MtnGoat
-
Posts
739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MtnGoat
-
-
"Not that I wish to give the idea that I care how much he, or any of you make, but you guys do seem fairly fixated on it."
Which guys?
-
"but when it comes to foreign policy, i.e. the "liberation of iraq's people", this apparently does not apply"
Which "this" are you referring to? If it's defining need for themselves, it's interesting you see the freedom to hang in a basement from your ankles for expressing dissent, as a choice to determine anything but winding up being tortured.
-
Don't have a problem with getting Israel out of the settlements.
-
Congrats on the new ride, Rob. Sounds like a nice rig.
As for the complainers, most of them are innately uncomfortable with the idea that individuals are allowed to define "need" for themselves and pursue it.
-
"Oh pish MtnGoat, your position is like saying if you oppose exploitive child labor don't wear sneakers. "
If the sneakers are made by child labor, then yes, I expect you to live up to your opposition without waiting for someone else to do it for you.
If your sneakers are made by child labor, and you oppose child labor, it's OK to buy them anyway? Someone who thinks child labor should be banned so they can't buy the sneakers made by child labor, doesn't need to bother not buying them on their own? Why is it it's OK not to take action on your own without waiting for someone else to do something about it?
Your feelings about your morality are more important than your actual actions in service of it?
If you're upset about other people using oil in ways you don't like, don't expect what your personal uses to go uncritiqued.
-
No way. Their using oil for travel to the mountains, or on jets, or polypro, or other goodies, is A OK. It's those darned other people who want what the complainers don't like that are the problem.
-
"tell me this isn't about oil."
It's not about oil. If it was, it would be far simpler just to drop the sanctions.
-
"There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the weapons inspections,"
That's what you do when you think you may need to fight a war. There are war plans for all kinds of contingencies covering nearly every possible combatant nation. Planning for a war with a nation constantly violating a ceasefire isn't a surprise, it's doubtless standard procedure and darned well should be.
"Blix said US President George W. Bush had told him in October 2002 that he backed the UN's work to verify US and British claims that Baghdad was developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons."
I back them too. But only if they function. They did not.
"Blix said that he thought the US might initially have believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction"
Blix should certainly believe it too, since the UN detailed them before being ejected in '98.
"But I don't know - you ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they did to try and demonstrate that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger,"
We'll see who's right about Iraq possessing nuclear materials and proscribed development facilities.
"That was a reference to US allegations - later denied - that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from the west African state of Niger."
We'll see how denial stacks up to reality very, very soon.
"By attacking Iraq, Washington had sent the wrong message - that if a country did not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, it risked being attacked."
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
"Take the announcement North Korea has just made. It's tantamount to saying 'if you let in the inspectors, like Iraq did, you get attacked'."
More like if you let them in, but give them the runaround and don't meet your obligations, you might get attacked.
"North Korea accused the United States on Sunday of using a UN Security Council discussion of its nuclear programme as a "prelude to war" and warned that it would fully mobilise and strengthen its forces."
Any discussion of N Korea and it's nuclear program is a prelude to war in N Koreas opinion.
"This security guarantee is the first line of defence against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
What security guarantee, Hans? The one the UN has utterly failed to provide, over and over? That's a gurantee? Tell it to the folks in Bosnia killed while the UN "peacekeepers" stood by, the mass slaughter in Africa, while the UN "peacekeepers" stood by, and the numerous other instances. Hans has an interesting view of what constitutes a guarantee. Not to mention "containment".
-
"the thread drift seems to me a ploy by you to alter the attention of your attempt at trying to add your value to what i am saying."
A "ploy"? You think I'm trying to trick you?
Why is it OK for you drift the thread to civil rights, but a ploy when I take you up on it?
-
"So, if numbers (ie. voters) are not an accurate or relevant enough measure of determining a course of action,"
You're still misquoting me. I said numbers are relevent to determining a course of action, but that wether the action *itself* is moral or not doesn't depend on numbers.
What people will do largely depends on how many want to do it. Wether it's moral or not, doesn't. Might results in action, but morality stands alone.
"and it boils down to one man, isn't that kind of like a dictatorship? Oops. I said it didn't I?"
You mean when there was a Dem president with a Dem congress and a Dem house, you complained just as much about one party rule and one man with so much power?
-
"mtngoat i like how you think for me! and make up my mind on what my statements mean!"
You mean you are as upset about the civil rights violations I describe, as you are about the patriot act?
