What is a "just cause?" - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

What is a "just cause?"

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby slomo007 » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:40 pm

Transmogrifier wrote:I'll give you what dictionary.com has:

Terrorist:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.


Terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Patriot:

One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.


Thus my distinction between true Iraqis and non-Iraqis.

Now, if you want to argue whether their actions are unlawful, let's go. I think I'd draw the line between attacking civilians and military personnel. In the first, your a terrorist, in the second, you're defending your country from invaders.

We must, however, leave room for mistakes, just as we do with the U.S. military when they miss their targets.


Where do you draw the line between military and/or civilian? For example, the privately contracted employee who happened to fix Apache helicopters used in Iraq...civilian or military?
slomo007
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle Eye
Posts: 11960
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:58 pm

Well, Slomo, that's an irrelevant example, for me, because he was in Saudi Arabia. Clearly terrorists.

But in Iraq, I'd still call them terrorists.

I draw the line at military personnel--even military support personnel.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby KULCAT » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:22 pm

so you are trying to say that Omasa and his crew decided to blow us all up because we wouldn't help them form a democracy ? Is that what you are trying to say? Is that what Michael Moore taught you?



Y

You realize thats BS right? I am not even getting into how much bullshit that is .... :-t


I didnt say any of that. You are putting words into my mouth and from what i read from you wreves, youre really fond of that.
The people fighting for democracies in the 60´s and 70´s in Saudi Arabi werent Al Quaeda. They were civiliands who have lived a long time under a dictatorship. An extremely cruel one who somehow had escaped the lingering condemnation of the western world of facist goverments and they wanted a democracy. Sadly this principle from westerners only applied if youre goverment was a communist one and after years of being ostracized by the western world they fell pray to the mermaid chants of Osama Bin Laden who promises spiritual welth, wich to muslims is much more important. Bin Laden knows the Drill well. He uses religion, nationalism and decades of frustration to turn this kids who live in extreme poverty into their soldiers.


you all trying in vain to turn terrorists in to minute men is absolutly disgusting to me ..[/quote]

You have to make a distinction between the outsides forces that are like a plague in Irak and the Iraqui rebels. The outsideforces are mostly made of Saudis´s soldiers from Bin Laden´s network and muslims refugees who have turned into Al Quaeda aids because Osama Bin Laden was the only one the came to their help when genocidal massacres where commited against them like in Bosnia, Madagascar and the Republic of Congo. This forces are not motivated by nationalism but blind hatred and conducted by the interest of Al Queada. This are the people that kidnapp civilians and cut their heads off. The rebels like for exammple the ones in Falluja who want the United States forces out of their land dont cut civilians heads off since they themselves are civilians who want the invadors out of their country.
I sincelery hope you read my posts a couple of more times before calling them bullshit and putting words in my mouth wreves
"Nothing is this world worth remembering was ever accomplished without Pasion"-Hegel
KULCAT
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 1814
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Panama mi bella Panama

Postby LionsandTigersOhMy » Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:49 pm

Heres some interesting comments from some interesting people!

ENJOY!



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mas destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


So basically it boils down to the fact Clinton was to [chicken--edited, Trans... please no words like that!] to do anything about it. And since Bush had the huge balls to stand up to these terrorist and rouge leaders. He is to blame that the intelligence MAY, and I stress may, have failed! He is the liar, and the deciever! Right?

Please give me all opinions. I love to hear the excuses!
Image
LionsandTigersOhMy
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 798
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Flint, Michigan

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:19 pm

So, your argument, it seems, is the following:

1. Nearly everyone thought Saddam had weapons.

2. But only Bush acted on this intelligence, saying it was good enough to go to war for.

3. Thus, Bush is not a liar.

Do I have that right?

To provide evidence that other people accused Saddam of having weapons proves nothing; it only proves that they had the same intelligence...

I don't see how this helps your case, or at least in any rational, logical argument.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:21 pm

By the way, why do you hold to the belief that the intel was wrong when Bush has admitted it already?
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:18 pm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

As it turns out, those quotes are taken out of context. Who'd a-thunk it?

To give you just one example, here's what Kerry said:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

--You, of course, only quoted the part that served your purpose. While it's not exactly lying, it's not exactly telling the truth, either. Of course people thought that Iraq had WMDs. No kidding. But the difference is that liberals didn't think the intelligence was good enough to go to war with.

So, tell me: Was the information good enough to go to war and kill 900 American soldiers and uncounted Iraqi civilians? Because if you're going to war, you better be 100% sure that you're right. It's people's lives you're playing with.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:27 pm

Wait. I just assumed you did the research and dug up those quotes.

But did you really just reproduce an email forward? That's what it looks like. Wow.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby LionsandTigersOhMy » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:43 pm

What does it matter where it came from? What they said is what matters.

Did the dims not go after Saddam because they thought the intelligence was bad? Or because Bill had no guts? :-? :-?


To answer your question. Yes it was worth it! They will find the weapons. Matter of fact they have already found several Sarin filled shells. Just a matter of time. Aside from that, it was worth it to me because we will have better intelligence from now on, by being in Iraq and helping their democracy blossom!

Now you answer me a question.

1) If Saddam had no WMD's why was he defying the UN?
2) If everyone including dims say he for sure had WMD's, where are they?
Image
LionsandTigersOhMy
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 798
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Flint, Michigan

Postby wrveres » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:52 pm

Transmogrifier wrote:Wait. I just assumed you did the research and dug up those quotes.

But did you really just reproduce an email forward? That's what it looks like. Wow.


so that some how changes the content .... ?


see the problem is here guys ...

It lies in the definition you so graciously gave us ..

Terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

see in order to be a terrorist, you must actual commit the "terror" .. up until that point, you have done nothing wrong. But by then its to late .... Just threating terror means nothing anymore. We have to take the whole situation to the UN, and then nothing will get done because France is on the take and somebody gave them a veto. So they (terrorists) actually have to commit the terror in order to be a terrorist ...

so to awnser your question AA ...
"So, tell me: Was the information good enough to go to war and kill 900 American soldiers and uncounted Iraqi civilians? Because if you're going to war, you better be 100% sure that you're right. It's people's lives you're playing with." ...

Yes ... HELL YES While the loss of life in unfornuate, it is the long standing tradition of the United States to do anything in there power to limit the loss of life, civilian and military .. Thats the difffernce .... Terrorist don't care .....

Now I realize that there is Iraqi civilans that share a different philosphy about there country. Heck we have them here on this very forum. But you don't see me standing behind a school girl with my rifle at taking pot shots at a passing AA. You don't see me setting up explosives on the side of the road and setting them off, irregardless of what family is passing by. You don't see me taking reporters and stringing them up from a bridge. The simple fact that you are trying to compare a "Terrorist", yes that is what they are, to an american military man is disgusting. Yes a few stupid soldiers did some thing horrible to some Iraqi nationals. They are bieng prosecuted for it. But there were other soldiers in that prison that did nothing. Heck one of them turned in his co-workers. We should be priasing him. But nope, we all choose to generalize and say that all the soldiers are criminals and doing this. I am starting to ramble now so I'll stop ...

bottom line is this ...

If you need to wait for one of Saddams nukes or chemical weapons to land in your back yard before you act, I am sorry you feel this way. If you think the response to terrorism is to launch a cruise missle at an aspirin factory, I am sorry you feel this way. If you feel that the response to terrorism is to take your case to the UN for 10 years, I am sorry. To beat the enemy, terrorism, you are going to need to get down and dirty, cus I promise you thats what they are doing.
This reminds me a great deal of how FDR sat on his ass and let Hitler run a mock.
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 641)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 19:12 hours
(and 89 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact