Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:02:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
575 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip>
> > > Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding
> > > an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it
> > > further. Who do you think you are fooling?
> >
> > You are misrepresenting me.
>
> What part of this is becoming a Monty Python routine didn't you understand?
> The automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person said isn't an
> argument. You offer no support for your statements, while you leave support
> for mine right there (I accuse you of grinding an axe against the U.S. and
> you proceed to attack the U.S. some more, with the loser's Hitler argument,
> no less). You don't even make it hard for me to shoot you down.
You are misrepresenting me.
>
>
> > > Wrong on which count?
> >
> > I think you are wrong to feel safer.
>
> That's your opinion >
That's my informed opinion.
> (shall I rip you yet another posterior oriface and point
> out that you claimed to stick to facts, not opinion, and I should follow
> your example?). Your the guy that presented the question as an either/or
> proposition.
>
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Have I ever said they should be left in place?
>
> Have you ever presented another option, even when challenged repeatedly?
> No. You haven't. You won't. Why? Because you are a coward, and you don't
> even have the sense to understand that you prove it every time you give the
> exact same evasive answer.
Yeah. Yeah. Just keep jumping to conclusions. On 911 only one country on the
planet was really talking to MO. About the 1st thing Bush did when he got out
his bunker was force that link to be broken. I have said before here I think
that was wrong.
>
> >
> > >
> > > That Bush did not "sort" that terrorist organization pre-911 somehow means
> > > that action shouldn't have been taken post-911?
> >
> > No. Did I say that?
>
> Yes, you very clearly implied it.
Lets stick to the facts, rather than your opinion.
>
> >
> > > You haven't presented any
> > > reason for trying to make this connection.
> > >
> > > That your dodge is not a concession? Oh, I know that: your dodge was just a
> > > cheap debating tactic. Not that every non-answer is necessarily a dodge or
> > > debate tactic, it's just that you do it so consistently that it becomes very
> > > apparent. After a while one is forced to the conclusion that you are
> > > avoiding it for a reason.
> >
> > I'm not avoiding anything, you are jumping to conclusions and putting words in
> > my mouth.
>
> You have had plenty of opportunity to explain yourself. All you ever do it
> automatic gain-saying.
I'm not avoiding anything; you are jumping to conclusions and putting words in
my mouth.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To answer the dodge-question: he didn't have a world mandate to proceed in
> > > > > the fashion that he had until after 911.
> > > >
> > > > If I remember correctly, Bush wanted to sideline/downgrade the whole issue
> > > > rather than get a world mandate(?)
> > >
> > > Do you think he would get one at that point? I doubt it. So I'm not sure
> > > what your point is here.
> >
> > Now you are dodging. Mandate aside, why sideline/downgrade the whole issue?
>
> The mandate is the point, so I can't put it aside.
Now you are still dodging. He was not even thinking about getting a mandate...
that is why the threat was sidelined/downgraded (on Sep 10?).
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read the other day that women are not allowed to sing in public…
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Were they allowed to sing under the Taliban? Are all strictures placed on
> > > > > > > women under the Taliban still there? Are more strictures placed on top of
> > > > > > > those under the Taliban?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did I say that? Did I even imply that?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the whole point! You make no contrast, no comparison.
> > > >
> > > > I did.
> > >
> > > This is like a Monty Python routine. "I read the other day that women are • <snip>.
> >
> > I would have thought that the fact that such a ridiculous law is being enforced
> > would have been enough to show what life must be like for women in
> > Afghanistan... it is no bowl of cherries.
> > Life in *Kabul* is quite a bit better
> > *today*, but it is not great.
>
> Remember what this particular area of debate was about? I'll quote you:
> "Women there are treated little better today". I disagreed with that. Let
> me pick out what you said above again for direct contrast: "Life in *Kabul*
> is quite a bit better *today*, but it is not great". Note the
> contradiction? And just to forestall the protest, I noted that life there
> wasn't great previously, just that it was better.
Kabul is not Afghanistan, do you not agree?
>
> So, did you intend conceeding the point, or did I simply catch you out?
Nope, you are jumping to conclusions.
> (Yes, I know, you'll issue a simple denial without bothering to resolve the
> contradiction between your two statements).
>
> > > > > > > You mean it is *currently* self-contained, and without us *contributing* to
> > > > > > > the mounds of civilian deaths already inflicted on its own population.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, he is *currently* self-contained. Other nations are not.
> > > > >
> > > > > That doesn't mean that they are a bigger threat to the interests of the
> > > > > United States and thus a better target.
> > > >
> > > > What does it mean then?
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> >
> > A dodge?
>
> Yes, but on your part. Follow the sequence:
>
> Scott: Iraq is contained, others are not.
> Bruce: But that doesn't mean they are a bigger threat to the U.S. and thus a
> better target.
> Scott: What does it mean, then?
> Bruce: Who cares? (as in, if it isn't a bigger threat, it is not germane to
> the point, thus since it doesn't enter into clarification of the point, it
> doesn't matter, and thus, who cares (for this particular issue).
