Post #55,380
10/7/02 8:23:49 PM
10/7/02 8:30:56 PM
|
Bush speech - Oh lawd - was hoping he could do better ...
The harm is done ...
Bush's speech came across as a littany of barely justified plus many unjustified claims as a basis for going to war.
We all want to see Saddam out but not by using transparent arguments that rest of world can see through.
#2 - let me contrast Bush's pathetic speech with the one Kennedy gave over the Cuban Missile crisis. Kennedy made a case & the world was prepared for the worst (war with Russia). Kennedy had facts backed by clear evidence - Bush lacks it (it is the lack of even minimal evidence that destroy's Bush's case - Bush keeps attempting to blame Iraq for 9/11).
Bush - yer a flunky - you ain't no Kennedy !!!.
DSM
Edited by dmarker2
Oct. 7, 2002, 08:30:56 PM EDT
|
Post #55,384
10/7/02 8:44:35 PM
|
Actually I thought he did very well...
it was full of hope and peace - both Clinton and I feel that reigme change is required - and the reference to Kennedy weren't bad at all.
All in all, an excellent wag-the-dog. Probably the best I've ever seen. (Much better than Clinton's imo)
Notice how he calls on Congressmen to do their duty - just to authorize military support - not a call to war (which is what is actually is). Well timed to just prior to the election and I'm quite confident that he has the votes to pull it off.
Result - any Democrat who even attempts to advocate holding back or waiting is going to get bashed to hell and back again. You know the Republican party is waiting with attack ads for the politican who attempts to hold off on the vote (or vote against it).
Nicely done. Although, I still have this really bad taste in my mouth. I never thought I'd see a President who's politicize a war to his own gain.
|
Post #55,385
10/7/02 8:45:26 PM
|
No One Gives A Watty's Cheek
CBS did not carry the last part of it locally. Hey, we're going to war, but Everybody Loves Raymond.
Not likely. Our economy is going to hell in a handbasket, and the irrelevant two-party system is desperately striving to stave off disaster. It's a pure ass covering all the way around.
-drl
|
Post #55,422
10/8/02 12:10:00 AM
|
shouldnt that be watie?(rifles for) if bill was gonna lift
a finger all 3 networks would cover it. No media bias here watch everyone loves raymond.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #55,387
10/7/02 8:56:26 PM
|
What do you expect? He doesn't have any material.
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.iraq/index.html|CNN] "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --does it makes any sense for the world to confront him as he grows stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Bush asked, seemingly addressing those who have questioned his policy on Iraq. All weapons are, by definition, "dangerous". Saddam could have a stick and it would still be a "dangerous" weapon. If he wants to make his case, he needs to avoid the rhetoric and state the facts. The president called on Saddam to disarm or said Iraq would face a world coalition led by the United States, forcing it to do so. Hmmm, if by "world coalition" you mean "unilateral action by the US", I guess he could be correct. Isn't one of the PROBLEMS Bush is having that NO ONE ELSE (except for Blair) will follow him in this war? "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable," Bush said, adding that the resolution signals that the United States speaks with "one voice." But we don't. That's why there is debate on this very issue. If Bush wants a war, he has to go to Congress to get them to declare it. It's all written down. Simple instructions. Even before the speech, Bush picked up some support Monday from House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who had questioned the wisdom of a U.S. attack.
"No American wants to go to war," Armey said. "But the president's proven leadership has shown that the conflict may be our only option to defend freedom." "leadership"? Where? Afghanistan? We lost Osama. Hell, for the money we've invested in this "war" so far, we could have BOUGHT Afghanistan. The Iraqi army WAS the 4th best in the world. Afghanistan wasn't even rated. Armey, R-Texas, said in August that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would violate American principles. But after "a very intense, personal confrontation with the facts," he said Monday, he has concluded that Iraq poses a "clear and present" threat to the United States. Right. I'm guessing it's more like "support Bush or lose the backing in your next election". Because Iraqi gunners have fired on U.S. pilots patrolling the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq and Saddam is violating U.N. resolutions ending the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Armey said, "I don't see this as a pre-emptive action." Repeat the lie often enough and people will believe it. "Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein -- we knew enough about him -- what we need to hear from the president are answers to our questions about what he plans to do in Iraq," Byrd said. "We need to know why the president is demanding that Congress act now." Bingo. Why is Iraq such a threat NOW? Also, what is our strategy for going into Iraq and GETTING BACK OUT. Oh, sorry, there isn't an exit strategy. Once we're in, we're staying in. Most Republicans have been solidly behind Bush. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said the United States "cannot wait until we are sure Iraq has a nuclear weapon and is about to use it." That is called "anarchy". And it isn't the good kind. Bush has told the United Nations that if it does not act to enforce its resolutions requiring Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, the United States and its allies will. Saddam is BAD for violating UN resolutions. The US is GOOD because we don't follow UN resolutions. Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction. Its U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, suggested Sunday his country could allow inspectors access even to the presidential sites not covered by last week's agreement with the U.N. weapons inspection team. Okay, bad news for the US. Saddam is SMARTER than Bush. Bush is going to bet all of his credibility on this invasion and Saddam is going to let the inspectors walk any where they want to RIGHT BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED. Bush will look like an idiot because all of his claims of "weapons of mass destruction" will be shown to be excuses for an invasion to acquire control of the oil fields.
|
Post #55,524
10/8/02 4:35:30 PM
|
They made him an offer he couldn't refuse...
Armey, R-Texas, said in August that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would violate American principles. But after "a very intense, personal confrontation with the facts," he said Monday, he has concluded that Iraq poses a "clear and present" threat to the United States. Right. I'm guessing it's more like "support Bush or lose the backing in your next election".
I'm sure the "facts" he had "and intense personal confrontation" with were exactly as you state... *chuckle* (Oh, you mean he should have confronted the facts about invading Iraq? C'mon...this isn't security we're talking about here...it's politics! Who you crappin'?jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #55,478
10/8/02 9:35:40 AM
|
Mr. President, you nailed it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.... As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small.....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Eh... Umm... May be not.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #55,489
10/8/02 11:22:41 AM
|
If Cuba had oil, these stupid analogies might
mean something. The difference between Castro's Cuba and Hussein's Iraq... Shloads of money flowing in from oil. No "cold war" puppet government in place in Iraq either. The potential for escalating weapons production is exponentially greater. Plus, Iraq is a bit farther away... Analogies with the Bay of Pigs are ignorant and irrelevent.
Am I the only one who watched the speech, understood that Bush sees this potential action as a continuation of the "hot" Iraqi war of '91 and views that their terms of surrender were not fulfilled. You want an analogy? We were in Japan and Germany making sure that they didn't rebuild their militaries for quite a while after WWII... Hey, don't we still have troops in Germany? As cynical as I am, I think that Bush understands that the Ameuropeacans will not tolerate oil shortages (based on their short term memories of the '70s and the number of behemouth gas guzzlers that litter the highways and autobahns) and that commerce is tied to domestic tranquility and security. Is it about the oil? Yep. Is that all it's about? Nope...
