Disturbing Party handle [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Gamblor

01-22-2004, 12:58 PM

Kill an American you are an evil terrorist, kill an Iraqi and you are a liberator.

This oversimplistic, absurd analysis is typical of the left's propaganda machine.

Osama bin Laden planned, executed, and took subtle credit for the targeted murder of as many people as possible given the method of attack. Whether his political motives were valid or invalid, is irrelevant. Period.

Even if you're crazy enough to believe George W Bush went into Iraq for nothing other than oil (which I can't deny having never been in a Cheifs of Staff meeting), not a single US soldier was ordered to specifically and purposefully target and murder as many Iraqi civilians as possible. Collateral damage, and whether Bush knew that some Iraqis may pay the ultimate price, is irrelevant. American (and Israeli, while we're on the subject of Wars on Terror) operations are specifically and painstakingly designed to minimize civilian casualties while still acheiving their goals, whether or not those goals are valid is beyond my knowledge of the inner workings of George W Bush, Jr.

Jim Easton

01-22-2004, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kill an American you are an evil terrorist,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc., plenty of Americans have been killed without it being called terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
kill an Iraqi and you are a liberator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but to compare an announced war to sneak attacks on civilians is laughable.

Simon Diamond

01-22-2004, 01:00 PM

I'm afraid that will be my last comment on the issue though as I've found these debates achieve nothing but getting everyone all upset.

That's politics for you.

Simon

Jim Easton

01-22-2004, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Longer-term, I'm hoping to earn $120k in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=48 0642&Forum=All_Forums&Words=2926&Match=Username&Se archpage=2&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=480642&Searc h=true#Post480642)

Let's see how enamoured you are of the left when you see your 50k+ tax liability.

GuyOnTilt

01-22-2004, 01:10 PM

Let's see how enamoured you are of the left when you see your 50k+ tax liability.

Wow. I really fail to see what my personal convictions in the topic currently on the floor has to do with my tax liability. The fact that you can compare the cost of human life with a few thousand dollars and insinuate that I should weigh the latter when considering the former shocks me.

But what do I know; I'm just a punk kid. I'm going to take the Lori approach on this one, since from your comment above, it's obvious she's spot on.

GoT

Jim Easton

01-22-2004, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really fail to see what my personal convictions in the topic currently on the floor has to do with my tax liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are clearly a liberal, that is the connection.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you can compare the cost of human life with a few thousand dollars and insinuate that I should weigh the latter when considering the former shocks me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is shocking is that you would draw that conclusion. I made no such insinuation.

What is interesting is 2 weeks ago you said:

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard the number of 1/3 thrown around a lot of these boards. Is it really that high? If so, I'm going to be sick. That's so much freaking money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=473317&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

I guess we'll have to wait until next April to see whether you don't care or it makes you sick.

[ QUOTE ]
But what do I know; I'm just a punk kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts do frequently display the arrogance of youth. That is typical and understandable.

[ QUOTE ]
since from your comment above, it's obvious she's spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because you completely misconstrued it.

Jim Easton

01-22-2004, 01:27 PM

If you haven't checked out the link in Guy's signature, you should. Get ready to laugh (nothing political, just funny).

Link (http://www.homestarrunner.com)

thomastem

01-22-2004, 01:28 PM

All I know is that N. Korea is happy they don't have oil. We wouldn't have to pretend that Korea wants and is making them as they have admitted this. Oh and this dictatorship doesn't discriminate against and belief groups and tortures any of it's citizens equally.

Liberate an oppressed people? Yes but only because it was convenient. Foreign countries that oppress harsher and don't have oil I guess enjoy their oppression. For example if a dictator orders his militia that any woman with an infant out of wed lock or different religion must be imprisoned with her child, have her breasts cut off and lay next her baby. Typically if the butcher is somewhat skilled the mom will bleed to death after she watches helplessly as her child starves to death right next to her.

We liberate when it's convenient or profitable to do so and have this pattern throughout history.

daveymck

01-22-2004, 01:40 PM

If your dead your dead whether its by a terrorist or a democratic country trying to minimise casualties if you are a inncoent civilian I dont think you are worried about the intent.

I am sure that there are families in Iraq going through exactly the same emotions as the families of those killed sept 11 or in bali or wherever I am sure they do not in the middle of thier grieving console themselves with the fact the Americans/british didnt mean it.

As I understand it by red cross/crescent estimates around 8,000 Iraqui civilians were killed and injured by accident and it brings back the west view that 1 US or European citizen is killed its worth more than other countries.