>
> See? You dodged the point (who is the bigger threat).
No you dodged - you said "doesn't mean they are a bigger threat" not "they are
not a bigger/lesser threat". Understand the difference?
>
>
> >
> > > You were claiming that there were better targets, which you
> > > haven't established. That was my only point.
> >
> > I have little idea what the interests of the United States are, and I'm not
> > about to make up a hit list based on them - sorry.
>
> Then why claim there are better targets?!?!?!
I'm not viewing the world from the US perspective. I can see benefits for the
US... nothing more than that.
> If you have no idea what the
> interests of the United States are, how can you claim there are better
> targets? If you haven't made up a hit list, then why did you submit a list
> to me to justify your conclusion? This is a pretty clear concession on the
> point.
You are jumping to conclusions.
>
>
> > > > It depends on how you measure the threat. Why do so many in the ME mistrust the
> > > > US so much?
> > >
> > > Because of the past policies of British, French, German, etc. colonialism.
> >
> > No, that's why they don't trust the British, French & Germans.
>
> That's why they don't trust the "west" (europeans, and while the U.S. is not
> in Europe, that's who it is aligned with and shares its primary identity with).
lol. Get real. The poor misunderstood USA!. They don't trust the US because of
its greed for oil and its funding of the IDF! Show me otherwise.
>
> > Why don't they
> > trust the USA? Take a look at what the EU has been doing in the ME over the
> > last 10-20 years, you'll see that we can see beyond Israel.
>
> No, it means that Europe is dependent on Middle East oil. And I suppose
> some would like to forget the holocaust...
[I assume you mean the EU?]
OK, what is the link between the Middle East oil needs of the EU and the
holocaust?????????????????
>
> >
> > > Grinding that old axe and leaving out lots of inconvenient facts? (This is
> > > not to deny that *I* don't trust Bush, so why should the countries of the
> > > Middle East)
> >
> > Who mentioned Bush? Are you grinding an axe now?
>
> What a truly pathetic attack. I've reduced you to grasping at any cheap
> shot? I suppose you were trying annoy me, but all I'm doing is laughing. :-)
lol Deny it rather, than making all this fuss!
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Is it worth sorting that, or letting it forment? How much did that
> > > > have to do with 911?
> > >
> > > You mean in regards to Iraq?
> >
> > No.
>
> You know, I suppose you figure if you actually explain what you meant, that
> would open you up to more ridicule, but honestly, do you really think these
> monosyllabic denials adequate? In not Iraq, then what?
I thought I was clear 1st time around. But it appears you don't understand the
ME enough to understand how it views your own country.
>
> >
<snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I note you pass on commenting pro
> > > > > or con on my correction about the civilian deaths that are happening in Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > I’m not sure I view that as a correction.
> > >
> > > Okay, then it's another example of trying to create a false impression of
> > > complete innocence on Iraq's part.
> >
> >
> > I have not said Iraq is innocent. It's not my view.
>
> But you implied it because it suited your purposes. Plausable deniability
> is what you aim for.
Now you are sounding paranoid. Are you?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > Instead, we should attack our current supporters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who said "attack"?
> > > > >
> > > > > You did, by implication, since that what was being discussed. Better
> > > > > targets. "Attack" can be a variety of formats, not just military, if you
> > > > > want to nit-pick.
> > > >
> > > > Your wrong. I did not say the US should attack anyone in anyway. I said they
> > > > should withdraw support from belligerent nations like Israel.
> > >
> > > That may have been what you really meant, but it's not what you wrote.
> >
> > You are still wrong. I said this:
> >
> > ==+== • <snip>
> > ==+==
>
> Just to show you the difference between us, I can concede a point. Yes, you
> are correct.
What, no apology? ;)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > Is there a world mandate for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied
> > > > > > territories? Is there a world mandate for Pakistan to clamp down on terror
> > > > > > groups located on its soil?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gosh, and you seemed so contemtuous of the world mandate for action in
> > > > > Afghanistan. Oh, and the answer to my question is...?
> > > >
> > > > It appears to be you who does not respect world opinion. Is there a world
> > > > mandate for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied territories?
> > >
> > > Is there a world mandate for military action to remove them from occupied
> > > territories? No? Then we are comparing apples and oranges.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree.
>
> Okay, waiting for explanation as to why, as usual....
For me "action" does not equal bombs.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Has the UN not
> > > > already asked Israel to get out?
> > >
> > > As I said....
> >
> > As I said...
>
> Put back in the sentence you cut out immediately preceeding and you have the
> reason as to "as I said." A really cowardly piece of editing.
It would be an error on my part then, I try not to edit (I had to with this
post)! Put it back together and we can mull over it if it is important enough.
However, I doubt it is as you would have done that already.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > betraying our alliances so that no one would ever enter into an alliance
> > > > > > > with us again, to no direct gain for the U.S.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you advocate the murder of innocents if the US gains?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) You never actually respond to my question. I take that as a dodge and
> > > > > that you really are conceeding that you are advocating that the U.S. should
> > > > > backstab its allies for no earthly gain.
