It has begun

Re: Hussein just did a live speech...

Now Now Mr. Boggle /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

Re: Hussein just did a live speech...

hopefully you'll take in and understand the point that your most ardent, and only, defender (creed) made about playing devil's advocate.

Just to clarify, I'm defending dean's right to idle on irc and express his opinions, I don't agree with anything he's been saying. I'm against the war. But I do believe it's immoral (and not completely mature) to gag him over it.

To josh: while you have a point about the irc drama, you are wrong about bungle not giving you the debate you're looking for. He actually replied with a perfectly well researched and valid point here about how our vaunted and pricey military isn't the same one we read about in washington post inserts.

Also, if you're going to play devil's advocate, you probably need to come up with ways to refute other people's claims, not just make claims of your own. For example Rich made a point about the haliburton oil contracts and you failed to refute it (except to call him names). You can repeat "saddam needs to be taken out" as much as you want, but if you can't find (for example) the washington post article about how so-and-so divested himself of stock in XXXX oil cleanup company (that's in today's edition) then you're not gonna win anyone over.

 

a partial conclusion

How can it be lost on anyone that you were being DA when it was never stated? I said it before, no one is here to make your points for you; have the courage to do the work yourself. "Devils Advocate" seems to be the new way of retreating. I love how no one has the balls to announce it straight off. They simply plow through until they get beat down and then all of a sudden it's: "well, that wasn't my position from the start, I was only in it for the debate and to start conversation"

but there's something wrong with your statement: Whenever anyone ever gave you information for you to refute or work with, you ignored them or You chose not to address their points. This is not a new opinion or declaration first voiced by CreeD. its been mentioned prior (and been ignored). That's not devil's advocate, that's mindless shit spewing and completely rooted in a child's playground system of thought. But as soon as you get nailed by another manifestation (albeit more in your face) of the same thing all of sudden maturity gets called into question. .

Devils' advocate is a term that comes from the auditing of candidates up for sainthood, the Roman Catholic Church wanted to ensure that those being cnosidered were truly worthy. They needed to be challenged and found ready. Today the term survives as a means of asking hard questions, even if it means taking an upopular stance or stepping on sacred ground, to see if the original assertion (the one being challenged) stands up. It is hard to give your claim validity since what you did amounted to "you are wrong" and then "nyah nyah I can't hear you".

is it really that hard to believe that we could be doing something for the sake of good? You know, there are a million problem spots in the world with all sorts of attrocities going on all the time. THe U.S does not have the resources to solve them all, nor should it be the United States sole responsibility. We go after problems in which the solution can also benefit us. Is that so bad - no...thats how the world works.

You actually destroy part of your argument here. How can they be operating for the sake of good if, like you mention, they are neglecting other atrocities and concentrating only on the ones that bring us benefit? The Sake of Good isn't selective, it is not an off or on thing, it just is and you either operate for yourself or for Good.

And nothing makes me sadder than when people point to an operating manual to how the world works and say we're just following directions like a good german. Human Habit is always mistaken for the Human Condition and that is a true shame.

Human's placing greed and self interest over the lives of others and those sheep willing to allow them the luxury is what manifests the condition you described. It has got to be easy to live in the west and shrug in that post modern sort of way and say, "death, rule of might, enforced poverty, systemic herding of underclasses and lawless-ness are the way of the world" but its only a matter of time before the camps come home and I can't imagine you spouting the same trash from behind chicken wire fence.

Reality is what you can get away with (and that cuts deep in every direction) and we should be striving to get away with nothing less than peace and beauty.

GE
<font color="green">who makes the color blue? </font>

 

Re: a partial conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:


is it really that hard to believe that we could be doing something for the sake of good? You know, there are a million problem spots in the world with all sorts of attrocities going on all the time. THe U.S does not have the resources to solve them all, nor should it be the United States sole responsibility. We go after problems in which the solution can also benefit us. Is that so bad - no...thats how the world works.

You actually destroy part of your argument here. How can they be operating for the sake of good if, like you mention, they are neglecting other atrocities and concentrating only on the ones that bring us benefit? The Sake of Good isn't selective, it is not an off or on thing, it just is and you either operate for yourself or for Good.

And nothing makes me sadder than when people point to an operating manual to how the world works and say we're just following directions like a good german. Human Habit is always mistaken for the Human Condition and that is a true shame.


