Fejas Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 DFA quote: “The Doctor is not saying "all war supporters are assholes" or anything of the sort. If you want to go on believing that that's what DFA is saying, well, that's your prerogative, buster.” Comment: What PP actually said: “These kind [sic]of statements make you look like an asshole. To think that most war supporters don’t give a damn about human casualties is complete goofiness and reveals contempt for others that can be construed as nothing more than vanity.” I would again ask interested readers to review DFA and my discourse on “war is murder” and see just who is twisting words. Chuck – Quote: “First, you asked for moral/ethical clarification from Off White. That is the inquiry to which I responded.” Comments: Read the following excerpt from my initial posting in this thread. Sorry if I was confused by your response. “I would of course be open to your detailed discussion on the relative innocence of an American soldier compared to an Iraqi newborn, aged woman, teenager or whomever. As in our previous discussion after the sloganeering ends I am sure your thought process will prove to be empty. “ Quote two: “Second, I did not ridicule your inquiry specifically, but your refusal to respond to said inquiry turned back upon you. You asked Off White and DFA a big unanswerable question, refused to even try to answer it yourself, then used it as "proof" that DFA was wrong. That's what I ridicule.” You claim “it” is unanswerable. Why then would you think I refused to answer it. From your point of view it would be impossible. Did I have a choice? Your urge to ridicule seems to have gotten in the way of getting your facts right. What you conveniently ignore is that I didn’t refuse to answer anything! I asked OW for clarification. I did this so that any answer I give would be more responsive. (Please see my previous post at 3:17pm yesterday) I never used “it” as proof that DFA was/is wrong; just trying to show that his thought process is empty. Please see quote above. If DFA is right or wrong, it is to my mind more or less the result of dumb luck rather than rational thought. Anyone else ready to move on? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 The war has now taken a positive turn for the "people". With what we characterized as an attack on the command control structure, and what many others will characterize as an attempted assassination of an enemy leader, we have now brought the war directly to the leaders of involved countries. Reports are saying that the first strike was delayed for 5 hours, and that might have caused the failure of the attack to kill Saddam. The reason for the delay seems obvious. I'm sure this decision was resisted by the likes of Bush and other leaders who would rather keep their bodies above the fray. Apparently, in the end, the military leaders won out in an attempt to end the war quickly before the young people comprising their forces were put in harm's way. I believe this makes the world leaders who decide to have their minions partake in war more vulnerable. I don't know how to even begin to answer PP's broad innocence question, but I do know that if anyone is NOT innocent in these struggles they are the leaders of warring countries. Bush, in authorizing this strike, degraded his personal safety in an attempt to protect the personnel in our armed forces (and those in Iraq too). That's good thing. Bush deserves commendation . On one hand I feel this is a wonderful development as it might somewhat restrict the powermongers from throwing around their military weight due to concerns for their personal safety. On the other hand, it is worrisome because, in terms of conventional warfare our country is unassailable right now. Turning the game to assassination puts many countries, our enemies included, "into the game". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 There was a successful "hit" on the Serbian president a few weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 you are right chucK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Peter, Exlpain innocence to me and why it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 (edited) ChucK – You crack me up. I again ask how can I answer the unanswerable? I am not as convinced as you as to the unanswerability of the question but I do not know what it means. I suggested as much by my “strange comparison.” So sadly I cannot answer the question and until someone can, I am not convinced that it does matter. Help me understand if you can please. On to a second matter. In your post about the targeting of Saddam please let us know your sources. I ask because the explosion wnet of at approx. 9:30 pm EST and the dealine was at 8:00pm EST. By the way did the allies ever try to kill Hitler in a bombing raid? PP Edited March 20, 2003 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 Peter_Puget said: DFA quote: “The Doctor is not saying "all war supporters are assholes" or anything of the sort. If you want to go on believing that that's what DFA is saying, well, that's your prerogative, buster.” Comment: What PP actually said: “These kind [sic]of statements make you look like an asshole. To think that most war supporters don’t give a damn about human casualties is complete goofiness and reveals contempt for others that can be construed as nothing more than vanity.” I would again ask interested readers to review DFA and my discourse on “war is murder” and see just who is twisting words. Chuck – Quote: “First, you asked for moral/ethical clarification from Off White. That is the inquiry to which I responded.” Comments: Read the following excerpt from my initial posting in this thread. Sorry if I was confused by your response. “I would of course be open to your detailed discussion on the relative innocence of an American soldier compared to an Iraqi newborn, aged woman, teenager or whomever. As in our previous discussion after the sloganeering ends I am sure your thought process will prove to be empty. “ Quote two: “Second, I did not ridicule your inquiry specifically, but your refusal to respond to said inquiry turned back upon you. You asked Off White and DFA a big unanswerable question, refused to even try to answer it yourself, then used it as "proof" that DFA was wrong. That's what I ridicule.” You claim “it” is unanswerable. Why then would you think I refused to answer it. From your point of view it would be impossible. Did I have a choice? Your urge to ridicule seems to have gotten in the way of getting your facts right. What you conveniently ignore is that I didn’t refuse to answer anything! I asked OW for clarification. I did this so that any answer I give would be more responsive. (Please see my previous post at 3:17pm yesterday) I never used “it” as proof that DFA was/is wrong; just trying to show that his thought process is empty. Please see quote above. If DFA is right or wrong, it is to my mind more or less the result of dumb luck rather than rational thought. Anyone else ready to move on? PP Puget, you're the only one who still cares about nitpicking this miniscule point into oblivion, so you'll forgive DFA for not diving in and chasing you as you chase your tail around in circles. Here's to a new hobby, cowboy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Dr_Flash_Amazing said: Puget, you're the only one who still cares about nitpicking this miniscule point into oblivion, so you'll forgive DFA for not diving in and chasing you as you chase your tail around in circles. MtnGoat = Peter Puget? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 Could be, could be, although Puget doesn't cite enough sources. Still, it could just be a ploy by the sinister Goat to throw us off his trail. Clever bastard ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Peter_Puget said: On to a second matter. In your post about the targeting of Saddam please let us know your sources. I am listening to NPR on my computer !! By the way did the allies ever try to kill Hitler in a bombing raid? I was already proven (?) wrong on my WWII history by Catbirdseat just the other day. So I must say, "I dunno". Is that an issue here? Does it nullify my point? I'm sure you could find one of them in there (that's a problem with long posts ). Do you think it is healthy for the world to make leader assassination "fair" in time of war? I think it adds "accountability"! I'm all for it. All's fair in love and war. There's some sloganeering for ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 By NPR you must mean the BBC! Spay on you bullshitters. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.