On our news sometimes they talk about an air crash or other disaster will say hundreds dead many injured but no UK citizens were involved (phew thats alright then).

The earthquake in Iran 20-30,000 killed and oh no one british one as well, all focus on him and his life not all the poor buggers who also dies and was left homeless.

Dont know what this all means on a whose right or wrong scale but I find it intriging the differing attitudes. This is the only American dominated board I post on and its interesting to get views from the horses mouth rather than through the media.

Simon Diamond

01-22-2004, 01:50 PM

On our news sometimes they talk about an air crash or other disaster will say hundreds dead many injured but no UK citizens were involved (phew thats alright then).

The earthquake in Iran 20-30,000 killed and oh no one british one as well, all focus on him and his life not all the poor buggers who also dies and was left homeless.

I don't think the BBC/ITN etc. would mention that there were no UK casualties and then suggest that everything is okay as a result.

Just remember that some families in the UK have relatives abroad and news of a disaster in their area and potential UK casualties, might well be important news.

Simon

thomastem

01-22-2004, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If your dead your dead whether its by a terrorist or a democratic country trying to minimise casualties if you are a inncoent civilian I dont think you are worried about the intent.

I am sure that there are families in Iraq going through exactly the same emotions as the families of those killed sept 11 or in bali or wherever I am sure they do not in the middle of thier grieving console themselves with the fact the Americans/british didnt mean it.

As I understand it by red cross/crescent estimates around 8,000 Iraqui civilians were killed and injured by accident and it brings back the west view that 1 US or European citizen is killed its worth more than other countries.

On our news sometimes they talk about an air crash or other disaster will say hundreds dead many injured but no UK citizens were involved (phew thats alright then).

The earthquake in Iran 20-30,000 killed and oh no one british one as well, all focus on him and his life not all the poor buggers who also dies and was left homeless.

Dont know what this all means on a whose right or wrong scale but I find it intriging the differing attitudes. This is the only American dominated board I post on and its interesting to get views from the horses mouth rather than through the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the news portrays foreign death and misfortune as not as bad as American death and misfortune. Matter of fact experimenting on chimps to cure disease gets more outcry than an Earthquake outside our borders.

JTrout

01-22-2004, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But what do I know; I'm just a punk kid. I'm going to take the Lori approach on this one

[/ QUOTE ]

The only sensible thing you've said....

ScottTheFish

01-22-2004, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But he is responsible for massive numbers of deaths and casualties just the same. Just because the victims may be outside our borders shouldn't make it any less offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say to that is wow. Should we just diband our military since it is immoral and offensive to ever kill an enemy soldier?

Melt down the weapons, boys. Killing is just WRONG, no matter the circumstance. I'm sure we won't be invaded or attacked, as that would be morally wrong, as well.

Lazymeatball

01-22-2004, 02:07 PM

Since Lori and GuyOnTilt have set the precedent for the debating tactic commonly known as "taking my marbles and going home" I will get my last dig in and be off.

Trying to justify Al Qaeda's repeated deliberate attacks on innocent life as some form of freedom fighting is reprehensible.

Trying to compare US led military tactics against a brutal dictator to Al Qaeda attacks on innocents is morally and logically bankrupt.

ps. I do agree with Lori that these sort of political debates get everyone riled up, keep this in the Other Topics forum where Gamblor feels more at home.

thomastem

01-22-2004, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But he is responsible for massive numbers of deaths and casualties just the same. Just because the victims may be outside our borders shouldn't make it any less offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say to that is wow. Should we just diband our military since it is immoral and offensive to ever kill an enemy soldier?

Melt down the weapons, boys. Killing is just WRONG, no matter the circumstance. I'm sure we won't be invaded or attacked, as that would be morally wrong, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who picks the militaries targets and why?

The Iraqi people are probably better off now but how did this country take priority over other issues? Osama still out there and N. Korea ACTUALLY making nukes not to mention several dictators with cruel as their middle name.

Where's the oil?

NoChance

01-22-2004, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Would you react the same way if you saw the handle "George_WB"???

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read the other responses to this in this thread and I think you all made too many assumptions and went to far with it. Honestly, because of 9/11 you are either on one side or the other depending on perception. But, you could plug in any world leader name and you would get the same thing. Some would be offended and some wouldn't think anything of it.

I don't think GoT meant to cause a political debate. It was just an example that most americans would find okay but many other parts of the world would not.

thomastem

01-22-2004, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since Lori and GuyOnTilt have set the precedent for the debating tactic commonly known as "taking my marbles and going home" I will get my last dig in and be off.