GE
<font color="green">who makes the color blue? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Then would it be better, by that account, to do nothing - since not selecting anything leads to no backlash and no contradictions? That is something I cannot accept. You can go on about the atrocities, but hey, at least the united states is doing something, which is better than nothing. I believe it is Einstein that said "all that is needed for evil to conqour is for good men to do nothing." Peace and love are something that we should all strive for, but unforunatly sometimes it takes war - what would this world be like if in WWI, WWII and Korean War if we did nothing? We have a mixed bag for going in there. No one is going to deny that the U.S is going in because they have a valuable resource...but we are also going in there to try and make a difference for the Iraqi people. You notice now in the reports that there are uprisings against Hussein?
If you look at the latest polls, all are putting support for the war at about 69~~75% in the United States.
Oh yeah, as for not directly comming out and saying "I am playing devil's advovate" it really should not be needed.

 

Re: a partial conclusion

quick post now, big post later.

Oh yeah, as for not directly comming out and saying "I am playing devil's advovate" it really should not be needed

Then why did you say it?

GE

 

Re: Hussein just did a live speech...

Can YOU offer an argument to me and what I have said?

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

Its easy to say its better to go to war, blow up a few buildings and kill a few innocent people than to do nothing. However, I say its better to try diplomatic methods (weapon inspectors) than just drop bombs which has already lead to more people in the middle-east hating the west.
Stop thinking about this situation like its clear-cut, simple or black and white - 'cos it ain't.
You also have to start thinking about the long-term consequences of Bush and Blair (illegally) taking unilateral action and what impact it has with regards to the UN, relations between the US and Europe, and the fact war with Iraq has undoubtedly done nothing to help the war on terrorism - in fact its made another terrorist attack on the same scale of 9/11 a lot more likely.
Oh and another thing, opinion polls don't mean shit when they ask things like "Was it right to go to war to remove Saddam?" when what they should really be asking is "Is it right for Bush and Blair to disregard the UN, Security Council, and their own people?" or "Would you prefer more diplomatic methods of disarmament over dropping bombs?". Its not public opinion that has changed, its the questions within the polls that have changed.

 

Prez Bush is doing his "Shout-Outs" now

On live tv now Bush is doing his address from Tampa Centcom. He's doing his shout-outs and asskissing in the vein of the recent Saddam address. It's the happiest I have ever seen him. The bastard is even making me smile. /versus/images/graemlins/blush.gif If he says anything of merit I'll post it.

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

Well, what would you of done if diplomatic options were exausted and failed? For people like Saddam, there must be an immediate and real threat of force behind any attempts at a peacefull settlement. Was it right for the Security council to keep making resolutions, over and over? Was it right for France to come out and say they will veto any treatis on use of force? The argument can go both ways in terms of the U.N.

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

[ QUOTE ]
MonkFish said:

You also have to start thinking about the long-term consequences of Bush and Blair (illegally) taking unilateral action and what impact it has with regards to the UN, relations between the US and Europe, and the fact war with Iraq has undoubtedly done nothing to help the war on terrorism - in fact its made another terrorist attack on the same scale of 9/11 a lot more likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but how is what bush and blair done illegal?
Because the UN didn't sanction it? The UN is a confederation or in other words the individual states have all the power and they, by participating in the UN, are how the UN gets any semblance of power. Therefore the UN really has no power if the individual states do not choose to participate.

 

Re: Hussein just did a live speech...

i already did. that's what creed and GE's earlier posts were about.

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

For people who want to understand the purpose of the UN go to this site.
http://www.un.org/

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

Gee, i don't know, maybe a little something called International Law.
Being an American I'll assume you might not know what that means considering how much your government completely disregards International Law.
Besides all you've done is take a minor point of my post, completely ignoring the other more important points I made, to attempt to make an argument.

ShadowDean: Did they fail? Blix never said they failed, in fact the last I saw of diplomatic efforts, Saddam WAS complying, and need I reiterate the point that no weapons of mass destruction were found. Much like Schade you've ignored the important issues brought up by my post.

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

You have to be more specific in what "laws" Bush/Blair has violated in their conflict with Iraq.
Too many general statements make baby jesus cry. /versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

Well, if Bush and Blair have exempted the UN then that means the past and present UN resolutions have no validity in an argument for the legality of war, as most people try to use.

That means you have to go by several international treaties (which America and Britain signed) that make up international law.
Under international law you cannot just declare war on whomever you feel like for whatever reasons you want. To declare war on Iraq legally, America and Britain must have either been attacked by Iraq OR at the very least there must be an refutable threat of an imminent attack by Iraq. This didn't happen, hence it is an illegal war by International Law, which of course means nothing to America and little more to Britain.

Once again the important issues have been ignored. Whether its legal or not, we all have to start thinking about the consequences of the war. Good as well as bad.

 

Re: a partial conclusion

okay. Work is over, I get to address this. I haven't read the 9 entries made so far since this morning so I may or may not be going over already familiar territory.

