Roasting Chestnuts--Bill Maher

[VoidLivesOn]

It's sorta old but I thought it was a good read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m...s_b_33053.html

New Rule: Now that we've sent "stay the course" down the memory hole, where Big Brother erases things, we've also got to retire: "The world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power." "Don't you want America to win?" and "Wouldn't you torture someone if they knew where to find an atomic time bomb?"


One: The world isn't safer with Saddam out of power. The only people who are safer are the dead. A number which has, admittedly, increased. Saddam didn't have weapons, that he wouldn't give to Al-Qaeda, whose guts he hated. He might have changed his mind, built weapons he didn't have, and given them to people he hated, but then, so could Dairy Queen.

Two: Don't I want America to win? Are we talking about a war between Sunnis and Shiites, or the Winter Olympics? I thought we wanted democracy to win. 103 Americans died in Iraq last month. Was that winning? Would 1000 be a blow out? Also, didn't we already win? I remember reading about it on an aircraft carrier.

Three: The atomic time bomb that justifies torture. The Constitution specifically says you can't torture people, and we can assume they meant: Even if you really, really want to. Because you wouldn't make a rule against something people didn't want to do. The Eighth Amendment protects terrorists. The same way the First Amendment protects Dixie Chicks. The Framers thought protecting people from the government was more important than anything - even than protecting them from a mythical bomb. You can disagree, but that's not what our Constitution says.

Beyond the fact that it's, like, "illegal," the next problem with the pro-torture argument is that no one - in human history -- has ever been seconds away from defusing an atomic time bomb. You're not thinking of life on earth. You're thinking of "Goldfinger."

You can't make a reasoned argument against a law based on the most outlandish possible hypothetical counter-example you just pulled out of your ass. This is called the Fallacy of Accident. A twist on the old dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Like I have to tell you.

VoidLivesOn Reviewed by VoidLivesOn on 11-22-2006. Roasting Chestnuts--Bill Maher It's sorta old but I thought it was a good read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/roasting-chestnuts_b_33053.html New Rule: Now that we've sent "stay the course" down the memory hole, where Big Brother erases things, we've also got to retire: "The world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power." "Don't you want America to win?" and "Wouldn't you torture someone if they knew where to find an atomic time bomb?" One: The world isn't safer with Saddam out of power. The only Rating: 5

[Bong30]

It's sorta old but I thought it was a good read.

Seams Like Bullshit to me....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m...s_b_33053.html

New Rule: Now that we've sent "stay the course" down the memory hole, where Big Brother erases things, we've also got to retire: "The world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power." "Don't you want America to win?" and "Wouldn't you torture someone if they knew where to find an atomic time bomb?"

The world isnt safer???? Ask the Kuwaities.... Humm?? didnt he invade them, and start most of this in motion? Us station in SA bin laden infidels onhis land blah blah....you know that stuff though??? dont you?

One: The world isn't safer with Saddam out of power. The only people who are safer are the dead. A number which has, admittedly, increased. Saddam didn't have weapons, that he wouldn't give to Al-Qaeda, whose guts he hated. He might have changed his mind, built weapons he didn't have, and given them to people he hated, but then, so could Dairy Queen.

More leftwing bullshit come on Void you are smarter than this..

[edit] Weapons of mass destruction
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[49] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is one of the world's top afflicted countries by weapons of mass destruction.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, released a list of U.S. companies and their exports to Iraq.

The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger:

"Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by mustard gas..."[50]
Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iranian civilians, killing many in villages and hospitals. Many civilians suffered severe burns and health problems, and still suffer from them. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.[49]

On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.[51]


Two: Don't I want America to win? Are we talking about a war between Sunnis and Shiites, or the Winter Olympics? I thought we wanted democracy to win. 103 Americans died in Iraq last month. Was that winning? Would 1000 be a blow out? Also, didn't we already win? I remember reading about it on an aircraft carrier.

