Law School Discussion

IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!

redemption

Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2006, 06:16:43 AM »
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2006, 09:00:51 AM »
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?

julie just happy if anything she say helps.  now go and spread word.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2006, 09:05:59 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2006, 09:22:20 AM »
and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

jules- you are showing a pacifist streak? we should stay out of wars because we don't want people to die? according to that logic, should we EVER go to war?

aside from the baltic states, how many of those republics are doing very well in any sense? most are marginal democracies at best, autocracies at worst, with failing economies to boot. russia is sustained pretty much exclusively by high oil prices.

but it is important to keep the us united because it would have PREVENTED carnage in the long run. if lincoln had let the south go, how long until other states want to secede? and in on a continent full of mini states that are all trying to expand (this IS relevant in spite of your sarcasm), do you expect anything other than perpetual warfare a la europe for much of its history?

i'm okay with the us "seceding" from britain because it did not create any such conditions. the dissolution of the republic on the other hand would have been a disaster.

i'm assuming that you will disagree.

damn straight julie showing "pacifist" streak, and anyone who not should admit to self that they barbarian, plain and simple.  or are you afraid to be thought girlie-man?  my my, what some little boys will do to impress their daddies.

and what your point about former soviet union, that republicans better off together?  you got some sort of consolidation fetish?  remember roman republic?

as for american situation had lincoln not fought civil war, who cares if other states secede?  where it say in constitution that states not able to opt out?  ever read preamble to declaration of independence?

as to american secession, it did create problems;  we just lucky in long run.  hell, we without national constitution of any kind for first few years, and it replaced rather quickly--and only then because issue of slavery was ignored (hence, leading, in large part, to civil war decades later).  war renewed in 1812, which we lost (and, in process, damn near also lost independence).

when these things start, you not know how it develop.  lincoln thought civil war be short and sweet, but it neither.  (now who else made that mistake lately?  hmmmmmm.)

if we'd stayed part of england, slavery might've ended here decades before it did.

by way, julie must correct self:  we revolted against england, not g.b. (which not yet formed under act of union)

redemption

Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2006, 09:37:39 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

well i would say that the sort of intent required would be when civilians are intentionally targeted.  (this is all splitting hairs anyway.)


Hmm - interesting. "Civilians", "intentially", "targeted" - how convenient that that applies to one's opponents but not to one's own side. When b-52s drop atomic bombs on populated urban areas, is that "intentional targeting of civilians"? Or were there no Japanese civilians then because the whole country was "militarized, mobilized, fanatic"? What about the firebombing of Dresden? What about the attack of 9/11? What about the aerial (bunker-buster) bombing of Iraqi neighbourhoods where Saddam was believed to be hiding then or where Zarqawi is believed to be hiding now? Is knowing in advance of civilian collateral damage "intentional", or not? Who is to say what is what and who is who? You, Stanley?

Who says that each state or any confederation of states other that that wich became the United States would have been expansionist? Is it nnot plausible that the United States was expansionist exactly because there were no competing and "legitimate" occupants of the continent? The native americans, obviously, were regarded as subhuman and not really there; the Spanish/Mexicans as inferior, if not quite subhuman; the French/British as an illegitimate presence on the continent. There is nothing to suggest that the presence of two separate nations with (somewhat) common ancestry and traditions would have read to bloodshed instead of accomodation. Civil Wars, you will find, are bloodier and more intractable than wars between "countries".

When you take on Julie - be careful, be nuanced, be ready.


! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2006, 10:01:36 AM »
well, warmongers have to say something to justify slaughter.

funny, though, how they hate discussing slaughter.

and remember:  kurds = turds.

naive mr. fern...the kurds are the people in iraq who were slaughtered as well as shia's.

you are childish in your remarks because you are naive to the history of the country...

hussein and his kids had been slaughtering people who spoke out against him or organized to remove him and his brutal regime...

you apparently do not recognize this IMPORTANT bit of information...

read a history book! putz!

re read the original two posts in this thread...it should explain it all for your puny gray matter and the phlegmatic humor in which it sits.

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.

it is necessary to use force to remove a butchering regime...and that was not the point of the original post...

why don't you talk about the punctuation or meaning of some of the words of the post...that is the logical equivalent of your focusing in on the deaths in war...everyone knows that in war there is death.

sorry, hussein murdered many and a byproduct of war is death...
there is a noble purpose at hand and bloodshed will render victory for the people of iraq.

war is hell...you naive fertilizing tool. didn't you know this.
idiot.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2006, 10:03:11 AM »

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.

Ouch. Poor naif: he tried to take on Julie. Bluewarrior now just blue.

"poor naif"???  that was a clever remark. ;)

what are you...the "cracker barrel" chairman?


redemption

Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2006, 10:09:21 AM »
Blue warrior is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. Some would say the Blue warrior, given the chance, would be just like Saddam. Perhaps why he fetishizes death and relishes in words like "slaughter", "murdered" and "butcher". Maybe Blue warrior will have his own realm one day, and will act on fetish.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2006, 10:11:02 AM »
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?

 :D :D :D :D this would be perfect union...

the shite...and the stink that follows it. :D :D :D

here is your perfect little partner for you, mr. fern.

needy :'(...naive...stupid...and anecdotally challenged.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2006, 10:13:06 AM »
this thread gets better and better...
julie fern and the "shitestink" falling deeper and deeper in their "babypoo".

redemption...time to change your diaper...better give your mom a call...

 :D :D :D :D