I saw something that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime last night - a politician (or his team) who were thinking in the long term best interest of this nation and the world community. No matter what you might think, at least this administration doesn't seem to be affraid to go against the "polls" and do what it thinks is best.
I have a three year old son. If we do not take action now, it's only gonna get worse WHEN it comes. This is not a "preemptive strike". This is the fulfillment of the "or else" associated with Iraq's terms of surrender. Their non-compliance implies continuation of an existing war... RIGHT?
To all assholes that are enamored with the term Chickenhawk, I served as a Russian Linguist at the height of the Cold War. I watched my oldest brother destroyed by Viet Nam. I don't take these matters lightly or as an intellectual "exercise". LISTEN: We will be fighting another war with Iraq given history and Hussein. The longer we wait, the greater the odds that this regime will develop more weapons and more destructive weapons. Just as the President said.
I understand the logic. He NAILED IT.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,491
10/8/02 11:52:38 AM
|
I've said it already
I'll say it again. Hussein is the least dangerous of all those crasies that run around Middle East. He has a lot to lose, and nothing to gain. He wants to harm us, but he is very, very afraid of us. So all that talk about US being in mortal danger from Iraq is rubbish. You want mortal danger? Think islamic revolution in Pakistan, a la Iranian one. And if we go into Iraq, chances of that happenning grow a lot.
Now, what really bothers me in the whole thing - we are about to commit exactly the crime that we nailed Saddam for in 1991. We are about to occupy a coutry for its oil reserves. If we do it, we become another Iraq, except we are much better armed. The Kennedy quote Bush cited applies to us. WE are producing "deliberate deception and offensive threats". WE are becoming the very thing we swore to fight. It scares the hell out of me.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #55,495
10/8/02 12:44:00 PM
|
Again, slight difference of opinion...
I understand your reservations but I do not think that your analogy holds true...
We have no intention of "annexing" Iraq as Iraq did with Kuwait. The President has repeatedly stated, "regieme change" as our ultimate goal. He even issued terms for the Iraqi generals last night. Assuming this to be true, your analogy about "becoming the tyrant" does not hold. Additionally, I think if we "explain to the world community that this is a continuation/follow up to the '91 Gulf War" that most of the world community will be appeased - not that it really matters what the world community "thinks" at any given time, seeing as how they are merely a group of self-serving autonomous entities as well.
And cutting through any politically correct crap, the reason Hussein wants to develop these weapons is to use them against Iran and /or Israel. Either of these targets would completely destablize the region and the world oil markets and lead to an even larger conflict.
As per Pakistan, India will be more than happy to take care of any "problems" in that region. If you look at the history, the Muslim expanse stopped flat when it hit present day India to the east and China to the north. I don't think it would take too long for India to move it's troups up into Kashmir (first :-) ) and then into Pakistan given the opportunity of a "civil war". This is what is called a self correcting mechanism?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,500
10/8/02 1:26:11 PM
|
No tyranny?
No, we don't intend to make Iraq a 51st state. But we (at least people who were talking at Senate hearings on the war) are awfully sure that new Iraqi governement will be friendlier to our oil companies than to French or Russian ones. Why would that be?
As to world community, I do not particularly care what Quadaffi or Anand thinks about us. But I do care when 150,000 people show up in London to protest our behavior half a world away. This is a bad sign. We're only "leading" the world as long as the world percieves us as going in the right direction. Change that, and we'll have to pull rather than lead.
About Pakistan. How long do you think it will take for bin Laden people in Pakistani intellegence service to fade into sunset with an A-bomb on a truck? I do not think that Indian troops will be there in time. And in any case, talk about destabilization. If we provoke India-Pakistan war, the world will curse us for the rest of the century.
I am not quite sure why Hussein wants an A-bomb. I do not think he will dare to use it at all, not until he himself is on the deathbed. And by then he will be losing grip anyway. As long as he intends to live a few more years, he'll keep his weapons to himself. There will be no country left for him to govern if he uses any WMDs, and he knows it.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #55,528
10/8/02 4:45:37 PM
|
Are you REALLY that naive?
We have no intention of "annexing" Iraq as Iraq did with Kuwait. The President has repeatedly stated, "regieme change" as our ultimate goal. And what kind of regime do you expect it to be changed to? A regime "of the People, by the People, for the People" of Iraq? Who you crappin'! NO, it's to be a US puppet, a la the Shah, fully beholden to the US for its very existence, and..oh, yes, a very friendly "trading partner" for the vast Iraqi oil reserve. Believe anything else, and you're simply a damn fool! (And exactly the kind of damn fool Karl Rove is looking for, too...)jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #55,533
10/8/02 5:17:51 PM
|
jb...be polite.
Certainly we won't annex Iraq.
But on the flip side of the coin - the idea that we're going to liberate the Iraq people is a scary notion. The Sunnei and the Shiites (or so I've been told) don't exactly get along. Why do I suspect a major bloodletting (read civil war) the minute we remove the stablizing factor?
(These people don't exactly believe in democracy.)
So, we won't annex Iraq, but we will provide a "stablizing factor" -- you know, a peace keeping mission.
Exactly the same thing Bush blasted Clinton for in the debates, if you will recall. (And what he promised he wouldn't do.)
|
Post #55,590
10/8/02 7:53:55 PM
|
Um, you might want to look up "slant drilling". Kuwait did.
|
Post #55,493
10/8/02 12:33:40 PM
|
Incorrect.