More Bush Bashing what a small minded geek.... funny though.....NOT

Three: The atomic time bomb that justifies torture. The Constitution specifically says you can't torture people, and we can assume they meant: Even if you really, really want to. Because you wouldn't make a rule against something people didn't want to do. The Eighth Amendment protects terrorists. The same way the First Amendment protects Dixie Chicks. The Framers thought protecting people from the government was more important than anything - even than protecting them from a mythical bomb. You can disagree, but that's not what our Constitution says.

Freedom has costs......we have methods buhhhh huhuhhuhuhu was it the Constitution of the Geniva conventions?

Beyond the fact that it's, like, "illegal," the next problem with the pro-torture argument is that no one - in human history -- has ever been seconds away from defusing an atomic time bomb. You're not thinking of life on earth. You're thinking of "Goldfinger."

Funny like a Hart attack....

You can't make a reasoned argument against a law based on the most outlandish possible hypothetical counter-example you just pulled out of your ass. This is called the Fallacy of Accident. A twist on the old dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Like I have to tell you.

No but it is a Logical Fallacy, and who the fuck is this guy? Left wing whacko....

I few thooughts.....

[VoidLivesOn]

You should send that to him.

You know I was reading a hobbies thread about skating and was surprised to see you used to skate Bong. (off topic..might as well since i can't pitch a debate)

did you by any chance grow up on any like, punk that grew with the whole sub-culture of skating. Like keep up with Duane peters or listen to bands like JFA or McRad? i hope this isn't blatantly off topic and should be somewhere else.

[Bong30]

Viod.... I skated with JFA at Bobs Hobby shop in Boulder Co.... in 1985.

I love old punk...I have JFA on Vynal....

I have a skateboard collection that would blow your mind.

I worked as a sales rep for a (many) snowboard companys.....over the past 5 or so years....I started woking at skate shops in 85....Wave Rave on the hill in boulder....ahh those were the days.

I was right in the middle of that old school scene...I loved it. I used to set up demos, and contests.

My wife still works, (Manager Buyer for like 12 stores) still in the skateboard industry.

Remember to keep an open mind on politics Void.....

[VoidLivesOn]

yeah its a complicated thing. i'm still youg, got alot to learn.

[darkside]

Bill Maher is a funny man. the sad part is that what he says is true.

Bong, every time someone brings up the missing wmds or criticizes the war, you bring up the iran-iraq war. since when is something that happened in the 80s a good reason to go to war in 2003?

[jamstigator]

There is some credence to the argument that the world is a safer place without Saddam. WE aren't any safer here in the U.S., but it's entirely possible that fewer people have died since Saddam was toppled than would have died if he hadn't been toppled. The problem is, we don't really know how many people Saddam was executing on an annual or monthly basis. Yes, there are the mass graves, and you can count the skulls and get a rough estimate, but the REAL numbers, we'll probably never know those. It was a lot though, and I do suspect that there are fewer deaths now. Of course, the downside is, the country is pretty much in chaos, whereas Saddam more or less kept things under control, even though he had to do it at the point of a gun a lot of times.

In retrospect, I wish we'd never invaded Iraq, simply because WE aren't any safer. Hell, we don't even have cheap gas prices. I don't think this will end up being a successful mission to spread democracy in the Middle East. I think this will end up being a 1 or 2 trillion dollar ripoff that has made us LESS safe, that we will regret more and more as the bills come due.

Inevitably, as our taxes rise to cover the costs, we will start the comparisons: did invading Iraq do more for us than providing all of our citizens with medical care? Did invading Iraq do more for our country's security than spending a trillion dollars on security HERE would have? Did invading Iraq do more for our country's prosperity than a brand new set of interstate roads and a new electrical grid would have? The answer to all of those questions is: probably not.

[Bong30]

Bill Maher is a funny man. the sad part is that what he says is true.

Bong, every time someone brings up the missing wmds or criticizes the war, you bring up the iran-iraq war. since when is something that happened in the 80s a good reason to go to war in 2003?

this is how ignorant you are.......

There is this saying goes something like.....History repeats its self...

He had WMDs and he used them thats why......smart guy.

they are not missing when he used them allready......

WMDs were not the only reason to go into Iraq.....we should have done Iran first then Iraq. We are fighting this thing called radical Islam.

WHAT ABOUT KUWAIT? YOU DIDNT SAY SHIT THERE SMART GUY.
(remember history repeats its self)

Did Saddam Overtake a soverign country? Yes, was he a stable leader for the area...NO..... = undebateable facts are facts.

Was saddam an Eco terrorist (for you tree hugers) remember all the well fires?
No ohh yeah most of you were not born yet.....

[darkside]

this is how ignorant you are.......

There is this saying goes something like.....History repeats its self...

He had WMDs and he used them thats why......smart guy.

had is past tense

they are not missing when he used them allready...

theyve been missing since the first gulf war

WMDs were not the only reason to go into Iraq.....we should have done
Iran first then Iraq. We are fighting this thing called radical Islam. this shows your ignorance. the reason we went to war according to the administration was because saddam was quote "an imminent threat." it was only after they found no wmds that they started saying "we're fighting to liberate the iraqi people and spread democracy to the middle east." you cant fight and win a war on radical islam because you are fighting an ideal, and you cant kill ideals, only people, and theyve done a great job killing people, but the enemy is still growing stronger.

WHAT ABOUT KUWAIT? YOU DIDNT SAY SHIT THERE SMART GUY.
(remember history repeats its self)

it seems to me we already fought a war over that already...oh yeah it was called the Gulf War:thumbsup:

Did Saddam Overtake a soverign country? Yes, was he a stable leader for the area...NO..... = undebateable facts are facts.

Did the US overtake a sovereign country..yes:iraq. Was Saddam a more stable leader than the current government?..by far

Was saddam an Eco terrorist (for you tree hugers) remember all the well fires?
No ohh yeah most of you were not born yet.....

look im not trying to debate you on the fact that Saddam was a bad guy,
but was he an imminent threat to the US...hell no.
are we safer now?...hell no, but we are about a trillion dollars poorer and it will be on your children to pay off the debt for this failed war.

[Bong30]

Failed war.....???? My wife isnt wearing a berka?

seams to be OK.....

The Iraqi People Voted....thats good?


what about Saddams sons? They were great guys....nice and safe for the people of Iraq.


He was a great Guy....... STFU

Khaleej Times Online >> News >> FOCUS ON IRAQ

Evidence against Saddam for killing Kurds ready: prosecutor
(AFP)

1 April 2006



BAGHDAD - The chief prosecutor in the Saddam Hussein trial said on Saturday that documents depicting the ex-president’s role in the killings of around 180,000 people, mostly Kurds, in the Anfal campaign were ready.


“The dossier has been completed and it will take two days to examine it and then it will be presented to the tribunal,” said Jaafar Al Mussawi.

Around 180,000 Kurds were killed and 4,500 villages destroyed during the 1987-1989 campaign known as Anfal, which means “spoils of war.”


^^^here is your Boy dumbass^^^^^^^^^

Saddam, who is currently on trial for a 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite villagers from the town of Dujail, is expected to be tried later for the Anfal killings, though no trial date has been set.

Saddam and his seven former aides are being tried on charges of crimes against humanity and could face the death penalty if found guilty.

Mussawi also said that new documents have come to light in the ongoing case against Saddam.

“They involve communications and messages exchanged between high officials” of the previous regime over the Dujail affair, Mussawi told AFP.

“These documents implicate the accused and they will be submitted to the tribunal,” he added.

Iraqi High Tribunal chief judge Rauf Abdel Rahman had ordered during the March 15 session that all previous documents be authenticated by experts after defendants questioned the authenticity of documents linking them to the Dujail massacre.



Related News

Iraqi govt to hold discussions with insurgent groups: report
UK says may hand Basra to Iraq forces in early 2007
Forged Iraq art used to fund terrorism: UK police
Iraq oil profits reportedly used to back militants
Iraqis dying in record numbers, fleeing: UN report
Indonesia willing to send peacekeepers to Iraq
Click here More News

180000 Kurds...thats ok though.... when you pull your head out look up the word genocide and let me know how this relates to that...OK smart guy.


Remember DS....Liberalism is a mental disorder......

in your case seeing what you want, and not seeing the truth.....

Your hate blinds your vision......