kenderstest: Michael Schiavo Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Schiavo Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

7:30 AM |

Posted by kender |

But I think I found his phone number.

It may not be though. I am not saying to call this number. I am simply saying that this number may be it.

I am leaving this on top for a few days......just in case anyone wants to fact check.

Hell I may even get around to it.

M Schiavo, (727) 726-0237, 2975 Gulf To Bay Blvd, Clearwater, FL 33759

52 comments:

kender said...: and if it isn't let me know; February 20, 2005 at 11:17 PM
Robert said...: I appreciate civil liberty to an extreme. However, this case is quite thorny. Terry's right to life is not the only right at issue. Must one be compelled to artificially support another? Michael may indeed suck, but ought he be forced to carry another's burden?

Murder IS wrong. Refusing to assist life IS NOT murder. If she is able to survive on her own strenghth, then that should not be hampered. Coercing one to provide essential life support cannot be justified in a free society.; February 21, 2005 at 7:34 PM
kender said...: However there IS a viable alternative here that lets michael off the hook for taking care of terri.

Her parents would not be 'forced' to take care of her, indeed, they are begging for the chance.

He is not being "forced" to do anything. He is WILLINGLY fighting to KILL HIS WIFE!!!!

What say you robert?; February 21, 2005 at 7:40 PM
Robert said...: Kender, I appreciate your point. If anyone chooses to assume the responsibility of her life, then I say let them. If he seeks to negate their choice, then perhaps one could assert that his motives are less than pure.

I think that I was generally bristling at the notion that one MUST assume responsibility for another adult (I would exclude one's minor children, as I have three).; February 21, 2005 at 9:59 PM
kender said...: I don't believe one MUST accept responsibility for another adult, however I know if this happened in my family we would take care of the afflicted one.

I have a 5 year old son...I know where you are coming from...on a lighter note, aint this parenting thing a hoot?; February 21, 2005 at 10:10 PM
Robert said...: As it happens, my oldest son turned thirteen today. Parenting is at once the most wonderful and difficult tasks I have tackled.

To me, life is particularly valuable, especially mine and my families. I'm often conflicted about such weighty subjects as abortion and euthanasia.

In both cases, the question of who's rights predominate is less than settled. I tend toward libertarian freedom for consenting adults.

My mind is far from closed on the issue.; February 21, 2005 at 10:29 PM
richsanter said...: Kender --

As per usual Kender has got it all wrong.

Not only was Schiavo right to do what he did, but I find it repugnant and vile that people like you would hound him for it …

Heh! No, actually, I was just cruising by to yank your chain a bit.

If what you have presented as the case ( he wants to let his wife die, her family wants to take care of her), and in the absence of a written note signed by his comatose wife saying that they ought to pull the plug … I agree with you here. This should not be allowed to happen. And I agree that in the absence of family to care for a terminally ill patient, the state ought to care for them. (Um, isn’t state welfare a form of socialist ideology?)

On the other hand … if I was a lucid, thinking, terminally ill patient in great pain, able to ask for myself for assistance to die, then I would expect that assistance. The two cases are not necessarily the same. (BTW, what on earth did Schiavo have to gain by letting his wife die? That’s the bit that I don’t get.)

On another tack, I found your DIY philosophizing on the previous post far more interesting than your usual posts.

[kender] “If you DO good works but only because of the glory or fame or benefits they will bring you then doing them is useless, as the Universe KNOWS what is in your HEART. Therefore if you do selfish things then people will do things to you that are in their best interests, thereby being selfish for them, and you get screwed and get what you deserve.”

This is a very agreeable sentiment, and one that I also largely agree with, despite my atheist stance. The kicker? How the hell can we have diametrically opposite views on the US invasion of Iraq? How you can believe that it was all done without selfish motives and without prospects of gain is beyond me. How you can defend it is even stranger. Man, somewhere along the line we lost the common plot. Weird.; February 22, 2005 at 3:23 AM
Mysha said...: Bruno....I would have to agree with your last paragraph...whole heartedly...I love Kender with all my heart, adn agree with him in most things....But we have been just as opposed in our stances on the war. Which anyone who knows the me of old will be flabergasted at...anyway, i wanted to chime in with my agreement to the last paragraph....Mysha; February 22, 2005 at 3:39 PM
kender said...: Bruno and mysha...I am sad to say that neither of you still understand the strategy of going to Iraq.