Am I the only one who watched the speech, understood that Bush sees this potential action as a continuation of the "hot" Iraqi war of '91 and views that their terms of surrender were not fulfilled. Yes, he still views it as 1991. No, it is not about the terms of surrender because our GOAL back then was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That was accomplished. We were in Japan and Germany making sure that they didn't rebuild their militaries for quite a while after WWII... Hey, don't we still have troops in Germany? Yes, we are. Still. When there is NO THREAT to Germany. NONE. And it costs us a lot of money, every year, to no effect. As cynical as I am, I think that Bush understands that the Ameuropeacans will not tolerate oil shortages (based on their short term memories of the '70s and the number of behemouth gas guzzlers that litter the highways and autobahns) and that commerce is tied to domestic tranquility and security. Is it about the oil? Yep. Is that all it's about? Nope... I'm sure he understands that. Yet, instead of taking steps to ensure that OUR supply of oil is sufficient to our needs by REDUCING OUR NEEDS, he is planning on taking over another country. I saw something that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime last night - a politician (or his team) who were thinking in the long term best interest of this nation and the world community. I find that to be very strange, considering. After all, wouldn't the "long term best interest" be to establish good relations with that section of the world? And the way to establish good relations is to invade? I guess that someone hasn't learned anything from the PLO and Israel. I have a three year old son. If we do not take action now, it's only gonna get worse WHEN it comes. Cool. You have a three year old son. That gives you some insight or wisdom? No, IF it comes, it MIGHT be worse. Of course, since very few US citizens have been killed by Iraqi forces in the past 10 years, "worse" is meaningless. This is not a "preemptive strike". This is the fulfillment of the "or else" associated with Iraq's terms of surrender. Their non-compliance implies continuation of an existing war... RIGHT? WRONG. This is a "preemptive strike" because Iraq has NOT attacked any other nation in the past 10 years. To all assholes that are enamored with the term Chickenhawk, I served as a Russian Linguist at the height of the Cold War. I like the term "Chickenhawk". I am an asshole. What is your point? You speak Russian? I watched my oldest brother destroyed by Viet Nam. Okay, maybe you don't understand that "Chickenhawk" means that OTHERS are in danger, not you. Saying that you're related to someone who was NOT a chickenhawk does NOT mean that you are NOT a chickenhawk. Deal with it. I don't take these matters lightly or as an intellectual "exercise". I'd say you take these matters lightly. And I'd say that you have not exercised any intellecutal assets in your position. LISTEN: We will be fighting another war with Iraq given history and Hussein. Why and Where? Will it be because WE invade them? or Will it be because THEY invade us? or Will it be because THEY invade someone else? The first two are idiotic. The last does NOT seem to bother the countries neighboring Iraq. So why should it bother us? IF Saddam invades another of our allies, then we come down on him JUST LIKE THE LAST TIME. How hard is that to understand? His army is EVEN WEAKER THAN BEFORE. And it will be even worse for him if he deploys chem or bio or (assuming he will eventually develop them) nukes. The longer we wait, the greater the odds that this regime will develop more weapons and more destructive weapons. Well, that is true IF YOU LOOK AT ONLY THAT FACTOR. ONE other factor to consider is that Saddam isn't a kid anymore. Eventually, he will die or be overthrown. What is the likelyhood that he will have the weapons you are afraid of -AND- be able to hurt the US -AND- that both of those will happen while he is alive or in control? Minimal, in my opinion. He doesn't have them yet and he's been trying for years. Saddam is a REGIONAL threat. He can push his CONVENTIONAL forces into NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. That is all. And the result of that will be another Gulf War to push him back. Just like before.
|
Post #55,508
10/8/02 2:12:00 PM
|
Points on your points...
In your rebuttal you write: No, it is not about the terms of surrender because our GOAL back then was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That was accomplished. This is a true statement, but misleading and not a "full" statement. It was our main GOAL back then to liberate Kuwait, but after Kuwait was liberated and before we pulled troups out, we demanded that Hussein disarm himself and agree to UN inspectors to ensure compliance. See how I might view your rebuttal as disengenuous? You also write in response to my statement of troups still in Japan and Germany: Yes, we are. Still. When there is NO THREAT to Germany. NONE. And it costs us a lot of money, every year, to no effect. Again, a true statement, but missed my point entirely. The Russians and Americans stayed in Germany after the war to keep GERMANY from rebuilding it's military to use against it's neighbors and - we're still there. I don't understand your "to" Germany comment... You further write: Cool. You have a three year old son. That gives you some insight or wisdom? To answer your question. Absofuckinglutely yes. When you have children (if you care about them), you are forced to think beyond your own lifetime - a form of insight, if you will. And if you think in terms of your children or your grandchildrens lifetimes, you view world history and world events as a series, a passion play in the grandest scale. And if you study history, you can learn to detect patterns that emerge. I am not a prophet, but it is clear to me that Iraq will, if left unchecked, become a big problem for the Middle East and the Western world, most probably sooner than later. In other words, this mess needs cleaning up. We are partly responsible for making it. We made the mess, we clean it up... You further write: WRONG. This is a "preemptive strike" because Iraq has NOT attacked any other nation in the past 10 years. Ah! I'm WRONG... That's it. I'm wrong. It has so been decried... I surrender and agree to your terms. Wait a minute. No I don't. I haven't disagreed with you for over a minute. That means that I am in compliance. 10 minutes or 10 years, they haven't attacked anyone... What's your fucking point. Have they agreed to the terms of surrender including destroying their weapons of mass destruction and agreed to have UN inspectors verify their compliance? Have they done it??? WRONG!!! Their is nothing preemptive about enforcing existing terms of surrender no matter how you try to torture logic or the English language. (Da, Tovarish?) In closing this rebuttal to your rebuttal, there is something Clintonesque in your theory that if we "just wait long enough, he'll die (especially in the context of this thread - how old is Castro anyway :->)... It is a vacuous pipe dream. Kind of like building "bridges to the 21'st Century" and all that other hoohaw. Talk. The reason I am so perplexed is that you probably understand this yet still advocate vacuous pipe dreams... If a bridge needs fixing, do we wait until it fixes itself? Wait until it dies? Curious minds want to know. Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,509
10/8/02 2:17:44 PM
|
Re: Points on your points...
Cool. You have a three year old son. That gives you some insight or wisdom? To answer your question. Absofuckinglutely yes. When you have children (if you care about them), you are forced to think beyond your own lifetime - a form of insight, if you will. In other words, in the name of children who have given you wisdom, you're willing to make a lot of Iraqi orphans? Or don't they count? -drl
|
Post #55,518
10/8/02 3:37:16 PM
|
Like I said.
That isn't "wisdom".
That is "selfishness".
|
Post #55,521
10/8/02 4:02:45 PM
|
The best answer I can give...
which is not a very good one... If you have siamese twins and have to decide to separate them or they will both die. One most probably will die so that the other may live... You have to make a rough choice for the greater good. It is never a "good" choice for the one who must perish.
All of the Germans in Nazi Germany weren't fascists. Hell, most of them were scared citizens. Scared of their own government. You know where this analogy goes.
I do believe there is a greater good. I believe that it is hard to define and even harder to determine if you worker towards it or against it. I believe that our President did a decent job of outlining why it would be for the greater good if this leader were no longer allowed to "lead". He went point by point as to why this man is a threat (not only to other nations, but to his own people) and to define why, for the greater good, it is better that we use force, if necessary, to oust him.
YMMV
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,531
10/8/02 4:53:58 PM
|
Yeah I do know
"All of the Germans in Nazi Germany weren't fascists. Hell, most of them were scared citizens. Scared of their own government. You know where this analogy goes."
Come to think of it, I *am* scared of my government.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #55,532
10/8/02 5:07:41 PM
|
Anybody else here scared of their own government?
*Raises hand*
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #55,583
10/8/02 7:40:15 PM
|
ditto
*hand raised*
BTW: I can be "arrested" and indefinately "detained" without access to a lawyer by my "democratic" "free" government.
Just by being labeled a "terrorist".
Waiting.....
To put on a black shirt.
Waiting.....
To weed out the weaklings.
|
Post #55,847
10/9/02 8:38:28 PM
|
Just by being labeled a "terrorist". - WRONG!
You just have to be labeled someone who may know something about a potential terrorist.