Trying to justify Al Qaeda's repeated deliberate attacks on innocent life as some form of freedom fighting is reprehensible.

Trying to compare US led military tactics against a brutal dictator to Al Qaeda attacks on innocents is morally and logically bankrupt.

ps. I do agree with Lori that these sort of political debates get everyone riled up, keep this in the Other Topics forum where Gamblor feels more at home.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely correct why discuss this. How about we start a discussion on "What's wrong with the SS?" Much more fun with no real rile. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

thomastem

01-22-2004, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you react the same way if you saw the handle "George_WB"???

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the SS forum is rubbing off on us. I'm guilty too in these threads. Poker or internet gambling is meant to be a forum about having fum and profiting on the internet. This discussion is far from that.

Let's talk about more humorous things like how the Zoo is going to decimate ss in the upcoming tourney. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
I have read the other responses to this in this thread and I think you all made too many assumptions and went to far with it. Honestly, because of 9/11 you are either on one side or the other depending on perception. But, you could plug in any world leader name and you would get the same thing. Some would be offended and some wouldn't think anything of it.

I don't think GoT meant to cause a political debate. It was just an example that most americans would find okay but many other parts of the world would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

MattHatter

01-22-2004, 02:24 PM

In a lot of ways bush is more dispicable.

a) Bush is responsible for more innnocent lives lost.
Iraq/Afghan (10,000 +) >= 9/11 (~3,000)

Especially in Iraq you gotta remember these ppl did NOTHING to the US. Your army of trained killers slaughter them anyway. They were as innocent as the victims of Sept/11.

GW is as bad because Osama is a Terrorist, and GW is supposed to be better than that but hes not.. hes a murderer just like Osama. But they both slaughter poor innocent ppl, not eachother. I would like nothing more than to see Bush and Osama in the Hague together.

b) Bush wont own up to it, a wont even mention it but all the ppl the Americans killed I would guess maybe .001% had anything to do with terrorism. (and ya'll killed lots of innocents)

When it comes to Killin innocents you just cant beat the USA.

How come 6 million Jews is a holocaust and 4 million Vietnemese deaths don't even make a blip on the radar screen?

Prickly Pete

01-22-2004, 02:48 PM

Hutz is smarter than Thomastem and all his critters.

There, that should really get this place going. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

KidParty

01-22-2004, 03:13 PM

Innocent Iraqi lives have been lost because the Iraqi government used innocent people as human shields...you blame Bush for this?...Innocent Iraqi lives have been lost because Saddam loyalists attach explosives to themselves and murder anyone around them hoping to kill a few American soldiers...you blame blame Bush for this?...War is never going to go away. The people we are fighting attack those who they see as weak. They attack with out warning and without any regard for any human life...It is funny that liberals used to be for human rights...It looks now as if the new liberals are for human rights when it is for their own political gain...Your high level of hate for Bush is destoying the Democratic Party...Look at Howard Dean's fall from being the front runner for the 2004 Presidental nomination...All he does is attack Bush and the war...Eventually people will figure out this isn't the way to get peoples support...Good Luck in 2004...Edwards is your only chance now...Again, Lotsa Luck.

Stagemusic

01-22-2004, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your army of trained killers slaughter them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...I TRIED TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT MOST THINGS SAID ON THIS THREAD UNTIL THIS MEALY MOUTH MF DECIDES TO CALL MY SON A "TRAINED KILLER". FYI YOU SOB, MY SON SERVES IN THE US MILITARY AND DOES SO WITH HONOR AND PRIDE. SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T KNOW A GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO SIT AT HOME AND WATCH THE NEWS HOPING FOR WORD ABOUT YOUR SON AND YET PRAYING TO GOD THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO REPORT. IT IS MY FONDEST HOPE THAT YOU NEVER DO. WHAT IS HONORABLE ABOUT TALKING ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT? POLITICAL DEBATE CAN BE FUN AND INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATING BUT YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LINE.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif MATT, YOU CAN DELETE THIS POST IF YOU WOULD LIKE BUT I FEEL THAT THE LINE WAS CROSSED BY THIS YUM YUM AND OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHO PROVIDE US THE VERY FREEDOM TO TALK ON FORUMS SUCH AS THESE NEED TO BE DEFENDED.

Your Mom

01-22-2004, 03:22 PM

Comparing Bush and OBL is seriously ridiculous.

Lori

01-22-2004, 03:30 PM

For those on the "War in Iraq is bad" side, go to google and search "Weapons of Mass destruction" then click "I feel lucky"

For those patriots who take the government line, you might prefer to search "French military victories" instead.
Again click "I feel lucky" and then follow the link you are given when you get there.

Lori

Gamblor

01-22-2004, 03:36 PM

If your dead your dead whether its by a terrorist or a democratic country trying to minimise casualties if you are a inncoent civilian I dont think you are worried about the intent.

That's called moral equivalency, and it's probably the biggest danger on earth.

If Gargamel is trying to destroy the Smurfs, and they stop him and he dies in the process, that does NOT make the Smurfs equally immoral.

I don't doubt the pain they feel. But yes, my life is more important than anyone else's life, until there is a reason they have given me to believe otherwise - that "otherwise" is what we like to call emotional attachment. Friendship, love, yada yada yada.

Your Mom

01-22-2004, 03:39 PM

This thread is really disappointing because I have lost a lot of respect for a few posters around here.

ScottTheFish

01-22-2004, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The Iraqi people are probably better off now but how did this country take priority over other issues? Osama still out there and N. Korea ACTUALLY making nukes not to mention several dictators with cruel as their middle name.

Where's the oil?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what you just said. The fact that N. Korea is run by a psychotic dictator in posession of WMD is MORE of a reason to get rid of Saddam, not less.

I'll let you figure out why.

As far as who picks the targets, they're chosen by the leaders that we elect. It's called living in a Representative Republic.

There's always an enemy just as bad/worse than someone else. That doesn't mean you do nothing to protect yourself.

Lori

01-22-2004, 03:53 PM

This thread is really disappointing because I have lost a lot of respect for a few posters around here.

There are a lot of respectable posters in this thread who don't agree with me.

I respect these people because they speak their minds and are honest, to expect them to lie about their views, or to ask those who take the same line as Guy and myself to lie about ours would remove the very thing that makes those posters respectable.

Personally, despite the fact I have strong views on this matter, the fact that people have opposite views that are just as strong is no need for loss of respect, it is just a good reason to avoid the subject as clearly if many intelligent people can disagree, then it is a very thorny issue.
Normally a healthy debate would help in this area, but in an instance with such passion on either side the only thing that will come from such a debate is animosity and this is why I choose to duck on this instance (and people here should know I don't duck very often)

Lori

bigpooch

01-22-2004, 03:54 PM

Why didn't you mention another interesting tidbit? The
Bush family (George Sr.) and the bin Laden family have had
ties in the past mostly because of that Arab money. And as
you may know, millions of dollars of Arab money have been
and will continue to be used to support Al Quaeda and other
groups worldwide, but do you think the Saudi government will
even mention that? Why were the planes grounded for a few
days after 9/11 and yet an Arab can just make a well-placed
phone call to let some key people fly out of the country but
the average Joe will just have to wait? And why are so many
people in the fog? Are the spin doctors adept at completely
hypnotizing the masses?

I agree that killing is killing but I would have to admit
one thing: the operation on 9/11 was a clear success and to
deny that is denying reality. On the other hand, 3000+
American civilians were lost.

Welcome to the New World, America!

thomastem

01-22-2004, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hutz is smarter than Thomastem and all his critters.

There, that should really get this place going. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

He may be smarter but we are sexier.

ScottTheFish

01-22-2004, 04:06 PM

"Killing is killing" is such a wonderfully simplistic and naive outlook. If only things were that simple in the real world.

A friend of mine is police SWAT sharpshooter. In his career he has shot and killed about 15 people. The latest was a guy holed up in a day care center with a shotgun holding about 20 kids and adults hostage.

I think Charles Manson killed about 15, is my friend no different from Manson? If he accidentally shot an innocent bystander, is my friend no better than Hitler or Osama?

The mind boggles.

Prickly Pete

01-22-2004, 04:12 PM

Working Gargamel into a comparison of Bush/Bin Laden ...

agree with him or disagree with him, but Gamblor's post is a winner.

HavanaBanana

01-22-2004, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
DECIDES TO CALL MY SON A "TRAINED KILLER". FYI YOU SOB, MY SON SERVES IN THE US MILITARY

[/ QUOTE ]

Any soldier in any army are trained killers, take a prozac please.

HavanaBanana

01-22-2004, 04:18 PM

Well I stand corrected, Salvation army Exluded (I HOPE!)