There will be a post about this soon, but here is a preview.

Peace IS spreading, and it isn't all being done at the end of a bayonet. The tamil tigers, a notorious group of muslim "freedom fighters" in Indonesia have decided to step up to the bargaining table with the indonesia government, most likely due to the fact that we had an aircraft carrier there in TWO days and they realized that used these same aircraft carriers against afghanistan and iraq and COULD do the same to them.

The palestinians have elected Abbas and peace is breaking out there as well.

The lebanese are protesting to get the syrians out after 16 years of promising that they would leave.

They arab world has seen that they too can be free. If free elections can come to Iraq then they can happen almost anywhere.

I know you may try to make the argument that we have no business trying to put freedom into countries that may not want it, and I say it is our duty.

It is our duty to spread freedom for two reasons. One, we, indeed the world, is safer with peaceful free countries as neighbors.
Two, I truly believe, to a point of religious faith, that people do desire to be free. Nobody except those in charge would choose to live in a country that is not free.

In ten years you will look back and, if you are honest with yourself, you will have to admit that W has done right by the world.; February 22, 2005 at 5:18 PM
kender said...: BTW Bruno, terri is neither comatose nor terminally ill. she is not hooked up to any machines. Follow the links way down on the right hand side and check out some of the Blogs4terri...

I think you will be saddened at this case.; February 22, 2005 at 5:24 PM
Lucie said...: from what i have read about terri, i totally feel that michael was/is still abusing terri; and not allowing her family access to her medical information shows to me that he is hiding something from them--the fact, abuse.

before i married my late husband, i was abused by a husband, so i think i would know the signs of abuse, unfortunately for terri, there is no there to speak for her except her abuser.

i really, truly hope that her family prevails in this time of her need. she should have been given some sort of therapy over the last 12 yrs--again abuse.

i just might be totally wrong, but all the red flags have been popping up all over the place screaming at me. i just don't know what else to say about this situation, except that they prevail in this situation.

my thoughts and prayers are with her and her parents and brother in this their hour of need.; February 22, 2005 at 5:59 PM
Robert said...: Pardon me for disagreeing with all concerned here. I stand in support of the war in Iraq...but not for the same reasons that Kender does.

While I realize that liberty is indeed precious, I can't say that one should expend blood and/or treasure to secure or impose freedom for an unwilling party.

With respect to Iraq, WMD or not, this hostile tyrant could NOT be trusted to play by international rules (post 9/11). Lest one cry "unlawful invasion", said military action was merely a responce to Hussein's violation of the 1991 cease-fire/DEMONSTRABLE DISARMAMENT (he spent a decade suggesting that he had NO plans to disarm). Also, the fact that he paid large sums to the families of Palstinian suicide bombers and his open hatred of the US it sufficient evidence of his terroristic sympathies. That is, to assume that he was a neutral country is naive at best.

However, the by-product of emerging self rule in the Middle East IS absolutely positive.; February 22, 2005 at 6:25 PM
KraftyOne said...: Regardless of the potentially long-term positives that come out of our invasion of Iraq, I disagree with what has been done, especially the incompetency with which things have been done.

I disagree, because we went into Iraq with a plan a 10-year-old could have come up with. We disbanded the army, didn't secure the known weapons depots, didn't secure the borders, sent our troops in with inadequate supplies and armor, and had no back up plans. You can tell they had no back-up plans by the scrambling that went on right after they realized the Iraqi people were not going to welcome us with open arms as the Administration had assumed. They've even admitted to assuming this and being suprised by the actual reaction. If you can't competently start a war, occupy the country, plan for the long-term possibilities, and attempt to minimize losses, you have no business risking our soldiers lives and the lives of the Iraqi people.

Long term good or no, it is impossible for me to support such incompetency.

Of course, this doesn't even take into account the possiblity that we have created 100's of Osama bin Ladens through that incompetency and poor exeuction of badly laid plans.; February 23, 2005 at 2:13 PM
kender said...: First off if we were short of some essentials it was because Clinton gutted the military.