----
Whatever
|
Post #55,589
10/8/02 7:53:20 PM
|
Re: Anybody else here scared of their own government?
Funny, I was going to screed about the pure evil of deliberate false imprisonment (as I write I'm watching a show on A&E about falsely convicted death row survivors). And then I saw you beat me to it.
*raises both hands*
In fact these international adventures are nothing but a diversion of attention from the sickness and evil in our own backyard.
-drl
|
Post #55,625
10/8/02 9:21:45 PM
|
Hopefully everybody
Anybody that isn't at least somewhat worried about their government doesn't really understand what governments do.
The fundamental function of government is to impose order at the expense of freedom. History shows that there is an inherent drift towards more order and less freedom unless action is taken to prevent the slide. People should be constantly concerned with what their government is doing.
Honestly though, right now I'm more fearfull then I have been in the past. The current leaders of this country show many dangerous traits.
Jay
|
Post #55,640
10/8/02 10:29:57 PM
|
Scared as in...
"Those fuckers scare me! Nobody that dumb should ever hold a gun."
or as in
"I'd better sit tight. If I make waves, they will find a way to screw up my life for sure."
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #55,755
10/9/02 11:55:54 AM
|
I'll take "A", please.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #55,674
10/9/02 2:45:14 AM
|
Not scared - livid__ (but only once in a while)
One must ration extreme emotions, when living in a nascent Gulag State. Save the energy for an actual local event. And there Will be one... in this atmosphere.
Fear is an inappropriate response to the Fascism passed without debate or even READING the POS document! someone managed to make into a sophomoric acronym like PATRIOT Act. It is a parody of itself! so evidently unConstitutional on its face.. so evidently the kind of weasel thing which only people in a Screaming Panic could ever regurgitate, let alone make US Law.
Anger is the appropriate state to nurture! It helps you Not to forget just how strong is the undercurrent in Murican mythos - for LawN'Order at the expense of personal freedom. Just as in Germany after the torpedoing of the quite democratic Weimar Republic, by the same sort of thugs as today bomb clinics and attend Jerry Foulwell rallies: Fascism for Jesus, if you believe the likes of him.
Stay mad about *what you have already lost*. 25,000 marched in one of the larger local Vietnam protests, the sum of which ended Johnson's career .. eventually. Bush/Cheney must be ended - sooner methinks. If enough still have the guts,
Ashton
|
Post #55,756
10/9/02 11:58:52 AM
|
Fear is a warning.
Don't let it rule you, and you're fine.
I can handle fear just fine. Hell, death doesn't paralyze me - I act first, THEN panic when the emergency is over.
When I talk about fear, I talk about seeing the path we're on the way down, and noticing how similar it is to the Nazi party's ursurpation of democratic Germany and the decline into WW2. No, we haven't dissolved congress, and Shrub ain't Dictator in Chief - but Congress is now his lap-dog, and he's using every trick in the book to manipulate people's feelings and hide the blame for what's really going on here - doing $$$ of damage to preserve his power...
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #55,685
10/9/02 5:50:17 AM
|
Re: Not of mine thank God, but alarmed at yours <grin>
I have tried to like Bush, but I just can't get past the shallowness and outright deception in his speeches.
Reagan was actually likeable even though he was advised by almost the same team Bush Jnr has.
It still alarms me that the Anthrax evidence (suddenly & abruptly gone quiet) was leading up to being shown as a deliberate campaign by a CIA operative to terrorise the US population into supporting funding for biological weapon research & to support the cause of the current admin.
That is bloody terrible. And these milksops who want to believe Bush's every word deserve everything that comes their way. People deserve the Govt they elect (ooops Bush didn't really win did he ???).
|
Post #56,044
10/10/02 3:56:00 PM
|
Yeah, my hands are raised too...
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" said someone... :-)
I've been working on a freakin' project from hell which has prevented me from annoying everyone on this board sufficiently... That said...
I fear my own government and have for many years now. I do not put us in the same context as of Stalin's Soviet Republic or Hitler's Nazi Germany in that we (as of yet) do not have to fear for our lives or face imprisonment if we hold opposing points of view from our current government's.
That said, the government of the US has declared a non-stop "war on Americans" (War on Drugs, War on Terrorists, War on Handguns, War on Poverty, War on Hate Speech, War on {stick finger in political air and see which way the popular paranoia wind is blowing}) since the 70's which have slowly been reversing such things as the 1'st, 2'nd, 4'th and 5'th ammendments. This particular group in the White House are different in that they are so overt in what they are doing. Pardon me if I find it refreshing - still disgusting - but at least openly.
In a democracy (representative or true), we the frigging people still have a chance, if we have the will and perserverence to affect change, unlike in a monarchy/totalitarian regieme. What I fear, and I think maybe others here fear, is that we the frigging people aren't necessarily that bright?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,631
10/8/02 9:50:32 PM
|
Re: The best answer I can give...
I'm not implying that you are callous about future Iraqi orphans. I know you are afraid for your kids you love so much. Well I'm afraid too. But, the danger is from within.
You have to understand the economy is *really dying*. There are vast numbers of lower middle class people, heavily in debt, chasing false ideals of eternal youth. These people have NO CHANCE. They are NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. Why is the system of business we use crushing these people? Why is this not the absolute #1 priority? What good is it to be safe in a spiritually and economically dead country? That is the fate of people who are tyrannized.
There have been somewhere near 100 people freed from death row because their alleged victims were not only murdered, but RAPED. Without the DNA evidence left by the actual rapist, these people would probably be DEAD. It is nearly certain that this worst of all fates is a COMMON OCCURENCE. **WHY** is Iraq more important than this? If those thousands who died in the trade center, and the possible hundreds of thousands who might die in a nuclear attack, died in a country in which innocent people are in jail because of official misconduct, then they DIED FOR NOTHING.
(As an indicator of our disgraced level, consider that the idea of homosexual prison rape is wonderful fodder for comedians, and in fact has become a sort of "common knowledge" - but no one seems very upset about it or willing to see it put to an end. They're just cons after all - not really human like US.)
-drl
|
Post #55,676
10/9/02 3:09:57 AM
|
Agreed - the decline is within
No external enemy is other than a ploy, mere fodder - especially for the depraved cabal now in charge of the entire US arsenal. As the Congress speaks in blab-words and ignores the Constitution blatantly.
Further, the ~3000 lives snuffed at WTC, placed in perspective with the multiple thousands of victims of US deals with scum, during and after the cold war - that is a perspective never alluded to, in what passes for citizen discussion.
I saw a few months ago on PBS [Frontline], a report which focussed upon just one of the cases you mention. In detailing the patently fraudulent illegal behavior of the Authorities, even *after* the DNA evidence had exonerated the man - I saw no difference between today's US and Stalin's Gulag, except in frequency of occurrence here + our crude forms of racism. Whether US or USSR: no newspapers will report such material.
