IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Add one more thing, Dougie...
There are people who can clearly read between the lines of what people are "stating" and understand bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements when they read them... Just 'cause I don't follow your particular brand of bullshit makes me a bit of a pain, I understand. Wonderful debate technique. If you can't debate the argument, smear the poster.

Just exactly what did I need to add to the statement:

"My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake they can get their tactical nukes into production by then."

I wrote initially, that it is very telling (the loaded statement) of what his "agenda" is. Motive, I'm unsure of. Self-hatred, etc...?
Contextually, the assumption is that Iran had better get their tactical nukes into production by then (next presidential election) or ??? What fucking conclusion is obvious? "I hope". I asked him point blank why he "hoped" Iran would possess nuclear weapons before 2004. It's a decent question, I think.

We cleared up that I knew he clearly didn't "hope" Iran had tactical nukes, so what is to be made of such a loaded sentence? A political agenda perhaps? Let's assume for the sake of argument that he really is a man of "peace" and is against all war. Why would a man of peace want a foreign country that has been hostile to ours in the past wish that they possessed nuclear weapons (tactical nukes at that)? As a deterrent against us? That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Okay, then I guess this is reasonable - but only if you assume we would be deterred, which is highly speculative at best...

Either I don't understand your position or I do and simply disagree. What is your position? Do we appease tyrants and terrorist as policy or do we depose them? It's really quite simple... Intelligent people can disagree...
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
New He HAD answered that, even BEFORE you asked!
Some rabid Marlowe-type Screams:
Contextually, the assumption is that Iran had better get their tactical nukes into production by then (next presidential election) or ??? What fucking conclusion is obvious? "I hope". I asked him point blank why he "hoped" Iran would possess nuclear weapons before 2004. It's a decent question, I think.
He HAD ALREADY SAID, he hoped it *for their sake*. The Iranians, that is.

Because otherwise they'd be attacked by rabid American morons, *that* is the fucking conclusion that is obvious.

Fuck, some of you people are just totally out of your fucking minds, nowadays... I thought it was only Marlowe, of the ones I've seen here; thanks for correcting *that* misapprehension on my part.

Too bad the rabies seems to go directly to your brains, as evidenced by your inability to see that the answer you were looking for was already there -- otherwise, maybe some of you could have been cured, somehow.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
New Avoiding the flames forum...
and trying to take the high ground, your point about my non-complete context is well taken.

As for the rest, I would like to cut out the usual flame road and ask you, a German native, why you find this Iraq conflict offensive, if you do. This is not a bait either. I'm genuinely interested in what the German/Scandinavian perspective is on this.

I think, all insults aside (put a target on my id), we have a lot of common ground. There just seems to be this notion that current American foreign policy is somehow "worse" than it was 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago? I actually think that this administration is doing the right thing and believe their stated reasons. Does that make me "not smart"?

Fucking enlighten me, then insult me.
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
New Re: Add one more thing, Dougie...
OK, let's try again.

There are people who can clearly read between the lines of what people are "stating" and understand bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements when they read them...

I take this to be a modest self-portrait. It is also a very convenient stance, is it not, to adopt in these discussions--a sort of dimestore deconstructionism--since it allows you to tease out the "real" meaning (vouchsafed you, I presume, by sheer intellect) and address the "bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements" buried within your interlocutors' posts (or perhaps I should say "texts") whether or not these meanings are explicitly borne by the sentences you parse. Lesser men might be tempted to ascribe to posts just such hidden meanings as might lend themselves to crushing ripostes.

I see that we're still mining my earlier statement "My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake [emphasis added--again] [Iran] can get their tactical nukes into production by then." The sentences seemed straightforward enough to me when I wrote them, but now I learn that they signal an "agenda" and a "motive," coyly suggested to be "self hatred." Wheels within wheels, forsooth! Since you mentioned debate techniques, let me congratulate you on yours, which appears to be to define the other party's terms on his behalf.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he really is a man of "peace" and is against all war

I don't know why you should. Again, I've made no blanket statements about war or peace. I happen to think that the war we're about to launch is a piece of unmitigated thuggery, not significantly ameliorated by the fact that it's directed against the land of a smaller thug.

Why would a man of peace want a foreign country that has been hostile to ours in the past wish that they possessed nuclear weapons?

I take it you would prefer that the United Kingdom surrendered its atomic arsenal then? (The blue light indicates that a jest is intended and response is not expected--although come to think of it, Iran never burnt the White House.)

As a deterrent against us? That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Okay, then I guess this is reasonable - but only if you assume we would be deterred, which is highly speculative at best

If Iran believes that this country has hostile designs on it--a perception this administration has been at some pains to convey--it is the only conceivable practical deterrent (unless you count submitting to American fiat as a palatable alternative for them), and Iran's leadership would be criminally negligent not to pursue it.

Do we appease tyrants and terrorist as policy or do we depose them? It's really quite simple

1) It really isn't.

2) (if I may be permitted my own little bit of deconstruction) Note how we (here rather loosely defined as the Bush junta) get to define these terms. Return with us to the sunny days of the Reagan administration, when political philosopher Jeanne Kirkpatrick was on hand to help us out here: a regime that tortured its subject populace was "authoritarian" if we liked the generals, "totalitarian" if we didn't; insurgents who blew up school buses were "terrorists" if they read from "Das Kapital" and "freedom fighters" if they had the CIA playbook tucked into their fatigues. On second thought, we're already there.

Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see


Apparently.

cordially,

PS--Why, thank you, CRC. It can be useful now and again in these dust-ups to have a seasoned brawler at one's elbow.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Expand Edited by rcareaga March 18, 2003, 08:26:03 PM EST
New he's not a "seasoned brawler" Thor God of Flaming thunder!
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>

To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
New Let's start again then.
Where do you stand?

The war... are you for it or against it and why?

Are you a pacifist?

Are you a Democrat?

Do you think Bush has the mental capacity for the job of President?

Do you think that 12 years is ample time for a country to comply with terms of surrender?

Let's just start there and see how many blanks I've already filled in for you...
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
New P.S. Dimestore words like interlocutors...
that are even correctly spelled may impress some people... :-)

Here.

Not me.

I don't feel a twinge of guilt because I state my positions, especially unpopular ones, in my own style. I look for function not form. Aristotellian (sp?) logic (logos) is great for deconstructing a debate, but rarely an effective way to pursuade. The ethos, bathos, mythos, et al. tend to get in the way of logos. I couldn't care less about "style points". The really fucking hilarious part of it all is that we are quite illogical characters anyway. It's in the DNA. Even the erect ones who "try". The concept of an intellectual factual debate is hubrus anyway.

Long live the hubrus. Long live IWETHEY!
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
New Well, when correctly spelled, then -
Hubris works better. But then, real hubris doesn't care if it spells itself correctly because - it just Feels Right-ist (or is that Rightest?)

As to the matter of your take on the authenticity of this Admin and its [Real !?] motives du jour: maybe in 3? 5 years enough material will have been leaked about the Rove-Wolfowitz-Dubya Axis of Goodness, about Armageddon and Rapturin Out (ie the role of Fundamentalist Charismatic dogma and doggerel amidst the balance of this little Cabal of ideologues) --

To have some idea of the private mindsets VS the execrably simplistic *public* slogans we've heard since 9/11. Maybe by then: we all will find out who was snookered and who wasn't.. There may be other clues sooner though:

Watch for Dominoes.. (remember those?)

Can Iran be far behind? Is there any limit to how many of these little wars For Just Plain Goodness.. we shall be able to sustain unilaterally? How many before a formal coalition begins to spend Big Bucks/Euros/Rubles to counter the New Empire? (Not to mention the h\ufffdmorrhage of deficit spending, now looking exponential - PLUS that give-back to the top 3% in Gift/Rebate! still a mighty gleam in the Repo eye)

No $$ left for the next wars? Take it outta Soc Sec, Pension funds yada yada. Let the great-grandkids pay Tomorrow for the delusionals running the asylum Today. That's why Econ is called the Dismal Science; neither science nor art.. it's about obfuscation of the transfer of wealth to the very-few. And ours is an Innumerate society, along with the general dumbth.

Do you happen to recall that, in total numbers of Wonderfully Destructive Objects:

The USSR arsenal was the Largest. Pu, U have loooong half-lives and there have been >1000 *TONS* of higrade collected.

Hubris . . .

>>Don't Fuck Up Your Home Planet Without It<<





Just a few Motes in God's Eye \ufffd
You don't need a Weatherman
To tell which way the wind blows

     interesting "Fresh Air" today - (rcareaga) - (32)
         Um... - (ben_tilly) - (31)
             Re: Um... - (rcareaga) - (29)
                 Very telling... - (screamer) - (28)
                     Your logic is wrong - (ben_tilly)
                     Re: Very telling... - (rcareaga) - (26)
                         Carrying this a bit further... - (screamer) - (25)
                             you're assuming *way* too much - (rcareaga) - (13)
                                 Very fair assessment... - (screamer) - (3)
                                     Eschewing obfuscation, then_____ 'Democrats' indeed! - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Mou droog, I respectfully disagree... - (screamer) - (1)
                                             In simplest terms then - bringing this 'off' - (Ashton)
                                 Been down this slippery track with this person before - (dmarker) - (8)
                                     Add one more thing, Dougie... - (screamer) - (7)
                                         He HAD answered that, even BEFORE you asked! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Avoiding the flames forum... - (screamer)
                                         Re: Add one more thing, Dougie... - (rcareaga) - (4)
                                             he's not a "seasoned brawler" Thor God of Flaming thunder! -NT - (boxley)
                                             Let's start again then. - (screamer)
                                             P.S. Dimestore words like interlocutors... - (screamer) - (1)
                                                 Well, when correctly spelled, then - - (Ashton)
                             Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (ben_tilly) - (10)
                                 Re: Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (deSitter) - (3)
                                     Conventional Western Wisdom holds... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         US current global strategy has China already contained ... - (dmarker)
                                     Digression -- Khrushchev - (rcareaga)
                                 Using same logic, what about bio/chem weapons? - (screamer) - (4)
                                     I'd dispute that getting bio/chem weapons are easier to get - (jake123)
                                     Bio/Chem won't have the same impact as nukes. - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                         Basically agree with you and Jake except - (screamer) - (1)
                                             Re: Basically agree with you and Jake except - (jake123)
                                 'Immanent' - a Jungian typo ? ;-) - (Ashton)
             There was a piece on BBC World Service a day or two ago - (jake123)

If you realize that this is the result of 35 years of continuous development across a wide range of compute platforms, there's a certain sense to it. It's internally consistent with its development history. Not that it doesn't suck.
82 ms