Second, we have lost, relatively speaking, so few soldiers, and alot of those were NOT combat related, as to make this a very successful war. We have minimized losses, to a degree never before seen in a war. That, coupled with the awesome power, amazing technology, and top notch training, along with soldiers that truly believe in their mission, is what made this s succesful war for the US and in the end, as history will show, for the world.

Third, I am not that worried about the "Possible Osamas" that may have been created. Peace is spreading. Eventually there will be no place for these guys to recruit and nowhere that they will be welcomed, save the most backwater holes on earth. On another note, "Possible Osama" sounds like a punk band.

Finally, I don't believe you understand the STRATEGY behind the war in Iraq. Unless one understands that strategy then excuses can be tossed around all day. Saddam spent years thumbing his nose at the UN, and they refused to act. Someone had to.

Like it or not, history will show that W was correct in his actions.; February 23, 2005 at 2:32 PM
KraftyOne said...: Way to completely ignor all the reasons I stated for their plans being incompetent.

Stupid analogy for our government: Two men go looking for gold in a dark room. The man who stumbles around in the dark, knocking things over in the room and breaking them may eventually find the gold in the corner, but the man who brought a flashlight and went straight to the gold caused little to no damage.

In case I need to state the obvious, our government is the first man - little to no planning and no foresight.

Oh, and Clinton didn't reduce our army all by himself, so don't get all high and mighty and just point the finger one way.; February 23, 2005 at 2:42 PM
kender said...: What did I ignore? You said we had a stupid plan (your opinion) but it seems to have worked out nicely. In fact it seems rather successful.

Before the war Iraq swore to any god that cared to listen that we would slink away defeated, that the flood of dead coming home to America would stun us and they would not be defeated so easily.

Uuummmm...NOT!!!!!

They folded. The most feared army in the middle east FOLDED and we marched into Baghdad much faster than almost anyone anticipated.

If it was such a bad plan how did it succeed so splendidly?; February 23, 2005 at 3:02 PM
KraftyOne said...: To quote you: "What did I ignore?"

To quote me: "We disbanded the army, didn't secure the known weapons depots, didn't secure the borders, sent our troops in with inadequate supplies and armor, and had no back up plans."

You discount the possibility that we have created an army of terrorists thirsty for American blood. You do this because you have unwavering FAITH that we will succeed. As we have discussed before, I do not share that kind of faith with other people. I constantly say "What if?" What if we don't shut down every place these people can train and receive support? What if we have instead simply pissed off stronger, smarter, better connected people than those who carried out 9/11? It is our governments unwavering faith in its own plans and assumptions that led them to make the multiple mistakes they made during this campaign.

You ask how could it have been successful? I ask: How can you be sure we will be successful?

The man who blundered around in the dark ended up just as rich as the man with the flashlight, but he broke your favorite China set trying to get there...; February 23, 2005 at 3:46 PM
KraftyOne said...: Oh, and I never said we had a stupid plan. I don't consider 10-year olds stupid. I implied that it was a naive, simple plan that didn't take a lot of important factors into account.; February 23, 2005 at 3:51 PM
Joe said...: I'm confused.
Why would a self-professed right-leaning libertarian have an anti-ACLU link on their blog? (What did the 'L' stand for again?) And why would they be against euthanasia?

I guess right-leaning libertarian is just code for conservative-anarchist, and has nothing to do with 'liberty' at all. (I mean, if I was gonna combine two things I'd take the best of both; but I guess the worst of both works too.)
Anyway, peace.; February 23, 2005 at 7:06 PM
Dethanial said...: I noticed someone call Joe wanted to know what the L stood for in ACLU. Go to Goggle and enter James Baldwin - aclu - history.
Then study a little look at their agendy and you will know it stands for lawyer as in AMERICAN COMMUNIST LAWYERS UNION; February 23, 2005 at 7:34 PM
Joe said...: OMG. I read that comment, and I couldn't stop laughing. I finally did, but only to say kudos. Kudos!

