the line proving that I hate the US.

LRB · 03-06-2003, 09:03 PM

Why does Germany defend Saddam and Iraq?

1. They have a think for mustached facist dictators.
2. They both love killing Jews, Gemany just pretends this is over.
3. They both love gassing people to death.
4. They both hate Ameria.
5. They both want to control the world.

Sound good? Let's just keep up the war of leveling dumb acusations at each other why don't we.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 09:06 PM

<< Why does Germany defend Saddam and Iraq?

1. They have a think for mustached facist dictators.
2. They both love killing Jews, Gemany just pretends this is over.
3. They both love gassing people to death.
4. They both hate Ameria.
5. They both want to control the world.

Sound good? Let's just keep up the war of leveling dumb acusations at each other why don't we. >>

here we go again ....

LRB · 03-06-2003, 09:10 PM

<< And before any justification debate arises: neither the bombings in late 1944 / early 1945 in Germany NOR the use of the Nukes in Japan were justified by military meanings.

Both of those actions occured during a battle already won, maybe shortening it for a week or two, but that´s still targeting civilians.

And show me the line proving that I hate the US. >>

That has got to be the dumbest and most ignorant think that I've ever heard you say. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets. We just took out a great numbe of civlians eliminating the targets. However the war from Japan was a long way from being over. Millions of lives, mostly civilian, would have been lost in order for the US to subdue Japan by conventional means. We actually saved civilian lives by using nukes. It was only the shock of the nuclear weapons, and remember we had to use the bomb a 2nd time to truely shock the Japanese rulers, that caused Japan to unconditionally surrender. Plus we warned the Japan government in advance and gave them ample opportunity to surrender before using the weapons. The blame squarely rests on the Japanese leaders who started the war and who refusted to surrender even when all was lost.

Evilmav2 · 03-06-2003, 09:13 PM

The Germans were the first to set the fine precedent of attacking vulnerable civilian populations during the Second World War. The Stukas and Heinkels of the Luftwaffe were seen in Warsaw, Amsterdam, and in the towns of Northeastern France and were soon seen in the skies over London...

Following an earlier, and highly effective German aerial assault upon British aerodromes in 1940, Winston Churchill writes, "... it was therefore with a sense of relief that Fighter Command felt the German attack turn onto London on September 7, and concluded that the enemy had changed his plan. Goering should certainly have persevered against the airfields, on whose organization and combination the whole fighting power of our air force at this moment depended. By departing from the classical principles of war, as well as from the hitherto accepted dictates of humanity, he made a foolish mistake."

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 09:15 PM

I am not arguing about consequences, nor about strategies, nor about everything else. I don´t even argue the effect (positive or negative) those actions had. I just state: You bombed civilians, you knew you were doing it, and you did it meaningly.

You asked for occasions where civilians were bombed, and using a nuke on military targets of which size however is bombing civilians, argue this point as long as you want, but "using a nuke in a military sense" is STILL targeting civilians.

dude1394 · 03-06-2003, 09:16 PM

Unfortunately what we have learned is that with aggressive regimes they MUST be completely defeated or they will be back.

Germany after WWI.
N. Korea
Iraq

Even conceivably allowing Russia to gobble up the eastern eurpean countries. Look at the terrible toll it took because of the cold war.

seelenjaeger · 03-06-2003, 09:19 PM

what has the german bombing of civilians has to do with this all?
Yes of course the Germans did. We killed millions of Jews. We killed millions of soldiers. Germans, Russian, French, American, Italian ... What´s that adding to the discussion?

you asked for occasions when the US bombed civilians, and i gave you some. this is not about "right or wrong" in WW II, this is about "did you do it" - and the answer is plain YES. so LRB has been proven wrong when telling us the opposite.

aexchange · 03-06-2003, 09:24 PM

i'm going to lock this thread.

some of you are getting way too heated. if you'd like to continue this and everyone be civil, feel free to start a new thread in the lounge.