MattHatter

01-22-2004, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your army of trained killers slaughter them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...I TRIED TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT MOST THINGS SAID ON THIS THREAD UNTIL THIS MEALY MOUTH MF DECIDES TO CALL MY SON A "TRAINED KILLER". FYI YOU SOB, MY SON SERVES IN THE US MILITARY AND DOES SO WITH HONOR AND PRIDE. SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T KNOW A GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO SIT AT HOME AND WATCH THE NEWS HOPING FOR WORD ABOUT YOUR SON AND YET PRAYING TO GOD THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO REPORT. IT IS MY FONDEST HOPE THAT YOU NEVER DO. WHAT IS HONORABLE ABOUT TALKING ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT? POLITICAL DEBATE CAN BE FUN AND INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATING BUT YOU AZZHOLE HAVE CROSSED THE LINE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

Firstly let me apologise for the offhanded remark referring to the military as trained killers. Your son is doing what he can for what he (may or may not) believe is a noble cause. And I know that most americans have nothing but the best intentions.

I wish your son safety, and peace.

I am afraid though that with Bush in the whitehouse we will never see peace. The 'new' international standard for starting a war requires no evidence of any kind, War on the word of the US vs. anyone, wherever it chooses. It's a new and dangerous international prescedent. And even after the fact when it turns out that it was all a lie.. and that there was no real threat. No one cares (inside the US).

Which makes the nation a dangerous/rogue international agent. The list of other nations that have made war for these reasons is not a pretty one.

But what about your sons dead comerades? What about them? Was bush right about the imminant threat of WMD? Were Saddams Nukes on the way to the NY harbor? Or did he lie to take advantage of the fear of all americans felt after 9/11 to make war for Halliburton? Did they die protecting the US?
Or for some other reason?

The blood of your sons innocent comrades as well as the blood of thousands of innocent iraqis are all on the hands of GW BUSH.

The young men of the Iraqi army that were carpet bombed ("Where did the nth briagade disappear to?" The pundits on TV wondered). I know where they went, Iraq had NO airforce and hardly any viable anti-aircraft... and the US military spent a couple weeks dropping TONS of bombs... I'll tell you where the Iraqi army vanished to.. they're dead. And the rest went home.

Were those teenagers in the Iraqi army a threat to the US way of life? To you? Or were they just inncoent kids too?

GW exploited the fear of a truamatized nation in order to make war on a country which posed no real threat and had made no threatening military moves or statements against anyone in years.

Again, I apologise for insulting the honor of your son. I wish him safety and the best. I wish he had never left you.

Peace.

ScottTheFish

01-22-2004, 04:40 PM

Just so you know, the overwhelming force the US employed in Iraq actually saved thousands or Iraqi soldiers' lives, because they saw the handwriting on the wall and wisely left their posts and went home.

Your story about carpet bombed troops is colorful, and no doubt some of their troops were carpet bombed. But carpet bombed troops don't just vanish. If they disappeared without a trace it is indeed because they went home, not because they were vaporized into thin air.

I think some of you people would hand Osama the keys to the country if it meant Bush wouldn't be re-elected.

MattHatter

01-22-2004, 04:49 PM

O.K Here is something you all should see.

This is from a John Pilger Documentary called 'Breaking The Silence'

This is footage of Colin Powell (in Egypt if im not mistaken) just months before 9/11.. Listen to what he says about Iraq. Quite I different story just a few months later.

Also in this little Gem is Condoleeza Rice.. anothe huge liar. Saying basically the same things at the same time.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

If you look.. you can find the full DL of this Documentary on the web.

David

01-22-2004, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In a lot of ways bush is more dispicable.

a) Bush is responsible for more innnocent lives lost.
Iraq/Afghan (10,000 +) >= 9/11 (~3,000)

Especially in Iraq you gotta remember these ppl did NOTHING to the US. Your army of trained killers slaughter them anyway. They were as innocent as the victims of Sept/11.

GW is as bad because Osama is a Terrorist, and GW is supposed to be better than that but hes not.. hes a murderer just like Osama. But they both slaughter poor innocent ppl, not eachother. I would like nothing more than to see Bush and Osama in the Hague together.

b) Bush wont own up to it, a wont even mention it but all the ppl the Americans killed I would guess maybe .001% had anything to do with terrorism. (and ya'll killed lots of innocents)

When it comes to Killin innocents you just cant beat the USA.