(sarcasm)

Regarding ACLU, I refer to my comment on kender's other blog (Stop the ACLU):

It's not the ACLU's job to fight terrorism. But that's not to say their useless. Didn't you see that Team America World Police movie? This country has dicks and pussies. It's the job of the pussies to bitch and complain. And its the job of dicks to fuck assholes. Without the dicks, the assholes would shit over everything. But without the pussies, the dicks would just fuck everything up. (like the constitution)

Anyway, I hate your blog. ACLU's radical agenda? Right. Just like the Gay Mafia, right? What do you think this country would be like if it weren't for people making sure that people's rights were getting protected. Sure, they are wrong sometimes, but that's why we have judges. What a lot of you conservatives seem to ignore, is that the ACLU's mission is to protect your freedoms as well. They take cases all the time in the name of the radical right.

K, I'm done. Peace.; February 23, 2005 at 8:32 PM
kender said...: Joe...joejoejoejoe JOE......My what a pissy little comment, but after checking out your blog I understand. Cynic indeed.

More like whiny leftist.

Ok let me straighten you out. I am a libertarian. I want the government OUT of my wallet, my bedroom and my head. I realize the the far right is percieved as a threat, especially to over reactive leftists with paranioa, however the far left is much closer to achieving their socialist goals than the far right is to creating a christian paradise.

The ACLU is undermining every thing this counrty once stood for and using our tax money to do it.

The current leadership of the democratic party are subversive socialists that will ruin this country by taking it down a road much like europe has gone down. That cannot be allowed to happen.

You may hate my blog, (the stop the aclu is a blog I was invited to join and am glad to be there) but I found your blog the blog of a sad little man that cant seem to think logically and seems to hate the USA.

It is people like you that are ruining thsi country. Were you one of those fine people that said they would leave the country if Bush won? If so I want to extend my helping hand in friendship and offer you my services for free.

You see, in addition to all the other things I have my hands in, (people on the right work alot because we realize that is the way to prosperity, not whining until someone pays you to shut up and be lazy) I have a travel agency that I started up on Nov.3rd, 2004...you know...the day that BUSH WON!!!!!!

Kenders' Kiss My Ass and Get Out of My Country Travel Agency.

There are currently 27 countries with travel warnings from the State Dept. and I plan on giving them all alot of new residents now that BUSH WON!!!!!! Alot of my liberal leaning friends have said they are moving out of the country if Bush stays in office. Barbra Streisand said the very same thing 4 years ago, along with a bunch of her nosy, whiny cronies. She is still, by the way, in Malibu. Wussy Bitch.

To see some of the wonderful places alot of liberal wusses are gonna be hanging around for the next four years NOW THAT BUSH WON click the link.

Travel PlanningTo all of you that have sworn to move out of the country SINCE BUSH WON, let me be the first to offer you my humble services as a travel agent.....for free.

That's right folks....since BUSH WON the election I will, for NO CHARGE, find you the fastest way out of the good ol' U.S. of A. and I bet the GOP may even help fund some of those trips.

So don't be a wuss like Striesand and her bunch, (excluding Depp, he actually moved), and stick around and whine. MOVE. Stand by your words and get out of the country.

There is only one catch to my services. I will not be setting up any place for you to stay. That is your job. I will not let you pick where you are going. That is my job.

I will simply tell you your departure time and place.

So pack warm socks and sunscreen, kevlar and your last will and testament, cuz it's gonna be a fun ride with Kenders' Kiss My Ass and Get out of My Country Travel Agency.

I can't wait for your call Joe.; February 23, 2005 at 8:50 PM
kender said...: BTW, Joe, my wife almost took a job in salt lake city.....after finding out you are there I am so glad we stayed here. Aren't you?; February 23, 2005 at 9:01 PM
Joe said...: uh ... wow
I never said I was gonna leave the country, but good luck with all that. It may astonish you to learn that 99% of the people who voted for Kerry (much like those who voted for Bush) did so because they believed that that would make our country better. Maybe right or left, this countries real problem is a lack of respect for each other. (can't seem to think logically = someone who I happens to disagee with?)

I'm not going to try argue with you about whos blog is more popular. Congrats, you win. But I didn't really think my personal worth and intellect was measured by the number of fucktards who buy my line of bull shit.

I may or may not be more intelligent than you, I don't know, I've never met you. Frankly, it doesn't matter. But perhaps, I can teach you something today:

Just because I'm a liberal does not mean I 'hate America'. I really don't understand this, so a conservative can talk shit about liberals, but as soon as it goes the other way it's, "Woah, you hate America."