Personally I think it's a crap shoot whether there are enough US (real) citizens left who give a shit about anything but mercantile behaviour and Me-Mine. It Can't Happen Here was publ. in '35. Much of the Bush/Cheney + Evangelist Ashcroft fulminations are right out of the book; also the dialogue is sometimes eerily close to verbatim (certainly the rationale for the words is identical). S. Lewis's 1935 sheep are reincarnated in 2002.
We can see concentration camps soon, if the general torpor holds. I wonder how long Canada will accept refugees? (If I see a few more benchmarks passed - I will be among the ones trying to leave this nascent Gulag State)
Stay pissed - keeps one alert,
Ashton
|
Post #55,517
10/8/02 3:35:01 PM
|
Counters to your counters.
This is a true statement, but misleading and not a "full" statement. It was our main GOAL back then to liberate Kuwait, but after Kuwait was liberated and before we pulled troups out, we demanded that Hussein disarm himself and agree to UN inspectors to ensure compliance. See how I might view your rebuttal as disengenuous? You can. Although you do note that we made such demands AFTER we had liberated Kuwait. In other words, the GOAL was to liberate Kuwait. Once we had liberated Kuwait, we decided on ANOTHER GOAL. So, as long as we keep adding NEW GOALS we can continue the operation that was "justified" by the ORIGINAL GOAL? Bzzzzzttttttt!!!!! Wrong answer. Going to war with Iraq WAS justified in terms of liberating Kuwait. Going to war with Iraq IS NOT justified because Iraq didn't abide by the surrender terms after they left Kuwait. Again, a true statement, but missed my point entirely. The Russians and Americans stayed in Germany after the war to keep GERMANY from rebuilding it's military to use against it's neighbors and - we're still there. I don't understand your "to" Germany comment... Bzzzzztttt! Again, incorrect. We remained in Germany to prevent Soviet expansion throughout Europe. Not to prevent the German army from rebuilding. I've been on training exercises with the German army. It exists. To answer your question. Absofuckinglutely yes. When you have children (if you care about them), you are forced to think beyond your own lifetime - a form of insight, if you will. You are confusing your prejudices with "wisdom". Because you want YOUR genes to survive does NOT make you "right". That is what is known as "selfishness". In other words, YOUR children get the benefit of cheap oil while the IRAQI children get the benefit of shrapnel wounds and missing hands and feet. Yeah. That's "wisdom" all right. Ah! I'm WRONG... That's it. I'm wrong. It has so been decried... I surrender and agree to your terms. Well at least you can recognize it. That's a start. I haven't disagreed with you for over a minute. That means that I am in compliance. 10 minutes or 10 years, they haven't attacked anyone... That's right. They haven't. A whole NEW generation is growing up over there. A generation that HAS NOT attacked anyone. But, so what. Their genetic heritage is tainted. It's better they face our bullets than be allowed to live. What's your fucking point. That the "immediate threat" does NOT exist. Have they agreed to the terms of surrender including destroying their weapons of mass destruction and agreed to have UN inspectors verify their compliance? Have they done it??? WRONG!!! You know, it's kind of difficult to be "wrong" about a statement I haven't made. But, if you'd keep up on world news, you'd know that Iraq and the UN are working on an agreement about the inspectors. Their is nothing preemptive about enforcing existing terms of surrender no matter how you try to torture logic or the English language. (Da, Tovarish?) Bzzzzztttt! Wrong again. #1. Iraq invaded Kuwait. #2. That invasion justified our war with Iraq to remove Iraq from Kuwait. #3. Iraq surrendered. #4. Iraq broke the terms of their surrender. #5. Because Iraq broke the terms of their surrender does NOT justify a war with Iraq. In closing this rebuttal to your rebuttal, there is something Clintonesque in your theory that if we "just wait long enough, he'll die (especially in the context of this thread - how old is Castro anyway :->)... I didn't say that. I was pointing out that "eventually" doesn't matter (as in "eventually he will get nukes"). Your argument depends upon Saddam getting the weaponry -and- invading the US or allies -before- he is overthrown -or- dies. And "eventually" does not work in that context. If a bridge needs fixing, do we wait until it fixes itself? Wait until it dies? Curious minds want to know. Okay, reality check here. #1. Bridges do NOT fix themselves. #2. Everyone WILL die. Can we try to stick to reality?
|
Post #55,523
10/8/02 4:30:14 PM
|
And so it goes...
So you really think that the occupation armies in East Germany were there to prevent American expansion? Ad nauseum... The Russians were brutally attacked twice in one century by Germany. They were surely there to keep Germany in check and set up the Eastern Block of Nations as a buffer zone against further Western European attacks... Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too?
As per Kuwait, you don't give terms of surrender BEFORE you fight a war... enough said?
You write: "You are confusing your prejudices with "wisdom". Because you want YOUR genes to survive does NOT make you "right". That is what is known as "selfishness"." What an amusing quote from you. First, let me clue you in a little something... I couldn't give a smorgasbord about my genes surviving (even subconciously). What I cared about was getting laid. It worked. A child was conceived...
In reading for context, I make an observation that having children tends to give insight beyond my own lifetime to which you are trying to argue? How the fuck do you know if I am confusing "right" with sperm and selfishness... I mean YOU introduced those words. I used the word INSIGHT, a word you obviously are not familiar with. Because I tend to use English a means of communication and not a "bot delivery mechanism" does that mean that I can't alliterate once in a while?
So once again... I grow weary. It's been fun, but I got work to do... Catch you soon. Keep repeating the same tired mantra over and over and it becomes true... That's my motto...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,579
10/8/02 7:35:14 PM
|
Huh?
So you really think that the occupation armies in East Germany were there to prevent American expansion? No. They were to support a Soviet expansion. The US troops in West Germany were there to prevent a Soviet expansion. Ad nauseum... The Russians were brutally attacked twice in one century by Germany. They were surely there to keep Germany in check and set up the Eastern Block of Nations as a buffer zone against further Western European attacks... Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? No. There were NOT there to keep Germany in check. They would NOT have been able to do so if they were. They were in the MIDDLE of NATO. It would have been simple to cut their supply lines. No. The "Wall" was in BERLIN. It did NOT divide Germany. It divided a city IN Germany (more specifically, a city in EAST Germany). Supplying West Berlin was a problem soon after it was divided. There is/was a memorial to that in West Berlin. Okay, it seems that there are some basic facts lacking in your education. I would have guessed that from your position, though. As per Kuwait, you don't give terms of surrender BEFORE you fight a war... enough said? I did not say we did. Nor do you go to war because someone broke one of the conditions of surrender. You write: "You are confusing your prejudices with "wisdom". Because you want YOUR genes to survive does NOT make you "right". That is what is known as "selfishness"." What an amusing quote from you. Amusing AND accurate. I am amazing. First, let me clue you in a little something... I couldn't give a smorgasbord about my genes surviving (even subconciously). What I cared about was getting laid. It worked. A child was conceived... Bzzzztttt! Context shift! 10 yard penalty. Reference to ORIGINAL post: [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55508|Points on your points...] Cool. You have a three year old son. That gives you some insight or wisdom?