How come 6 million Jews is a holocaust and 4 million Vietnemese deaths don't even make a blip on the radar screen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never respond to these OT posts, but I gotta say this is a true load of bull$hit . And 1 other thing, everybody always blames GW. I am no big GW supporter, but hey people if you want to blame someone you need to blame the majority of US citizens because the majority do support these actions. It is so easy to sit back and condemn the actions of your protector when you know even while you do this he will still preserve and protect you. Canada, I am sure a fine country but could they possibly defend themselves from anything? What a laugh, and the same for most of the European countries. Europe? The only reason they don't all call each other comrade or say !HEIL HITLER! is because of the US. As it has been and as it will always be in our lifetimes. The US has and for the foreseeable future will perform the unenviable and thankless task of "protecting" the world. Those who are "protected" will always be ungrateful and even beligerent towards us and our methods. Remember when you go to sleep tonight, no matter where you live, ultimately it is the US soldier who protects you or hunts you if you militarily oppose him. Mistakes? Our countries leaders and soldiers have made many in history and I am sure will continue to do so throughout time, but make no mistake without the US even the great societies of Europe would have a much greater risk of slipping into a world of anarchy and butchery. Must we always agree with our leaders actions? No. Must we do what we can to make or views known and try to right any wrong? Yes. But, to equate the actions of the US in response to a direct threat and even attack upon us, to those of the terrorists of 9/11 is an insult to all sane people.

Remember this, Gandhi became known and won only because he opposed the greatest empire of his day, the British. Had he tried the same tactics in Iraq of Hussein, North Korea of today, or Afghanistan of the Taliban he not only would not have won he would have never been heard of.

I say these thing with much prejudice I must say. I have a son in the US Army and another that says he will follow him within a year. Sleep better at night, my friends, because they are there. I as a father do not.

Utah

01-22-2004, 05:02 PM

I hope that you are not disparaging Peter North, one of the greatest porn actors of our generation. Of course, I uh...hmm...am not really sure who that is since I dont watch that sort of thing.

CCass

01-22-2004, 05:10 PM

Diplomat

01-22-2004, 05:15 PM

Wow this post has swung off topic. Well, same huge broad subject matter, but still off topic. Not to say that's a bad thing every time, but c'mon folks. This post is about Name X offending someone, and what can/should be done about that. It's not about Name X being worse than Name Y, or whatever. Make a new thread to get your hate on about whomever.

I've seen a few names that make me go hrrrrm for sure. The question should be what is to be done about it, or if anything should be done about it. I think that's generally up to Party to decide -- you could always write in to Party if you are really disturbed by a name and ask for them to consider a particular line of action/policy be undertaken. If the action or lack thereof does not satisfy, you then have the choice to not play at the same table with these players, or to personally boycott the website.

Although a shitty part of particular incarnations of freedom of speech and expression is that people sometimes say/write things that offend you, one of the best parts is that you always have the option to challenge their ideas or simply not listen.

-Diplomat

Stagemusic

01-22-2004, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
say these thing with much prejudice I must say. I have a son in the US Army and another that says he will follow him within a year. Sleep better at night, my friends, because they are there. I as a father do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

AMEN! And, well said. Thank you to you and your son(s)

daveymck

01-22-2004, 05:59 PM

This is perhaps the one element of American Society that really makes my stomach churn. This yeah lets go kick ass arrogance we can beat anyone attitude to be honest pisses me off and scares the hell out of me, I am more scared of America sparking off world war three with its agressive policies than any man hiding in cave in Pakistan or wherever he is.

The comments about America bailing europe out is valid to a point, and us brits are grateful for your help during that time but remind me again when you joined the war, had you joined us in the beginning the war would not have escalated as far out of control as it did. America always does and always will act in its own best interest, rightly so, but please do not dress it up so that I should feel grateful for it.

I ask who appointed your country and president the policeman of the world? Saddam and the taliban have been around for many years how come its only now we need a war on terror? and who put them in place and gave them these weapons of mass destruction oops it was us, well we can deflect the blame to France a bit cos we found some missles with made in france on but it was th US and Uk that made lucrative arms sales to Iraq in the first place.

Iraq played no part in the attacks of September the 11th but it didnt take very long after it happened for them to become prime target, why is that most if not all of the terrorists came from Saudi one of the most brutal repressive regimes in the world yet they never made the axis of evil.

The war on terror is a smokescreen for the policies that advance American influence in the middle east, nothing more and nothing less.

I respect your sons for their decision to serve their country, my best friend served in the Uk army on two tours of Ireland, as a father I can only imagine the worry you go through every day you son is away and the anguish and I am sure pride that you felt when your younger son stated he wished to join him.

The travesty is that every death and every injured serviceman coming back from Iraq is a betrayal of your sons offer of service, in my opinion. He is being used as a pawn in the politicians world game of chess, as always its the blood of the young given to further the leaders who happily stay in their mountain bunker while lives are on the line.