Irregardless, fuck you buddy. And fuck your bull shit, cause I ain't buyin.; February 23, 2005 at 9:45 PM
kender said...: Damn Joe...I said nothing about a blog popularity contest. I am a very small fish in a big big world of blogs. You said you hate my blog (like I care) and I said your blog seemed to be the blog of a sad little man. May I now add pissy to that description? I didn't say you hate America, I said you seemed to ...you know, from my perspective. That is a problem with you lefties....you don't have any reading comprehension.

It is probably some of the pissy things you have written over there that made me feel that way. Come to think of it, teh wording on your blog leads me to ponder your age, are you even out of highschool yet? Well, at least you have the honesty to admit on your blog that you are mediocre.
Actually it sounds like you have "Blog Envy".

BTW, are you sure you don't wnat to leave the states? There is a tramp steamer leaving frisco next week, and I can get you stuffed into a cargo container out of salt lake city on friday.

Now.

I never stated that one of us was smarter than the other. You wandered in here of your own free will and chose to comment on a blog that you didn't agree with and did it in such a way as to beg for an attack of rabid snarkiness. Congrats, you got it dumbass.

You have proven that you aren't more intelligent than I simply by your comments. In fact someone would have to be much smarter than you are to step in here and take me to task. You aren't up to it. If you do harbor an IQ over 45 then perhaps you should stay off this blog, lest I decide to show you for the fool you are.

Oops....too late.; February 23, 2005 at 10:12 PM
kender said...: BTW Joe, "irregardless" is NOT a word, Asshat.; February 23, 2005 at 10:13 PM
Joe said...: FYI:irregardlessmeanwhile I was unable to find the following words:
paranioa, thsi, Barbra, cuz, teh, highschool, snarkiness, lest, or asshat.
If you want to play that game.

BTW, I think your next comment should be something about your penis size. Yeah, that sounds about right.; February 23, 2005 at 10:33 PM
kender said...: hhhmmm...ok...we can play that game.....ask your mom!!!!; February 23, 2005 at 10:53 PM
Joe said...: daddy?; February 23, 2005 at 11:31 PM
richsanter said...: Kender --

[kender] “I know you may try to make the argument that we have no business trying to put freedom into countries that may not want it, and I say it is our duty.”

You see, it is right here that my problems start with you. *sigh*

Alright, point (1) of a counter argument is that this ‘freedom crusade’ is perceived by many as merely an excuse to spread American power and hegemony across the world. What I am saying is that the US’s motives are not pure, but its rhetoric suggests that they are. Look, I don’t want to get into a pissing contest about this. You say “Germany, Italy” etc. and I point to all the dictatorships you support right NOW. So, the underlying motives are certainly debatable. To me it is analogous to the GPS systems that they want to install in cars in California or wherever to monitor mileage. Sure, they *say* that that is what its for, but those GPS’s could just as easily be used to keep a Big Brother eye on you as well, right? Sure, the US *says* it needs troops all over the globe to guarantee freedom & democracy, but they could just as easily be used to cream ‘uncooperative’ countries, right?

Point (2) I have a problem with ideologues poking their noses into other people’s business. The same as I feel the Communists were wrong to try to export their particular ideology by violent means, I feel that you (the US) are wrong in trying to export your ideology by violence.

Point (3) is that your “freedom” is not necessarily universal. Ironically, the war in Iraq has put the nail in the coffin for the secular style freedoms that you imagine people want, and has instead ushered in the dawn of a theocratic rule. This is the antithesis of the typical American idea of freedom. Now, if your idea of freedom is not universal, then who gives you the authority to speak on behalf of others? Does that imply that others have the authority to speak on behalf of you? The Communists felt that they did. (Workers of the world …) They were wrong. Your authority is derived from your superior firepower. That is the reality. I don’t agree that might makes right, btw.

Robert --

Please note a few facts on the legality of the war against Iraq.

(1) The UN, not the US was the legal custodian of all treaties with Iraq. America has no right to unilaterally enforce them. Article 52 has force in the absence of an explicit order for invasion from the UNSC.

(2) If you take the tack that the US was upholding UN law by invading despite the lack of a specific authorization, and that this was right, then consider that there are UN resolutions against Israel that would (in your interpretation of UN law) authorize invasion of Israel by member states in order to uphold them.

