rbw1966 Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 I don't think it mattered to Bush much if Saddam allowed inspectors back in or not. You'll recall that he preempted this posture by stating that Iraq has to deal with all 16 UN resolutions in order to prevent war. Allowing inspectors back in is but one of those resolutions. My moneys on Bush pushing this all the way. I don't want to see war but I bet its on the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Not fair, Iain. I don't think anyone, especially Bush, WANTS war. Please. Are you serious? The guy's first big play in office (aside from weaseling his way in, of course) was the WAR on terrorism. Then he starts in with his WAR on Iraq plan. The Doctor doesn't think Mr. Bush is too concerned about getting a little blood on his hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Not fair, Iain. I don't think anyone, especially Bush, WANTS war. Well he's not exactly doing the best job of conveying that, now is he? Every speech I hear from him these days sounds like school yard talk "the greatest nation" this and that will take care of so and so, increased aggression at the no-fly zone, etc, etc. And Rumsfeld's comments when asked if the increased aggression was a prelude to war: "well it can't hurt". Not exactly peace-inspiring, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: I don't think it mattered to Bush much if Saddam allowed inspectors back in or not. You'll recall that he preempted this posture by stating that Iraq has to deal with all 16 UN resolutions in order to prevent war. Allowing inspectors back in is but one of those resolutions. My moneys on Bush pushing this all the way. I don't want to see war but I bet its on the way. Wasnt Hussein pretext for kicking out the inspectors the last time the incredibly overt actions of US & Britain Covert Ops teams posing as weapons inspectors and placing bugs while they diligently searched for bombs and germ warfare factories under saddams bed, etc.? I hope they pretend to be weapons inspectors a bit more proficiently this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted September 18, 2002 Author Share Posted September 18, 2002 What do you think of my new avatar image? It was taken while I was being "hunted out of my hole and brought to justice". You don't hear too much about me anymore, I guess I'm still in my "hole". Infidels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 The "sometimes war is necessary" discussion was yesterday. If you don't stand up for yourself you'll continue to get smacked - it was true in the 7th grade and it's true now. If you want to be a little milktoast weeny-boy, that's fine; but don't bitch when you continually get your lunch money taken...And Trask and I are just the guys to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Uncle tricky is my hero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Dru: Wasnt Hussein pretext for kicking out the inspectors the last time the incredibly overt actions of US & Britain Covert Ops teams posing as weapons inspectors and placing bugs while they diligently searched for bombs and germ warfare factories under saddams bed, etc.? I hope they pretend to be weapons inspectors a bit more proficiently this time around.[/QB] I can't believe the U.S. would do something so devious. Are you sure they weren't cannucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: ...And Trask and I are just the guys to do it. A new amateur porn video? All this time I thought Trask was into goats. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: quote:Originally posted by Greg W: ...And Trask and I are just the guys to do it. A new amateur porn video? All this time I thought Trask was into goats. My bad. Whoa, Whoa. That wasn't me, I was really drunk, I, I, I...Okay, I held the goat down, but it was Trask's idea to put the Chelsea Clinton mask on its head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 "How about US citizens who get plunger-fucked by the NYPD, or pumped full of enough bullets to put down a full-grown bus, or dragged out of their cars and beaten (assuming you'll claim Rodney King had it coming, this happened to a 70ish-year-old woman as well, although she only got roughed up by one cop)." Are these acts legal? In Iraq, they are. You seem to be making a common mistake, equating the acts of individuals who commit crimes and are then fully and rightly sanctioned for them, with places where these acts are not crimes and are carried out with impunity. Are you really going to claim that a nation in which these things are illegal is the same as one in which they are not? "Then there's the School of the Americas, which puts tactics like torture in the hands of questionably moral military forces." Which was a bad move we can all agree on. The point here is we are free to do so and not be shot. "Speaking of whom, keep your eyes on Afghanistan in the future and watch for a large oil pipeline spanning the country, then ask yourself whether we decimated the country and installed a government we approved of for the good of their country, or the good of our oil companies." You have never addressed the alternative plan you had, this is the second time I'm asking you to do so. "While DFA understands that day-to-day life under GWB is not as shitty as life in Iraq, the US is hardly a gleaming example of innocence, either." Who here claims it is? I am saying there is a difference, it is real, and it is worth discussing. "And regarding the "fucking hypocrites" remark, that was aimed at the current administration, who are a bunch of fucking hypocrites." Are you judging them by *their* statements, *their* thoughts, and their actions, or some combination of these and *your* thoughts on the matter. If they are consistent with what they claim and what they think, they are not hypocrites. Hypocrasy is not acting in concert with ones *own* stated values, ideas and beliefs, not