Originally posted by bbarrThat was not an attack on your person. It is an observation that is easily made when that type of comment reaches a patriots ear.
I can see from your posting that you're out of arguments. Don't worry, you were defending a morally bankrupt position; it's understandable that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Originally posted by britt2001bSure it was. At least have the gumption to admit what you're saying. If you'd bothered to read my other post you'd be aware of what I think of Saddam Hussein. If you'd bothered to pay attention to what I actually WROTE in my last post (Colin Powel was speculating, the Joint Chiefs are unconvinced), you'd realize how inane you sound. And regarding your patriotic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?
That was not an attack on your person. It is an observation that is easily made when that type of comment reaches a patriots ear.
Originally posted by bbarr"you'd realize how inane you sound."
Sure it was. At least have the gumption to admit what you're saying. If you'd bothered to read my other post you'd be aware of what I think of Saddam Hussein. If you'd bothered to pay attention to what I actually WROTE in my last post (Colin Powel was speculating, the Joint Chiefs are unconvinced), you'd realize how inane you sound. And regarding your ...[text shortened]... tic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?
That sounds like an ad hominem attack to me!
Originally posted by bbarr"And regarding your patriotic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?"
Sure it was. At least have the gumption to admit what you're saying. If you'd bothered to read my other post you'd be aware of what I think of Saddam Hussein. If you'd bothered to pay attention to what I actually WROTE in my last post (Colin Powel was speculating, the Joint Chiefs are unconvinced), you'd realize how inane you sound. And regarding your ...[text shortened]... tic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?
Are you making fun of my condition? Another ad hominem attack!
Originally posted by britt2001bDo you have anything substantive to say about the content of my posts relevant to this discussion? You made a claim about who I trust, I responded by pointing out what I in fact wrote about Hussein and Powell. Now it's your turn to justify your claim. This is how we play the debate game.
"And regarding your patriotic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?"
Are you making fun of my condition? Another ad hominem attack!
Yes, I'm making fun of you. The difference is that while I'm making fun of you, I'm offering up counter-arguments to your claims. So I'm in fact doing two things at once, whereas you've just been doing one thing again and again.
Originally posted by britt2001bThere is a edit button if you forgot to say something why dont you use it.
"And regarding your patriotic ear: Does that condition guarantee that you only hear things that accord with your ideology?"
Are you making fun of my condition? Another ad hominem attack!
Originally posted by kirksey957Hmm, I've never heard the 'but I support our troops' argument over here and to be honest, I don't really know what it means. Support the troops in what exactly? And surely you can't be suggesting that to support troops in the manner they deserve (whatever that may be) it is necessary to also support war?
I didn't attend any marches, but saw countless interviews with marchers and I must say one of the most infuriating things I hear is this: "We're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." Bullshit. Pure unadulterated B.S. The easiest thing to do (on either side of this debate) is to march oneself out and be one of the masses. It is easy for me ...[text shortened]... me, don't let me leave the Germans out who don't' know Russian. You're welcome too. 😠Kirk
I have no desire at all to see any troops, of whatever nationality, killed or hurt, which is why I'm not greatly keen on sending them into battle. Isn't that the greatest support of all?
Originally posted by bbarrOk, here's my arguement :
Do you have anything substantive to say about the content of my posts relevant to this discussion? You made a claim about who I trust, I responded by pointing out what I in fact wrote about Hussein and Powell. Now it's your turn to justify ...[text shortened]... nce, whereas you've just been doing one thing again and again.
How many protesters were protesting Saddam Hussein and demanding he destroy his weapons of mass destruction? From what I could tell .....NOBODY was! Why can't they protest the one who's killing his own people? How much pressure has the U.N. placed on Hussein to disharm? All of these protests were targeted towards America!
When we sent all those cruise missiles to Iraq, went in to Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti during the Clinton administration, I don't recall seeing one such protest. Did you protest then? If not, I would say the real protest is against the administration, not for world peace.
So my determination is that you can't bring yourself to be pro-America because it means that you hate other nations.
OK< obviously very strong feelings on every side here. Great discourse and no lives were lost, though I'm clearly a minority opinion on the site. I was reflecting on all this energy around this as it always brings about a heated debate. I apologize ahead of time if I am trivializing a very serious situation that has global ramifications, but I cannot think of an issue that brings about this much intense debate in these forums except for accusations of using a program. Programs are the "weapons of mass destruction" on the site and perhaps the parallel between these two weapons is the nature of secrecy, innuendo, paranoia, etc.