(3) The UN called for continued inspections before making a final decision on the use of force. The US flouted this instead, and invaded. How can this be described as upholding UN law? To me this is gross disrespect for the world body.

(4) In the end it turned out that Hussein had complied with the UN demands. The matter of verification is a convenient excuse, because it is a *matter of opinion* as to whether compliance was full or not. You cannot prove that you don’t have something. That argument is always stacked. It furthermore seems odd that the US demanded the accounting of for every discrepancy in the inventory lists when it itself has in the past lost track of as much as a TON of Plutonium through mismatched inventories. What exactly do YOU suggest the Iraqis ought to have done if their inventories did not tally?; February 24, 2005 at 3:23 AM
Raven said...: Going to war is never an easy idea. And no matter how crafty a war plan can get, there will always be things that come up that will change the plan. War plans are far more detailed than any of you Kender bashers understand. I'de like to see even one plan of your's...folks...; February 24, 2005 at 3:47 AM
KraftyOne said...: Ah, Raven, but see...as soon as they disbanded the army I thought to myself "That seems like a bad idea." and when we rushed into the war for no apparent reason I thought to myself "What's the hurry? Couldn't we wait a few months until we were had wrapped things up in Afghanistan better, were at full strength, and had full supplies?" And see, we KNEW where many of the supply depots were. We even guarded them sometimes - just totally inadequately. Our leadership was told by very qualified people that we did not have enough manpower there to wage this war in the most effective manner. Those people were ignored.

Also, I do find one of Bruno's comments especially poignant. With the recent elections it seems very possible that Iraq will end up with similar freedoms to Iran. The most popular party (which just won the election) is very Iran sympathetic. It is very possible that instead of creating a more free, U.S. sympathetic government, we have instead created a government that will remove all rights of women and be sympathetic to Iran. This will be bad.; February 24, 2005 at 7:29 AM
kender said...: But K1, Iran is changing even as we speak.....slowly the old guard is dying out and more and more freedoms are creeping in.; February 24, 2005 at 10:35 AM
Raven said...: Would you trust the Iraqi army of the past? I sure wouldn't, and it was a good thing they disbanded it. Look at what half of them have become: Insurgents who kill our marines. I think you should stop being an armchair general Krafty One. You're not THERE, you're not qualified and neither am I.; February 24, 2005 at 1:07 PM
KraftyOne said...: Kender...More and more freedoms for who? The men?

Raven...this is our right and our duty. To question, criticize, and critique our government. If we stop doing this, then we risk everything we have. It is people like you who would want us to 'trust the government to know best' that are the real threat to our country. Now, if you could give me real reasons why my conclusions are false or lacking, then that is constructive. The one half-reason you gave me reminds me of a story.

When I was in Germany, one of the girls in one of my classes asked our professor: "How many of the old people that we see around were Nazis or part of the Hitler Youth?"
Our professor looked at her in a surprised way and said: "All of them."
She was shocked: "All of them?"
He replied: "Yes, of course. In that time, you were either with the Party or against them. Even if you disagreed with everything about the Nazi Party, you didn't want to be against them."

I met lots of very nice old people in Germany.; February 24, 2005 at 1:43 PM
KraftyOne said...: Perhaps we could have controlled or stalled some of these men from become brainwashed insurgents had we simply taken control of the army rather than disbanding it was my point. In rereading, I wasn't sure I had made that point.; February 24, 2005 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Well this thread got a bit off from the original post. But why not.

So many things wrong in the past few comments so I've only got time to rebut a few of them

Manpower - you make it sound both obvious and easy. It was neither. For all of the qualified people saying we needed more there were qualified people saying nonsense. So that's a wash. Then there's the logistics. We didn't have access to the same port facilities as we did in the Gulf War. the ones in Kuwait had nowhere near the capacity some people seem to think they did. Bringing in 200,000 troops or so was about a logistical impossibility. And where were we going to get them, anyway? Our army is now, what 10 divisions? It was 20 during the Gulf War. Taking them from other theaters would tempt other enemies like the DPRK to act. But mostly, there were other serious downsides to more troops. Like pissing off the population of Iraq. Funny, the US iws at once told that our troops have a heavyhanded presence and we've too few of them. And lastly, our problems are not really the result of too few troops, but of poor intelligence.