-
"Hey, who put Sadam in power in the first place. Opps - that would be the US CIA"
Wrong. That's one of the lefts most cherished urban myths. Saddam placed himself in power, without CIA help, by using his network of assasins and Ba'athists he been working with and cultivating for years. Not everything bad that happens in the world is the result of the CIA or the US!
If you can find actual reliable, mainstream proof of your statement beyond "alternate" media, I'll be very, very surprised.
-
"Actually I think he was talking about them upholding laws that he doesn't support. Like the patriot act stuff etc. "
I know he was. He's mad about some civil rights but not others. I agree the patriot act has severe problems, but our civil rights extend beyond free speech to freedom of association, freedom to hire who we want, freedom to control the resources we generate with our labor. He only wants to defend some civil rights, I propose we defend them all.
-
"No matter how many people oppose the war, it's still wrong (to oppose)?"
Wether the war itself is right or wrong is independent of how many people oppose it or support it.
Wether it happens or not, is not independent of support, and wether it's wrong to oppose it is still another matter. In this case, I'd say yes, it was wrong to oppose this war. It's your right to be wrong, however.
"Indeed the RIGHT (wing) thing was done. "
You are correct. 12 years of inaction and half measures were ended, and actual effective measures are taken.
-
"I thought the driving force behind this war was that everyone was out to get us? That's a pretty ugly world too. "
No, that's the left's interpretation of the need to deal with some regimes in a position to help an outfit that actually is out to get us.
When the left are claims someone elses view is that everyone is out to get us, it does not mean anyone but the left is claiming it that. They're inventing positions for someone else and then basing opposition on that, as you are.
-
"Then why are you entitled to take credit for unintended benefits?"
Because they occurred as a direct result of our actions. Besides, I said it was a nice side benefit, I never said it was inunintended. The intention was A) remove the threat, B) get rid of Saddam and free Iraq. That the primary is tied in with the secondary doesn't mean we don't get credit for both. No matter how uncomfortable it makes some folks.
"If you take an illegal action, an unintended happy outcome does not justify the action."
We did not take an illegal action. We are within our rights to take action to defend the US, and the violation of the ceasefire terms for 12 years means we've been at war the entire time. Now we finish it.
-
"Blatently working the P.R. of this war to present it as some perverted form of manifest destiny is both obvious and a disgrace."
Yeah, there's no chance Iraquis are glad to be free of someone who slaughters whole families in front of each other, rapes people with official rapists, beheads women on the streets, feeds people to plastic shredders and jails children. They figure we're just the same so they dance in the streets. Makes sense.
And the refugees and exiles here in the US, are dancing around because they prefer Saddam, after all they left Iraq because they loved him so much, and suddenly they need to kiss US ass under threat too. Yup, makes sense!
There are some folks who simply cannot accept that sometimes good things happen, and sometimes even people they don't like, make them happen.
And they complain about the marginalization of their points of view, without even realizing they marginalize *themselves* by their choice of stances.
-
"MtnGoat, it was only a little while ago you were beating the "threat" drum. Now its liberation. "
The threat drum was the driving force, liberation is a welcome side effect. The threat of Iraqui is nearly gone, the liberation is a bonus.
"You used to believe in the power of the market, but now you're in favor of force as the foundation of foreign policy."
The power of the market only applies in situations where law is stable and people are free. Where they are not, the application of force in support of proper principles is needed. Force does not define these principles, right and wrong does.
"Your principles keep shifting to suit your needs, just like the ends you use to justify your means keep shifting to whatever you think plays well to the world."
Your misunderstanding of my principles does not mean I am shifting them, it merely means you misunderstand them.
-
"only yesterday MtnGoat was saying that "might makes right" was wrong."
Did I? Where? Prove it.
"now he's saying might makes right is correct. "
Am I? Where? Prove it!
It's not difficult. IMO neither might nor numbers define right and wrong. They may define what is done to people, they do not change what is right and wrong. No matter how many believed slavery was right, and practiced it (and still do), it was wrong. No matter how many rape, it's still wrong. No matter how many steal, it's still wrong.
We are not right because we had superior numbers and weapons, but because we did the right thing.
-
"MtnGoat, I just find it somewhat baffling that now the U.S. has taken Bagdhad, I am somehow expected to drop my belief that the war was wrong all along."
I never made any such comment. I expect people predicting the mother of all urban battles to learn they were wrong, I expect people predicting the Iraquis would reject us as invaders to accept they were wrong, I expect people with predictions physically proven wrong to learn they were wrong.
What you feel is wrong cannot be proven wrong, I don't expect you to not feel what you feel is wrong.....but it can be shown to be irrelevant.