I do not beleive that this is a war for justice or that makes the world safer, every couple of weeks I fly into and out of Heathrow every time we come in low I wonder is there a man down there with a missle wanting to shoot this plane down, three years ago I flew more regular and never considered the fact who is winning the war on terror if this is the case?

As I uderstand it new laws and regulations are in force in the US that reduces the everyday freedoms thet you have enjoyed since you kicked us out and giving the government more powers to snoop into everyday life. Our government is looking at similar powers, who is winning the war on terror if this is the case?

One final question, the UK was attacked and bombed many times by the IRA. Citizens of which country provided much of the support and funding to this terrorist group, and happily entertained and celebrated the visit of their leader?

Its interesting one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. For me I condemn all terrorists who take innocent life as some part of furthering their cause, there are people in this world who would kill you me and our familys because of where we come from, in this modern world I find that fact the saddest of all.

jdl22

01-22-2004, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I say these thing with much prejudice I must say. I have a son in the US Army and another that says he will follow him within a year. Sleep better at night, my friends, because they are there. I as a father do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is precisely the problem. Your son is not being used properly. This is not because he is unskilled or not honorable or anything like that but that his commander in chief cares more about political greed than protecting the life and freedom of the American people. My brother in law is in the Navy, when he was in Afghanistan fighting against Al Qaeda we should actually have slept better at night knowing that he is there. However when Bush sent three of my friends to Iraq for no reason them doing there job should not have made any of us sleep any better.

It is false to say that we should sleep better at night knowing that we have soldiers in Iraq because they are doing nothing there to help us. It's not their fault, their leaders are corrupt. Unlike Bush and the good people at FOX news I have too much respect for the soldiers and how hard their job is (I for one couldn't ever do it and I'm 24) to say that we should send them into a war under false pretenses and support them by tying a ribbon to the antenna of our cars or some hollow display. I think that we should support your sons by not sending them into these situations and actually using them for what they signed up for: protecting the life and liberty of the people of the United States.

MMMMMM

01-22-2004, 07:56 PM

...obviously he is just trying to plunder Americans wherever he can find them. And just how much can anyone really terrorize a $2-$4 table anyway?

Your Mom

01-22-2004, 10:34 PM

Normally, I can agree to disagree. Not the case with this topic Lori.

Your Mom

01-22-2004, 10:44 PM

The world reaction to the US reminds me of what Jack Nicholoson says in A Few Good Men.

(paraphraze) You sleep under the blanket of freedom I provide for you and then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just say thank you and be on your way.

I truly believe without this great country I call home, the world would be at continuous war. European countries would all be figthing, the Koreans would all be fighting, of course the Middle East and the Balkans too. No, the USA is not perfect, yes we are hypocritical at times, we do make mistakes, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a world without us.

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 12:24 AM

"I am sure that there are families in Iraq going through exactly the same emotions as the families of those killed sept 11 or in bali or wherever I am sure they do not in the middle of thier grieving console themselves with the fact the Americans/british didnt mean it."

Yes, BUT Saddam had killed many times over the number of Iraqis the USA killed in this war. Now Saddam won't be able to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people anymore, putting them in mass graves-- not to mention the institutionalized tortures and rape rooms.

So, this war on Iraq SAVED Iraqi lives in aggregate--as in net tens or hundreds of thousands of lives over the next decade.

Don't you think that 10K Iraqis killed by the USA in this case is better than many times that number of Iraqis killed by Saddam? Well...apparently most Iraqis do feel that way, even if you and GuyOnTilt, and maybe Lori, don't.

So if you're going fret over those killed, don't forget about all those Iraqis who won't be killed, tortured or raped by Saddam's regime next year...or the year after, or the year after, or after...

When you total your poker winnings and losses for the year, do you only count your losing sessions??? So why then only count the losses in the case of this Iraq war? The number of Iraqis to be saved by this war is almost surely a much larger number than the number of Iraqis killed by it. Saddam's institutionalized Murder-Torture-Rape-Machine, which claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims over the years, has finally been put out of service.

J_V

01-23-2004, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
. No, the USA is not perfect, yes we are hypocritical at times, we do make mistakes, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a world without us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to believe this, I just can't.

Cyrus

01-23-2004, 03:28 AM

Absolutely. No question about it. Absolutely goddamn world champions.

Anyone who wants to dispute that, bring 'em on!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

(Your numbers, I mean.)