Second
Bruno is dead wrong when he says that Saddam complied with the UN. The UN Security Council resolutions requied Saddam to prove that he had destroyed the WDM that he said he had after the Gulf War. He never fully complied. In other words, never proved that he had destroyed the stockpiles he had admitted to. That we didn't find them proves nothing. He likely destroyed them but didn't tell anyone. Why? to make himself look tough - or not to look weak.

The idea that "you cannnot prove that you don't have something" does not apply at all in this context. Saddam certainly COULD have proved it by the simple expedient of videotaping the destruction. Also, any government keeps records, and totalitarian ones more than most. His government certianlhy would have had records of destruction.

Tom
http://www.redhunter.blogspot.com
P.S. I'm on an unsecure computer so can't log in directly; February 24, 2005 at 5:02 PM
kender said...: Thanks Tom and Raven, and Joe?

No I am not your daddy....If I had a son as ignorant as you I would "slap yo' mamma in the face", to quote a favorite old movie of mine.; February 24, 2005 at 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Ok, one more thing then I'm back to work.

Freedom is not universal, eh?

They said that about the Germans and Japanese not that long ago. And the eastern Europeans. We've heard that one before.

To be sure, Iraq will not become a bastion of Jeffersonian democracy anytime soon. But it is hardly going the way of Iran. Few of the candiates in the election were clerics. Hardly a theocracy. Iraqis are different than Iranians.

Then of course there's this bizarre notion that only the UN can authorize war. If the Europeans want to give their sovereignty away to bureaucrats in Brussels, so be it. The idea that it was an "illegal" war is laughable. But who really cares, let the left think what they want.

Oh, and far from the Iraqi government taking away the rights of women, 1/3 of the candidates were women, I think? They've got more rights there (and in Afghanistan, I might remind you) than ever before.

Tom
http://www.redhunter.blogspot.com
P.S. I'm on an unsecure computer so can't log in directly; February 24, 2005 at 5:31 PM
kender said...: To all of you reading this comment section please take note that the Truth has been swung around like a dead cat on a rope and if it hurt you it will be a temporary sting.

We are the Blorg. Resistance to the Truth is Futile.; February 24, 2005 at 5:50 PM
Joe said...: For some reason when I saw this I thought of you:
How to argue like a conservativeHave a great day.
PS. I love your hat!; February 24, 2005 at 6:33 PM
kender said...: I much prefer How to talk to a liberal...if you must. But thanks for the link.

And I love my hat too.; February 24, 2005 at 6:44 PM
Joe said...: A Coulter fan?!

This is all coming into focus now.; February 24, 2005 at 6:58 PM
kender said...: Just coming into focus???

Have you not paid attention to the blogs I link to?

Have you read nothing else on here except this one post?

Pick it up son, you're falling behind!!!; February 24, 2005 at 7:14 PM
Dethanial said...: Sorry I caused a stir by telling Joe what the ACLU really was. I dont think he has been out of the United States to see how a real communist country lives. NOT GOOD; February 24, 2005 at 8:21 PM
Joe said...: yeah, but my point was that I don't think that that is their agenda; February 24, 2005 at 9:11 PM
Joe said...: For a more rational rebuttal to my argument about the ACLU from jay777 on http://stoptheaclu.blogspot.com/:

"Joe, It may not be the ACLU's job to fight terrorism, but as an American institution that is supposed to be concerned about our rights, they should try to undermine the efforts of our military to fight terrorism....which is their job. I never said the ACLU was useless, and I concede that they do take a few cases on which they are on the correct side, especially in the areas of privacy.

"If the ACLU's mission is to protect freedoms they have missed their mark when it comes to the free exercize of religion. They defend Child porn, and NAMBLA just for starters. I'm not against the ACLU's "stated mission", and I'm not out to destroy that mission.

"But what the ACLU needs badly is some REFORM."; February 24, 2005 at 9:23 PM
richsanter said...: Kender --

[kender]” But K1, Iran is changing even as we speak.....slowly the old guard is dying out and more and more freedoms are creeping in.”