"You and others now think that your views have been vindicated because we dropped thousands of bombs and pummeled the Iraqi forces into submission like everyone knew we would right from day one."
And yet I can search back threads and find predictions of all kinds of US deaths and warnings of all kinds of mayhem. Now the bets are already being hedged, in reverse. I may do a search myself and stock up on quotes and stuff for the future, in a couple years the denial of some of these positions will be widespread.
-
yeah, nobody wanted us to lose....... they just wanted to sit on the sidelines and allow Saddam to tell everyone to stuff it for a few more months, years, decades, while the proponents of ineffective inaction pat themselves on the back for their progressive/peaceful thoughts, resulting in nothing.
These folks and those here on this board made it quite clear, not in your name. Fine. None of the Iraquis now free from the secret police are in your name. None ending of sanctions, is in your name. None of the support for a new democracy, is in your name. You all made it quite clear actual, effective action wasn't in your name. Now you can take heart that the results aren't either!
-
"is it not better to protest a cause through peaceful means than to simply take up arms when the conversation gets to be a little too tough, and a little too difficult to convince others that you're right and they are wrong?"
And yet my comment was in response to the contention that the right wing is so busy telling everyone else they were wrong. And here you are justifying the lefts actions in telling everyone not on the left they are wrong.
Wether or not protest is justified in their minds is not the point, the point is that the left was quite vocal in it's actions telling us everyone else was wrong, which was the point of my statement.
"If the U.S. and Britain were truly right, then why did 80% of the world disapprove of the war in the first place?"
Because right and wrong is not something that is determined by how many people believe something. The world was round no matter how many people though it was flat, and getting rid of Saddam and ending his reign is exactly the same.
-
"NOW IF THE OTHER SIDE ACTED LIKE YOU. WELL THEN I WOULD CALL THEM ON IT TOO."
But they do, and you haven't, and I'm calling *you* on it.
Notice they thought they were right and so much so they jammed up whole cities to tell us so. As for the rest of the examples, re read my post to you.
-
"THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE THE ONES WHO SEEM SO EAGER TO TELL EVERYONE ELSE THEY ARE WRONG."
Yeah, right. The left has been complaining and whining, delaying and stalling, telling us how immoral we are, blocking traffic, holding huge rallies to tell us how wrong we are, sparing not a word nor an action to tell everyone how mean, bad and evil we are...
"THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE THE ONES WHOM SEEM TO CREATE A RIFT BETWEEN THE THE PEOPLE OF THE US."
If the left hadn't jumped onto the wrong boat here out of it's hatred for Bush, there would be no rift.
"THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE COPS VIOLATING OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS."
That's funny, here I thought the cops enforced laws you support, like making people hire who you want them to, like taking the money they make to spend on what you want them to.
"THE SAD THING IS MOST POUMPOUS RIGHT WINGED PEOPLE I KNOW ARE MISRABLE IN LIFE, YOU MAY NOT BE NOW...BUT YOUR BITTER ATTITUDE WILL SOUR YOUR SOUL AS YOU GET OLD. "
They're bitter? Look at your post!
"GET A CLUE PEOPLE AND QUIT HATING OTHER AMERICANS."
You'd best take your own advice.
"VERBALLY IT IS THE SAME AS SADDAM. HE HATED PEOPLE AND TOOK ACTION. YOU THINK YOU HATE PEOPLE AND SAFELY TALK SHIT."
This is the kind of statement that shows precisely how the left stays on irrelevant sidelines where it is on this. Comparing disagreeing with you, to flaying people alive and raping women with police squads is the kind of lack of any sense of proportion we've come to expect from the left.
Which 4WD SUV?
in Spray
Posted · Edited by MtnGoat
Charlie said:
"It you have the macho-mobile to go pick up you're kids from school then you deserve to be humiliated with a sticker. I tagged ten shiny, never-seen-mud giants at REI this weekend."...
What if they don't have the rig just for that, and actually go places and do stuff with it? What do they deserve, according to you, then?
How do you, in your godlike judgement, know which rigs are bought for what reason and who drives them? I know people who both use their vehicles and keep them clean, what a concept. Does that mean a judgemental dink like you will figure from a look at their car, you "know" what they do with it? I have another flash for you, *every* car is new for a while when it's built. How do you determine which new ones won't be scratched, dented, and muddy in a couple years when you make your judgements?
You're also pretty proud of yourself here where you don't face the folks you decided to judge and decided their property meant less to you than your feelings about people you didn't even know. Did this preening over your actions extend to staying to face them and explain how wrong you know they are, in spite of not knowing them? I doubt it.