in not following someone *elses* claims for what your beliefs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 "The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth." Is this belief *true*, or just commonly held? I don't care how many people believe something in a factual case. "This is coupled with the FACT that humans have never affected their environment to even nearly the degree to which they have affected it in the last hundred years" You still are not answering the question, how is it we survived all those earlier events, along with all the flora and fauna we see now, in spite of the fact that the climate has varied more than some project it varying in their worst cases? All the species with us survived those events, and if the change predicted is less catastophic than past natural changes, which it is, then everything should survive this one too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 MtnGoat is the master of the point/counter-point argument technique. All of your counterpoints can be refuted in the same manner as you have just done to the previous arguments. Not that I care to get into that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 DFA:"Speaking of whom, keep your eyes on Afghanistan in the future and watch for a large oil pipeline spanning the country, then ask yourself whether we decimated the country and installed a government we approved of for the good of their country, or the good of our oil companies." MG: "You have never addressed the alternative plan you had, this is the second time I'm asking you to do so." The Doctor is not a politician or an expert on foreign policy, so it's doubtful that he could come up with a fully functional alternative. However, engaging a ragtag army of AK-toting Afghans intermixed with civilians by dropping huge bombs on them doesn't seem like the most efficient way of rooting out who we're looking for. When the police are looking for suspects, do they blow up the houses of those they suspect, and then look for the evidence? Perhaps smaller groups of soldiers launching more precise attacks on specific targets would have been a good start. Freezing the terrorists' assets seemed like a great idea, too, although it doesn't seem to have been too successful. For all the rhetoric about how this is a new kind of war requiring new tactics, why did we charge in with the B-52's (Love shack, baby, love shack!) and start cluster-bombing? It's obvious that the tactics we used haven't done much as far as turning up or eliminating Bin Laden. Additionally, we seem to be threatened by potential terrorist action quite a lot lately (see Tom Ridge's brilliant color-coded alert system), so it would seem that aside from not finding Bin Laden, we haven't done much to mitigate the threat against us, either. Is this the mark of an effective military campaign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 "Hey, you were just arguing that nothing gnarly happens to people at the hands of America. Now who's changing their story? " Not I. I never argued that. If you doubt, go back and find me my quote. A major problem in these discussions is the injection of points not made by a poster but held to be true by a respondent. lets address that here. I *NEVER* stated nothing bad happens to people at the hands of Americans. I said Saddam was bad and we are better, which should not be contentious, but apparently it is. I am not making wholesale defenses of lousy acts by the US, I am saying our country is right to defend itself against one that is worse. So are you going to find where I argued nothing bad happens to people because of Americans, or concede you were wrong... or not? "if we're truly going after Saddam because he's a potential threat to people, then we're hypocrites (see previous statement regarding fucking hypocrites)." No, we're going after him because he's a worse, less principled threat than we are. Different situations demand different responses, and we are different from Saddam. Saying we're the same and he's the same so we are hypocrites is only true if you refuse to accept that we are different. Are we or aren't we? Your call. "Also, you don't really prove he's a threat to the US. You're conjecturing that he is, but you don't have any concrete proof," Here we are again. I prove he has been responsible for killing Americans, and you say I don't have any. What exactly serves as proof for you? "Looking at the situation, it seems naive to assume that Bush's Iraqi blood lust is anything but politically motivated." I'm sure that's true. Many folks of a particular political persuasion are convinced others are naive because those making the contention always feel they are better educated, smarter, more compassionate, and "caring" and all that, so it entitles them to decide everyone else is naive and needs their guidance. I have no such problem, I assume I'm just as right and just as wrong as anyone else, I have no need to consider those I don't agree with as "naive", an innate attack on their judgement. " but meanwhile questions get raised (again) about the administration's ties to big business, which looks bad politically. " Questions being raised does not indicate their validity. Some folks think raising questions means they are valid simply because they thought of them. I think looking at the context of same, and answers to these questions that get ignored because they are not what the questioners want to hear, makes more sense. A zillion unanswered pointless questions just means unanswered pointless questions. "Bush is a politician with a reputation to uphold, so why not go after Iraq in the name of justice, and keep Americans feeling safe." Because this view is dependent on your "knowledge" Bush is lying about his intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 "MtnGoat is the master of the point/counter-point argument technique." Thank you. "All of your counterpoints can be refuted in