Ummm … are you *sure* that you are *allowed* to say this? Has this been cleared with the local posse? ;) Not that I have a problem, since that is what I believe, but I will hold you to your word later …

RavenDare --

Trusting the previous Iraqi army is kinda a moot point, since virtually all Iraqi males of military age have served in it at one point or another. Your current ING is filled with Iraqis from the previous army. Rather, one should ask the question, did the disbanding of the previous army not deprive a few hundred thousand Iraqi males with military training of a living wage, and create the nucleus of a widespread resistance?

Tom --

Again, I must point out to you that the Iraqi verification was a matter of opinion. If, for example, he HAD videotaped the destruction, one could still argue that the amounts seen were unconvincing. Records have discrepancies. I have, in fact, already pointed out that the US had itself lost track of around a TON of Plutonium in the past. If America had been in Iraq’s place, and was brought to task for that matter, how would it have fared? Reality: Iraq had said it HAD destroyed the stuff, the US said it had not. The UN decided thorough inspections were the answer. Your country decided to ignore the UN and attack anyway.

In any case, whether verification was complete or not is moot. The point is that it was UP TO THE UN to verify compliance, and in fact the US had nothing to do with the matter. That is the point.

[tom] “Then of course there's this bizarre notion that only the UN can authorize war.”

If you want to retain any shred of international respectability, then yes, only the UN can authorize wars. If, on the other hand, you believe that might is right, and that unilateral action in the pursuit of one’s interests is morally defensible, sort of like Saddam Hussein and GWB, well then, the UN is indeed an irrelevant, pathetic organization. I’ve no doubt as to in which camp you stand.

[tom] “1/3 of the candidates were women, I think? They've got more rights there (and in Afghanistan, I might remind you) than ever before.”

This relates quite well into the freedom issue. Do you have any idea of what ‘rights’ these elected UIA women are pushing for? How about you tell us exactly in what way the ‘rights’ they talk about mesh with the ‘rights’ that YOU imagine they stand for. I’ll give you a clue: Sharia. Explain to me in what way that their concept of freedom meshes with your concept. ‘Freedom’ in the American sense is hardly has the universal meaning you think it does.

(I might add that while Western concepts of freedom are what I support, to make a blanket assumption that everybody is a closet American is highly erroneous.); February 25, 2005 at 4:47 AM
kender said...: Bruno...the UN is a corrupt and useless organization that will destroy not only American sovereignty, but the sovereignty of every nation. It pushes for a one world government, disarming all peoples and a world court that would have jurisdiction over everyone.

Now the UN is full of US hating, corrupt bureaucrats, (the UN human rights commission is a joke) and I don't trust the UN to make a document that protects me as well as MY constitution or Bill of Rights.

Not to mention the fact that the UN has a serious socialist agenda.

Let me put this plainly.....I hate socialism. I hate socialists even more because socialists put socialism into place.

The UN is corrupt, and you can think I am being a selfish American bastard for saying fuck the UN because they won't write documents that will protect me as well as the US founding documents will, but the great thing about that is if you immigrate to America you get that protection also.; February 25, 2005 at 6:13 AM
KraftyOne said...: Wow - we've got a bunch of topics going on now. Socialism, Iraq strategy, Iraq vs. Iran, legality of war, Terri Schiavo, military intelligence (ha ha), and more!

I'll go back to the original topic: Any updates on Terri's situation Kender?; February 25, 2005 at 7:11 AM
KraftyOne said...: I thought this would be funny for all of us bloggers out here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15964

Good to be able to laugh at yourself sometimes...; February 25, 2005 at 11:51 AM
kender said...: Bbwwwaaahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

That was GREAT!!!!!!!; February 25, 2005 at 12:00 PM

kenderstest

Subscribe

About Me

Contributors

WARNING WILL ROBINSON

Blogs I Like

Iraqi Blogs

The Other Side Of The Street

Send me some greenbacks

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders

The Wide Awakes

Give me some love

Technorati

Followers

Blog Archive

Michael Schiavo Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

52 comments:

Post a Comment

kenderstest

Subscribe To

Subscribe

About Me

Contributors

WARNING WILL ROBINSON

Blogs I Like

Iraqi Blogs

The Other Side Of The Street

Send me some greenbacks

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders

The Wide Awakes

Give me some love

Technorati

Followers

Blog Archive

Michael Schiavo Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

52 comments:

Post a Comment