To answer your question. Absofuckinglutely yes. When you have children (if you care about them), you are forced to think beyond your own lifetime - a form of insight, if you will. And if you think in terms of your children or your grandchildrens lifetimes, you view world history and world events as a series, a passion play in the grandest scale. In reading for context, I make an observation that having children tends to give insight beyond my own lifetime to which you are trying to argue? That "insight" is nothing more than "selfishness". Unless you don't care if your child is killed. Just as you don't seem to care if Iraqi children are killed, as long as your child has a ready supply of cheap oil. How the fuck do you know if I am confusing "right" with sperm and selfishness... I mean YOU introduced those words. No. I said you were confusing "wisdom" and/or "insight" with your selfish desire to supply your spawn with cheap oil. I used the word INSIGHT, a word you obviously are not familiar with. Because I tend to use English a means of communication and not a "bot delivery mechanism" does that mean that I can't alliterate once in a while? You can do whatever you like. And I will post the flaws in your "logic" as I see fit. As I have done.
|
Post #55,747
10/9/02 11:21:58 AM
|
nits and LMAO
Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-)
The word Soviet expansion is meaningless in the context of WHY were the Russians there... We were there, immediately after the war to keep the Soviets from occupying all of Germany. Their was no NATO then (not until 1949 and a response to the Soviets refusal to leave areas occupied at the end of WWII)... The Soviets made it very clear that they would not tolerate the Germans rebuilding their army and attacking them again. So clear that they stayed in East Germany for almost 50 years. Which is why I used Germany as an example of how after "hot" wars that occupying armies are kept in defeated countries to keep them in line. "We (the US)" were there as an occupying army keeping the Russians from occupying all of Germany. But our sole focus was not on keeping Russian expansion in check... The territory that the US occupied was littered with US bases (that we both were stationed in) and our presence there ensured that the West German population not forget the "mistake" they made in WWII. There were no German army bases in my hometown, state or country... YMMV, but I found that many Germans resented us being there.
After the Gulf War, there was no occupying force left in Iraq - there could have been - we instead, chose to leave the country (militarily neutered and no longer a "threat") and put a UN sanctioned inspection program to make sure that Iraq did not try to rebuild it's military. In hindsight, this was a huge tactical mistake because the UN lacked any enforcement power and because the US policy after Bush left office did not insist that the UN enforce Iraq's terms of surrender. I know how you like to quibble, but I don't think much of what I have just written is quiballable...
I'll give you any other points you want because whether or not children gave me insight is subjective... Happy.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,794
10/9/02 3:09:36 PM
|
WTF? Here are the PHOTOGRAPHS!
Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. Link. [link|http://www.vega.net/newbr1.jpg|Fences, not a wall.] [link|http://www.vega.net/rospic2.jpg|Fences, not a wall (part 2).] There was a wall in Berlin. In some places on the border, there were walls, along most of it, only fences and guard towers. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-) I have provided photographic evidence to support my claims. Yes, you are ignorant of basic facts. The word Soviet expansion is meaningless in the context of WHY were the Russians there... We were there, immediately after the war to keep the Soviets from occupying all of Germany. As I said, we were there to stop the Soviets from expanding into Europe. Now you've said it also. The Soviets made it very clear that they would not tolerate the Germans rebuilding their army and attacking them again. So clear that they stayed in East Germany for almost 50 years. And they left because they felt that Germany would not attack them again? No. They left because the Soviet empire was falling. Which is why I used Germany as an example of how after "hot" wars that occupying armies are kept in defeated countries to keep them in line. Strange, the ORIGINAL bit was about us (the US) still being in Germany to, as you claimed, prevent the German army from rebuilding. Now you've abandond that line and are claiming that the SOVIETS were the ones keeping the Germany army from rebuilding. Note: The US is NOT the Soviet Union. Please record this fact for future reference. "We (the US)" were there as an occupying army keeping the Russians from occupying all of Germany. Again, that is what I, Brandioch had stated. But our sole focus was not on keeping Russian expansion in check... So you claim. And claim. And claim. Yet you offer no supporting material and you make completely false claims about the situation. The territory that the US occupied was littered with US bases (that we both were stationed in) and our presence there ensured that the West German population not forget the "mistake" they made in WII. "littered with US bases"? Are you saying that the US bases were there BEFORE we were? The only reason the "US bases" were there is to BASE US TROOPS OUT OF. If the US left Germany, the "US bases" would be cease to be "US bases". And, again, you make a statement without support. I'm sure that having a military base there would remind them that they lost WWII. But as a reminder of the "mistake" they made? Check out the neo-nazi movement. No. They were NOT intended as a reminder for the "mistake" the Germans made in WWII. Again, you are so ignorant of BASIC FACTS that it would take YEARS to inform you. And you'd fight it every step of the way. Instead of wasting my time doing so, I will use you as I see fit. EVERYONE! Screamer is an EXCELLENT example of the type of person who supports Bush's plans. #1. Ignorant of basic facts. #2. Ignorant of history. #3. Ignorant of the role of the US military. #4. And willfully so.
|
Post #55,841
10/9/02 7:46:47 PM
|
I give up...
a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum.
I believe that my points were valid. You disagree. Let's leave it alone for now.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,916
10/10/02 1:25:39 AM
|
And now you go for the semantic play.
a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum. I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with someone so fucking mentally deficient that I had to provide a dictionary definition of "wall". Allow me to refresh your memory for you. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55523|And so it goes...] They were surely there to keep Germany in check and set up the Eastern Block of Nations as a buffer zone against further Western European attacks... Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? The fact of the matter is that you haven't got a CLUE about ANYTHING in Europe after WWII. You THOUGHT that the wall extended along the entire border between East/West Germany. Now you're trying to play semantic games when I've provided PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF that you are wrong. You THOUGHT that the wall extended along the entire border BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING CLUELESS ABOUT HISTORY. Let's recap. You said: Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? I said: No. The "Wall" was in BERLIN. It did NOT divide Germany. It divided a city IN Germany (more specifically, a city in EAST Germany). You said: Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-) So, the "wall" in Berlin means the same to you as the "wall" along the border? I then provided PHOTOGRAPHS of the ACTUAL BORDER showing it was a FENCE and not a WALL. You then said: a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum. Again, the truth is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you refuse to admit it. And, like I said before, that is EXACTLY the kind of person who supports Bush in this matter. Once again, This is the Berlin WALL: [link|http://www.vega.net/rospic3.jpg|Berlin wall] This is the BORDER between East and West Germany: [link|http://www.vega.net/newbr1.jpg|first] [link|http://www.vega.net/rospic2.jpg|second] And your NEW position is that you're right because you meant "fence with guard towers" when you said "wall". So, you'd rather be thought an illiterate idiot than a clueless moron? Naw. You're just a clueless moron who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong and is trying to lie his way out of it by claiming that I'm being overly pedantic when I say that there wasn't a "wall" between East/West Germany when there was clearly a fence with guard towers. In other words, a Bush supporter. You and Marlowe should get along smashingly.
|
Post #55,934
10/10/02 7:01:28 AM
|
OT: Easy on the ad hominem, please. 'Tis not necessary.
|
Post #55,945
10/10/02 8:08:14 AM
|
Ad hominem attack against minor off topic point=par
for those keeping score.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #55,964
10/10/02 10:27:42 AM
|
Re: TIME FOR ALL OF US TO COOL IT - We all ...
come here in the hope we can learn. I have no doubt that you folk in the US are up to your eyeballs in the hype & bluster & pain of what is taking place.