> > > >
> > > > I viewed it as a statement. I’m not suggesting the US does anything for “no
> > > > earthly gain”.
> > >
> > > Then you have no point. Okay, we can move along then...
> >
> > No, you have no point.
>
> The point being that if you are not suggesting that U.S. does anything for
> no earthly gain, then your original point is moot (that the U.S. should do
> something for no earthly gain). Thus, you have contradicted yourself and
> you have no point. And at least I explained myself rather than issue a
> simple moronic denial.
You implied that there would be no gain when there is. That is my point.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > You are so concerned with
> > > > > face-saving and maintaining the offensive it never occurs to you that I
> > > > > might find fault with the current selection of "friends and allies".
> > > >
> > > > Enlighten me.
> > >
> > > I just did. Or tried (I feel like a Tymbrimi bouncing glyphs off a Thennanin).
>
> I keep lobbing 'em at you, but they keep bouncing off. :-)
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > There are lots of scumbags in the world. The majority of the UN is made up
> > > > > with scumbags. The reality is that that's what you have to work with. God
> > > > > knows, look at Blair! (and if it makes you feel better, Brits can say "God
> > > > > knows, look at Bush!")
> > > >
> > > > He is elected by a clear majority, and is not wanted for murder or crimes
> > > > against humanity (IFAIK) – Bush Jr has shared tea and scones with far worse.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that if someone is elected by a clear majority (plurality?)
> > > he cannot be a scumbag, or that if Scumbag B is worse than Scumbag A,
> > > Scumbag A cannot be a scumbag? Or are you saying you that you were actually
> > > taking taking me seriously?
> >
> > I'm saying Blair is not the best example of a bad leader.
>
> But that doesn't contradict my point, so who cares?
By using Blair you were trolling.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bush drink tea and eat scones? He could never go back to Texas....
> >
> > I had heard he was tea-total? He heard alcohol kills brain cells.
>
> He was a druggy, actually.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3) No, I don't advocate the murder of innocents.
> > > > > You seem to, though. You give me the choice "Action in Afghanistan, or do
> > > > > nothing" after the murder of innocents and find fault with the "action" • answer.
> > > >
> > > > I have never advocated “do nothing”.
> > >
> > > And yet you never, ever after countless challenges offer a single
> > > alternative.
>
>
>
> > Do I have to? Having sex with dogs is wrong. If I catch you "in-the-act", do I
> > have to offer you an alternative to have you stop?
>
> Why don't you stick to the subject rather than discuss your sexual problems?
Viewing sex with dogs as being wrong is a "problem"?
BTW: Nice dodge.
>
> >
> > > At a certain point it becomes obvious that you have none to
> > > offer and all you are doing automatic-gainsaying.
> >
> > You are wrong?
>
> You offer no proof of such, so it would appear not.
>
> At a certain point it becomes obvious that you have none to
> offer and all you are doing automatic-gainsaying. I can keep repeating it
> until you offer an answer that isn't a sound-bite.
You are still wrong.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If you wish to question those
> > > > > > > alliances, sure, but asking why Iraq rather than the targets you mention is
> > > > > > > just plain silly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iraq is not a destabilising force. SH is far too concerned with his own
> > > > > > self-preservation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Iraq is not a destabilizing force? I take it you feel his track record is
> > > > > something that should be sealed by the court and not considered.
> > >
> > > > What about Sharon/Israel?
> > >
> > > You are claiming that there are better targets, one reason being that Iraq
> > > is not a destablizing force. I disagree, pointing to his past record. You
> > > need to address the one before moving on to the next.
> >
> > I did. If Sharon/Israel's is irrelevant why should SH’s be pertinent?
>
> You're right! It isn't pertinent, so you have nothing to complain about
> (God, make it a bit harder for me, please!).
So why even mention his track record if its not pertinent? You are going to
have to spell that out for me.
>
> >
> > > Let's presume for the
> > > sake of argument, that Sharon/Israel is a destablizing force.
> >
> > No, let's state that as a fact.
>
> Why?
It is a fact.
>
> >
> > > Okaaaaaaaay,
> > > if you are claiming that they are the better target, don't you need to
> > > compare and contrast them? This goes back to what I said earlier: it
> > > doesn't matter if they are a worthy target, or a good target, they have to
> > > be a better target for your original statement to be correct. You
> > > consistently fail to make that point.
> >
> > I have made that point.
>
> That requires comparing and contrasting, which you refuse to do, so no, you
> haven't.
I have.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > What about that track record – worthy of tea and
> > > > scones in DC? The reality is that if SH were (still) a friend of the USA, his
> > > > antics
> > > > over the last 10 years would not trouble Bush Jr.
> > >
> > > What about that track record?!? Tell that to the mounds of dead!
> >
> > That does not answer my point.
>
> Your point doesn't answer the dead, which does answer your point.
Where are these "mounds of dead"? Show me how they died.
>
>
> I have to take a break and get back to the rest of this at another time.
A dodge? ;)
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur's Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