the same manner as you have just done to the previous arguments. Not that I care to get into that..." too bad. I invite you to toss your hat into the ring. refute away! How can people of good will expect to have meaningful discussions about substantive issues if they will not engage in spirited debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted September 18, 2002 Author Share Posted September 18, 2002 Hoe do you like my new, offensive avatar image? Our Kings used to lead us into battle, now they "develop language" which will lead to massive amounts of human suffing. George W. Worthless is a plague on all our Houses. -J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 I'm just posting some mindless shit here. Is this the new Muir On Saturday thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muir_on_Saturday Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 did anybody see the interview last night with the 3 arab-american med students and the florida woman who thought they were planning to blow shit up? pretty interesting. the med students came across as a bit more intelligent and in general the kind of people you'd want for neighbors while the florida woman came across like a vindictive ass-hole who didn't want to admit she made a mistake. i think the med students were a bit more pissed off when they got detained and all but just decided to get on with their lives. well, "donahue" was doing the interview so it wasn't haute intellectualism but anyway the most interesting thing was the student's arab-american lawyer saying what we really need is more open dialogue and less hystericism and finger pointing. i'm down with that. i'm all for cutting the balls off the perpetraitors of 9/11 and the people who support them, i just don't think it's as simple as finding some guy with a beard and a turban. so anyway, when i see some guy with a beard and a turban i wonder what he's really thinking - like, where does he or she stand on the issue. so let's have some dialogue. how about some arab american climbiers piping in and telling us what you think. we know you're out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 She made no mistake, the dumbsh*ts messing with her made the mistake. Would *you* simply allow someone to go on their merry way after hearing comments like she heard? I wouldn't. If they don't like what their shitty comments get them, they should be more careful. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what they say. In this one however, it does and if they're not cognizant of that, they're not as smart as they look no matter how they come across on TV. [ 09-18-2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muir_on_Saturday Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 maybe i missed something. what exactly did they say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 "So objectivism will show you the Truth! and provide you with a unified field theory for making moral and rational judgements when it comes to eveything besides climbing?" Sort of. It provides the tools and structure for identifying what is verifiable and what is not. Condensing all of a philosophy into a pithy sentence (I love the unified field comment!) makes it appear like a big claim, but then one could do this with any philosphy and it would come out the same. Every single person on Earth has a set of personal rules they use to evaluate what they feel is real and valuable, after all. Picking out Objectivism for the sarcasm treatment is as valid a funny as anything else, but of course doesn't really touch on the substance of why it is worthwhile to learn about. Your list of questions is pretty darned good, if I have time I'll work on a couple for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 last yeah right after sept 11th...a girl made a memorial for he crash victims 3 days laster several of the east indian fellas were playing cricket using the memorial as a back stop...me and my other buddy calmly walked over and picked up the sign and put it back...didn't say a word...real unconfrontational-like. couple hours later i am in the presidents' office talking aobut being PC... i asked him what he would have done if the kids were playing cricket in the graveyard down the street and using graestones as wickets?...."your missing the point" his reply PC eh? haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 she claims they made comments like the following: do we have enough to bring it down? If we do not I have contacts who can supply as much as we need. look at everyone upset over sept 11, I wonder what they will be thinking after sept 13? Now I cannot claim to have been there and listening, no one can. But watching the two groups of people, I get the impression that yeah, she's pissed, pissed because these guys are now lying about what they said. And they seem awful calm and gee lets just put it behind us for folks who claim they were lied about in a very bad way, if it was the case. Anybody who says she's lying simply because she's white and from a different background as them is being just as racist as some accuse her of being. I tend to believe her and think yes, they may have been playing a joke on her, but she cannot be blamed for acting as she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: She made no mistake, the dumbsh*ts messing with her made the mistake. Would *you* simply allow someone to go on their merry way after hearing comments like she heard? I wouldn't. If they don't like what their shitty comments get them, they should be more careful. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what they say. In this one however, it does and if they're not cognizant of that, they're not as smart as they look no matter how they come across on TV. Your veneer of civility is fading! But, you didn't answer the question: What is it they said? I for one haven't heard. 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.