Then would it be better, by that account, to do nothing - since not selecting anything leads to no backlash and no contradictions? That is something I cannot accept. You can go on about the atrocities, but hey, at least the united states is doing something, which is better than nothing. I believe it is Einstein that said "all that is needed for evil to conqour is for good men to do nothing."

This is the point you always lose me, dean and I'll explain why. So far when people have dissagreed to the war you've asked them if they think Saddam is a "nice guy" or if they condone rape rooms, as though that was implicit in their argument. It's pretty obvious its not, especially when they are forced to abandon parts of their argument to close off that type of (noxious) non-sensical "counter-argument". This is much the same thing.

I refute your projected premise of the US working for the sake of Good and you say, "would you prefer them to do nothing?" when that is a false counter. They were doing something. And it was having results.

The sanctions and Weapons inspectors were involved and commited to the process. But the results were hardly satisfactory for the Bush Regime because they wanted to invade. Spokespeople for the Weapons inspectors lamented the false leads given them by Powell that compounded their work load and success rate. the process was in place but (seemingly) set up to fail so that there would be no other course than to go to war. Under the guise of legitimacy, of course.

I never said, 'leave him alone' I questioned the invasionary tactics, I wondered, "why iraq, why now". Considering the constantly shifting reasons that invasion was necessary it became all the more obvious that something beyond national security was at stake.

War is sometimes necessary but if you've put in place a process to avoid it why undermine that process unless you really need what war will bring (bush is now talking about the process of bringing a western democracy and ownership of the oil to iraq in a way that smacks of setting up camps Okinawa style).

Get this straight: There was no lack of action on the part of the World or the US. to say there was and then draw hypothetical questions out of that flawed understanding serves nothing except Confusion. If the process was taking too long for Bush then he should have been told to wait like a good little boy and that he'd get his dessert before long. But of course, he was and like the spoiled brat he is he ran ahead and....well we all know what's going on.

the cut of this entire set of paragraphs is to point out what should be obvious by now to most people: you constantly--for whatever reason--dismiss without reason, muddy the points, draw out tangled suppositions or just choose not to address rebuttals. I'm hoping that you will either discontinue the practice or that (more likely) the rest of the involved will discontinue pandering to your splintered postings.

GE

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

I was just trying to get more specifics out of you, and I will continue, names of the treatys please, you just randomly saying there is treatys doesn't make it so. you need to always cite your sources so we can all be educated more on the matter. and so we your not feedin us shit and expecting us to nod our heads.

 

Re: Learn-to-read!

Why not?
You guys suck up all the jizz the administration has been feeding you.

This sad trolling attempt was brought to you by Fishie productions.

 

Re: *sigh*

I'm fairly certain its in the Geneva convention somewhere.
If its so legal, why is everybody so concerned with the legality issue, including the UN?
Why are Bush and Blair themselves always defending the legality issue? Because there are doubts that it is legal.
Every lawyer whose speciality is in international law and who isn't American has said it was an illegal declaration of war. This is where I'm getting my information from and I'd take the word of a European or African or whatever nationality lawyer than an American one any day.
Fuck man, according to U.S. law you can completely strip someone of any human rights they should have just by simply inventing a term that doesn't exist and isn't recognised by any legal system in the world - other than America.

Why should I have to search round the internet for specific resources when things like International Law and the Geneva Convention should be common knowledge. I mean, are you seriously trying to tell me you've never heard of 'International Law'?
Well, like I said earlier, you're American so you probably haven't heard of International Law, but I asure you it does exist.
Instead of watching solely US media I suggest you try watching maybe the BBC news (tend to have less biased opinions).

You know what, who the fuck is 'we'? You're in the minority here pal, don't forget that. The majority of the 'free world' (and the people in this thread) thinks its illegal, so I think you should have to prove to 'us' its not.

Talking about spouting shit, did you hear what that US Major General said about the bomb that hit that market in Baghdad. "Errrr.... we think it could possibly be a AAA shell that fell back down from the sky." Now that is spouting shit.

 

Re: *sigh*

Yes, that high and mighty institution called the U.N. Lets not forget who's idea that is in the first place - America. After the League of Nations, comes the U.N. If you could please sit exactly where how the decloration of war is illegal, please feel fine to do so. The worst I've heard it called is quasi-legal, but most of Lawyers I've heard, including my friends professor in law school, have said while the means the united states has obtained the decloration may be questionable, its validity is not.
Now, I can't do anything to cure your blind and ignorant hatred of America, that is just an issue that you will have to work out on your own.
Guess what, during war, mistakes happen, thats part of the game. Hell, what happened to you Brits at Dunkirk? DOH!!!!!!!!!