Some of y'all truly believe that Iraq is a threat that only military action can solve - other of us fear what this admin's policies are doing to the world at large.
Let us all try to agree that emotions are running high & try to cool it - I for one promise to avoid putting the boot into opponents of my own views. I think that in balance we all mean well in our own ways. These are bad times for what was brought to a head on 9/11 & where it is leading us.
Cheers
Doug Marker
(Interesting bit of info - 2,400 died in the attack on Pearl Harbour - many more were killed on 9/11 - but lets us try to put 9/11 into perspective)
|
Post #55,966
10/10/02 10:38:24 AM
|
Deal with it.
Said "minor off topic point" is, in fact, an indicator that Screamer does NOT have the background he claimed he had.
When presented with photographic evidence that contradicted his claimed experience, he retreated into semantic games (much the same as you do).
Of course you'd leap to his defense.
You are two peas in a pod.
I'm just surprised that Marlowe hasn't also jumped in. Maybe he will later.
|
Post #55,971
10/10/02 11:07:34 AM
|
Lighten up
It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #56,013
10/10/02 1:56:18 PM
|
That would be valid, except I provided a physical example.
It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there. I specifically pointed to the Berlin Wall. Now, your "Iron Curtain" example would be valid if I had not referenced a physical wall. As I did. The Berlin Wall. Or, if the Berlin Wall had only been a fence with guard towers.
|
Post #55,974
10/10/02 11:22:35 AM
|
Note
I know screamer personally - he's anything but a chickenhawk like bogie. In fact he's rather liberal in the strict sense, i.e. liberTARIAN in the loose sense. He's not one to advocate global adventures. When he says he's concerned about Iraq, there MUST be a really good reason for him to think that way. So you needn't attack him, I'm sure he's plenty torn up over the whole matter as it is.
And you can take for gospel what he says - he has no reason to stretch the truth. If you two disagree, then it must be a matter of language and not fact.
-drl
|
Post #55,996
10/10/02 12:58:04 PM
|
Rules for the home game...
Wall means wall...not barrier...not "fence with guard towers".
While they all meet the same "fitness for purpose"...they have a differing dictionairy definition and will invite a tirade of small minded language attempting to belittle the poster and invalidate the entire argument based upon vocabulary and not content.
And >you< will be guilty of playing semantic games...heh heh heh.
Richer than triple chocolate mousse
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #55,991
10/10/02 12:28:12 PM
|
That wasn't "ad hominem".
"ad hominem" is when a personal attack is used in place of a factual refutal.
He claimed that there was a wall extending along the East/West German border.
I provided photographic evidence that such was NOT the case.
He then tried to imply that the fault was mine because I did not accept his usage of "wall" to mean "fence with guard towers".
#1. There was no wall where he said there was one.
#2. Anyone who had been where he said he was, when he said he was there would have known that there was no wall there.
#3. Since anyone there, during that time, would have known that there was no wall there, that means that:
a. He wasn't there.
b. He can't tell a wall from a fence.
#4. Since he claimed he was there, and #2, then, he is not telling the truth.
#5. Someone who does not tell the truth is a (fill in the blank).
No. This wasn't an "ad hominem" attack.
This was defining his character based upon his behaviour in this discussion.
Cart before the horse.
His statement.
My factual refutation.
His semantic games.
My conclusion about his character.
|
Post #56,023
10/10/02 2:24:12 PM
|
The semantic difference may not be the crux of that exchange
though. I have to second Ross that, Dan is hardly arguing from the mindset of the standard jingoistic rabble - nor is he of their ilk. Maybe you haven't ever talked with him; I have - so you are at a disadvantage in trying to discern his 'agenda'. I can't concur with his take on this situation, of course.
I believe (obv) that a decision to support the carte blanche this Admin has placed before the congress - is tantamount to congress' ceding its Constitutional authority. Illegally prima facie. I don't know what has brought Dan to believe that somehow the situation justifies such an extreme act, and to conceive that Iraq represents, on 10/10/02: that immediate threat to the US which is deemed "self defense" in its normal meaning. (For *that* is the ONLY situation in which we may both! be legitimate members of the UN *AND* unilaterally take bellicose action == we can't have that both ways)
But whatever Dan is, it isn't Yahoo IMhO. FWIW.
Ashton
|
Post #56,029
10/10/02 2:52:07 PM
|
You missed the point of my post.
It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument.
How you can say that that's not [link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ad%20hominem|ad hominem] is beyond me.
Lighten up, please.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #56,043
10/10/02 3:44:09 PM
|
Simple, it was after I had provided the rebuttal.
It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument.
How you can say that that's not ad hominem [*] is beyond me. Ad hominem (from your link): "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives." Again, my conclusion about his character occured AFTER the debate. I did NOT base my rebuttal of his claim upon his character. I based it upon the photographic evidence that I provided. He then retreated into semantic games about what he ACTUALLY meant when he said "wall". From that exchange, I concluded that he was a liar. Note, that is my conclusion from the exchange. That is not a rebuttal of his position. I rebutted his position with the photographs. My conclusion as to his character occured AFTER the debate. Therefore, not an "ad hominem" attack. If I had based my rebuttal upon his being a liar, then it would be.
|
Post #56,052
10/10/02 4:18:35 PM
|
Still missing the point:
It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,144
10/11/02 7:25:49 AM
|
So many things we do are not "necessary".
It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil. Of course, my question would be whether it is "necessary" to identify someone who tells lies as a "liar". And so forth. It may not be necessary, but it is correct.
|
Post #56,157
10/11/02 8:35:32 AM
|
And so it goes from the self-appointed knower of all things.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #56,327
10/12/02 4:27:49 AM
|
What about the Hughes Loan?
..and - how about that WVa Senator - all by hisself!
Byrd + Constitution VS Bush Dynasty + Corporate
(OK - so it was no-conte$t.)
|
Post #56,343
10/12/02 8:20:30 AM
|
?
Yeah, that made sense here.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #56,453
10/13/02 7:03:05 AM
|
Ashleigh Brilliant
In the end everything is related to everything else.
|
Post #56,472
10/13/02 10:21:41 AM
|
I thought that...