I once made an off handed comment in a game where I was losing about my opponent using a program. I meant it as a joke as I very much trust this person's integrity and value their sportsmanship. I apologized and we are still friends even though I lost. I guess my point is that in modern war today we no longer have the value of remorse, forgiveness (on both sides) and the true mark of maturity, learning from the one who defeats you as well as the one you are defeating. I still think we have this on the site. I have learned a lot from people that consistently beat me and I believe that even though I may not be the strongest opponent, I still have something else to offer them.
So I would like to offer an end to the us versus them in the debate. This will play out in some way that I may have no control over, but at least on the site I will commit to respectful relationships if not the best of chess. Oh yes, and certainly no weapons of mass destruction.😉 Kirk
Saddam is a "bad" person, fine. Persecute him based on his crimes against humanity. BUT DO NOT use intelligence reports that NO ONE CAN FULLY backup on the ground as an excuse.
The people of Iraq are the only ones that are goiing to suffer.
Where is the support for the people of Afghanistan ? So far only the immediate area around Kabul is being helped.
"The war on terror", if it ever truely existed. Has been very selective about its targets and the consequences for those it leaves behind. Why are organisations closer to the western world never mentioned, for example ETA is Spian.
Looking through the rhetoric of the worlds leaders, including my own prime minister, Afghanistan was chosen because of its closness to the WTC. Iraq because of the job not finished and the oil it can provide the west. When will the world look closer to home, at the real battles that are going on in the world ? Israel and Palestine have never been sanctioned by the UN for the TERROR BOTH SIDES HAVE INFLICTED ON EACH OTHER.
-mike
Some arbitrary comments, in no particular order:
War vs terrorists is like war against guerrillas, except your enemy is even more anonymous, even less scrupulous and is even less affected by damage to the hierarchy, which is an effective tool against conventional armies. It's a bit like trying to kill flies with a baseball bat.
"War on terror" has a similar meaning to "War on unhealthy eating." You can't conquer or bomb to oblivion an abstract noun, but like the "War on drugs" (ok drugs are not abstract, but they are inanimate) the metaphor encourages a one-dimensional attitude. There are always other economic, social and political tools you can use in addition to military force, a bit like the way a government doesn't just fight crime (another abstract noun!) by getting the police to round up people they don't like the look of.
Don't confuse patriotism with chauvinism. It is a common (and often deliberate) mistake.
"Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down & punished."
All well and good, but the actual perpetrators would probably have been different people each time; the 'masterminds' are not possessed of superhuman powers, and would soon be replaced by their deputies or rivals if they were assassinated. There are 6 billion people in the world. Even the small proportion of terrorists make up a large number of people, living in different countries, with very different ideals objectives, and they spend most of their time fighting each other. Even the ones who have the same aim are often ignorant of or indifferent or hostile to each other (eg loyalist vs loyalist shootings in Northern Ireland). If there really were a powerful 'axis of evil' opposed to the USA and all its citizens, the USA would have martial law and essentially closed borders by now, and would still suffer regular attacks from resistance groups working within the country, like the Germans did in occupied Europe. The USA is not at war yet, not unless you say it was at war for 40-odd years against the USSR.
Originally posted by britt2001bProtesting is a method of letting your leaders know that you're not happy with their actions, or in this case, their proposed course of action. We all know that it would be an utter waste of time to march around and chant anti-Saddam slogans in Washington or London - Saddam is well aware that most of the world is unhappy with his actions, and doesn't seem to care. People protest because they believe that the recipient of their protest will listen to what they have to say.
Ok, here's my arguement :
How many protesters were protesting Saddam Hussein and demanding he destroy his weapons of mass destruction? From what I could tell .....NOBODY was! Why can't they protest the one who's killing his own people? How much pressure has the U.N. placed on Hussein to disharm? All of these protests were targeted towards America ...[text shortened]... that you can't bring yourself to be pro-America because it means that you hate other nations.
The protests in America were indeed aimed at the Bush administration, as were the protests in many other countries around the world. This doesn't mean that the protesters (American and otherwise) are anti-American, just that they disagree with the course of action proposed by the Bush administration. If any non-UN sanctioned military action happens, it is clear that it will be led by the Bush administration, and many other governments will follow suit to avoid being on the wrong end of the "with us or against us" position adopted by GWB. By protesting the course of action proposed by the Bush administration, people outside of the U.S. are acknowledging that Bush is the de facto leader of the 'free world'. He should be flattered rather than offended.