...was called the Kevin Bacon game;)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #55,907
10/10/02 12:45:13 AM
|
bzzt wrong conclusion
"No. There were NOT there to keep Germany in check. They would NOT have been able to do so if they were. They were in the MIDDLE of NATO. It would have been simple to cut their supply lines."
not hardly the american troops had battlefield nukes deployed to "stall" the advance until reinforcements could arrive from here. From 1945 to about 1965 the only thing keeping the sovs out of ALL of eaurope was the boom. Take away that slim advantage and numerical as well as tactical AT THAT TIME was on the Soviet side. The Soviets were not interested in marching into france, the internationale was doing that home grown in every country in eaurope as planned at the 1936 congress. The troops were stationed in germany to keep the fscking germans from boiling east again.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #55,917
10/10/02 1:30:26 AM
|
I don't see where you disagree.
not hardly the american troops had battlefield nukes deployed to "stall" the advance until reinforcements could arrive from here. From 1945 to about 1965 the only thing keeping the sovs out of ALL of eaurope was the boom. Take away that slim advantage and numerical as well as tactical AT THAT TIME was on the Soviet side. So, the US troops were deployed to prevent Soviet expansion? Isn't that what I said? The troops were stationed in germany to keep the fscking germans from boiling east again. You'll have to provide some support for this. So far, you've provided support for my claim that we didn't want the Soviets taking over Germany. The reason the Soviets WANTED Germany was for the port in the Atlantic.
|
Post #55,502
10/8/02 1:31:33 PM
|
Re: If Cuba had oil, these stupid analogies might
Blinded by the Right.
Containment worked for the USSR, right? It's working for China, right? Surely the latter is hardly a champion of freedom, no? Why not clean up that house? Because you know, one day we'll be fighting a war with them, and the sooner the better...
Why did we not excise Sadaam when the chance was offered in 1991? (Answer: Casualties might have dampened Republican chances in the '92 elections. As it turned out, they lost anyway.)
I would love to see a dead Sadaam. So kill him! Send people to do it in the night. Why do we need a general war to subdue such a defenseless tinhorn? (Answer: He's got a lot of oil we'd love to steal.)
What you are advocating is the first step in continuous war, as forms the backdrop of 1984.
And by the way, [link|http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html|here] is the website of an "asshole", Steven Fowle. You can read his mini-bio [link|http://www.nhgazette.com/m_to_m.html|here]. Unlike Bush, Cheney, Brit Hume, Rush, Lee Greenwood, Tony Snow, Bill Bennett, Phil Gramm, Rudy G, and Bill O'Reilly, he was there, in person.
-drl
|
Post #55,516
10/8/02 3:07:19 PM
|
Great site... Thanks for the link...
I don't think I am being blinded by the right however... You should know that's not usually something I succumb to. Anything's possible.
I have been giving this a lot of thought lately and have come to many of the same conclusions that the current administration has come to. At the time that Bush (HW) did not press on to Baghdad in '91, I thought it was the right call. Our main objective was to liberate Kuwait , which we did. The secondary objective, to destroy his military was only a partial success and the weapons inspectors were a compromise to appease "world opinion" about our intentions. I honestly believe that (HW) didn't plan on not being re-elected. During America's 8 year hiatus from world politics (the Clinton administration), Sadam was very busy.
Your points about a "post Sadam Iraq" and a policy of containment are quite valid. I am somewhat optimistic in that Iraq (the Iraqi people) since the Cradle of Civilization days , have been a progressive and "western friendly" culture. I know that statement is too broad, but I mean to say that this particular culture most probably does not wish to remain isolated from the rest of the world. Their history is too great and demands that they be a part of the world community. I would be very interested to know if the Iraqi people wish to be "liberated" from a tyrant. Would that sway "world opinion". How many tears has the world shed for the Taliban?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #55,527
10/8/02 4:41:09 PM
|
Re: Great site... Thanks for the link...
The threat is not from Sadaam or any other particular regime - it's from a stolen or sold Russian nuke in some lone wolf's hands. The only way to root out these people is to make friends with the Russians and strengthen the intelligence services. And the latter requires INTELLIGENCE IN OFFICE. Bounding over the deserts of Iraq in tanks and hummers will accomplish NOTHING other than to make the bad guys hate us even more. We need to kill them in their hidden recesses, with great violence and disgrace, and without involving citizens or armies.
We would accomplish infinitely more by simply expelling illegal aliens and revoking temporary visas. Let them go home. Deport them. Get rid of them and keep them out. Apply a vigorous policy of religious and ethnic profiling. Require all Islamic organizations to undergo regular audits of their activities. Freedom of religion be damned - piss on religion!
Your "solution" will simply make everyone feel better, until the nuke is detonated in Washington or New York or Houston or Los Angeles. Then what? What happens when there are no more tinhorns to topple? Do we take over the whole world? When will stupid, bellicose paranoia have run its course?
We are in trouble because our leaders are dimwitted, bellicose fools. We will remain in danger as long as the dimwitted, bellicose public keeps electing these genetic mistakes.
-drl
|
Post #55,857
10/9/02 8:55:27 PM
|
BZZZT - "For The Children"
I think we decided a while back that's a foul.
Or is that only when a Liberal says it?
----
Whatever
|
Post #55,498
10/8/02 1:03:24 PM
|
I for one am gratified...
to see that you didn't care for it. Any action on his part that would meet with your approval is not likely to be in democracy's best interests.
My only complaint is he kept saying "nukuler." I really wish he'd quit that.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave.
"The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
|
Post #55,503
10/8/02 1:32:04 PM
|
Nucular(TM)
is a property of Bush Consulting, Inc.
Do not attempt to dilute this valuable trademark by your laughably incorrect spelling.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #55,505
10/8/02 1:51:55 PM
|
Re: Nucular(TM)
Ha! Everyone knows the correct spelling is "nookler". Usage: "Well boys, this is it! [link|http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/strange/slove03.wav|Nookler] combat, toe ta toe with the Rooskies!"
-drl
|
Post #55,512
10/8/02 2:48:30 PM
|
[cackle] - Our pResident's alter-ego: Slim Pickens w/hat
|
Post #55,514
10/8/02 2:54:08 PM
|
ROFL! I need to see that movie again.
Alex
The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
|
Post #55,644
10/8/02 10:40:08 PM
|
Oh Yeah
The great thing about that movie - these people are willing to blow the world to bits because THEY CAN'T GET LAID! Everywhere in the film the message is lack of sex = death. Precious bodily fluids. Preverts (particularly English preverts). Phallic bombers and bombs. Sexy secretaries. Playboy in a B-52. Breeding stock. "Buck" "Turgid"son. Milfred "Muff"ley. Even Dmitri has can't hear over the noise of the party.
My theory is - get the leaders laid. Buy them all the best hookers and charge the citizens. Throw in a bag of good dope and the world will be safe - until the dry season.
POE - Wing attack R!
-drl
|