...Oh, and about what the post made by David, from Texas, who has a son in the US Army? I have the highest respect for anyone who serves. And I happen to hold in the highest esteem the tremendous sacrifice of the U.S. people in uniform during WWII. But this does not, repeat does NOT, alter the fact that the United States has engaged in the consistent, systematic and heavy killing of innocents throughout the 20th century and beyond, whether directly (eg Indochina) or indirectly (eg Indonesia). One doesn't wash off the other, 'tain't accountin' entries, unfortch.

Cyrus

01-23-2004, 03:31 AM

"Seems like international leaders are a no go, but a porn star or similar is fine to contaminate the tables with."

This isn't even close, baby!

What has a porn star ever done to harm you or someone you know ? What have you ever read in a paper that said a porn star killed hundreds or people, maimed women and children, stole your income, got bribed to poison your water or sexually 'arassed an unwilling fellow employee ?

Porn stars -or- political leaders? This is like a dilemma?? Is this supposed to be some kinda joke?

Taxman

01-23-2004, 03:53 AM

blah blah blah. We invaded Iraq solely to rescue it's people from an evil dictator. All of the opressed citizens of other brutal regimes like North Korea or East Timor or various areas of Africa, or many other locations, don't really have it as bad as everyone thinks. Ya da ya da ya da. Bush is a god! Anyone who disagrees with him is anti-american.

Bubmack

01-23-2004, 04:32 AM

Would you feel the same if someone had the handle - Hitler?

daveymck

01-23-2004, 05:23 AM

The reason given for going to war was to save the US from a WMD attack from Iraq to make the world a safer place, Saddam is captured the war is over yet the world is no more or less safer than it was pre war oh and it looks like he didnt have any wmd's neither.

No one is going to deny Saddam brutalized his people and was a leader who it is right to be removed and that is a good thing for the Iraqi people long term. There are reports coming out of Iraq at the moment that the people per se are currently worse off with limited water supply and unemployment at all time high. On top of that the US is trying to put in place a puppet goverment that seems to be pissing a lot of Iraquis off.

If our governments had come out and said evil regimes the world over we are coming to get you and then took on Zimbabwe, many other african nations, North Korea, Saudi, Iran, China etc etc etc but they didnt, it was a chance to settle old scores, get control of rich oil reserves and was a soft option.

The attacks on the US, in Bali in Saudi and against the african embassies were perpetrated by groups of individuals and groups that are anti US they were not perpetrated by countries, yet the war on terror has been so far has involved invading two countries, it seems illogical to me.

I watched a program the other night its one of these we have added colour to old black and white footage, this one was on the bombing of Hiroshama and Nagasaki in second world war. It was accompanied by letters and diary entries of Japanese around at the time. One man had been fighting in the war and returned to find his home gone where his kitchen was there was a black bit of disgusting goo with a hip bone in the middle of it, the man got a bucket and scooped up the remains of his wife and took her for burial.

An atrocity is an atrocity you can dress it up how you like, do benefit analysis on it all you want, dress it up in political speak 'collateral damage' sounds ok what it means is civilian deaths, woman, children and babes in arms.

To take your argument to logical conclusion then we could say that the 3,000 lives lost in the attacks on the two towers are acceptable as they have led to the liberation of Afganistan and Iraq, whats 3,000 lives to the millions now in that position of not being brutalized etc etc, I suspect if I was to seriously suggest that then there would be an outcry an outpouring of vitriol against me.

bigpooch

01-23-2004, 07:46 AM

Sure, your friend is simply following orders as in any
military whereas his typical target is usually not! On the
other hand, I do think that 9/11 was, in essence, a military
operation (or a paramilitary one), so it's just part of war.
Also, military objectives were very successfully achieved
on 9/11 from the viewpoint of Al Quaeda or Osama bin Laden
(or even those Arabs who had the money to finance this and
similar operations). All those deaths are attributable to
war and it's just another "killing of the innocents".

On the other hand, the higher moral ground would ask the
question about the term "murder" in the Decalogue. From my
understanding of the Hebrew, it means a premeditated and
deliberate act. It is clear this would not include killing
as in military operations, since from the biblical record,
Canaan was occupied by military force.

Carefully look at the situation your friend was in: it was a
hostage taking incident and it is obvious that there is a
threat of murder or endangerment of innocent human life not
due to a military command (this guy holed up wasn't ordered
to do this!). A careful reading of an incident (perhaps
apocryphal, but in any case, quite illuminating) of a king
and two prostitutes demonstrates that even the threat of
killing innocent life is sometimes justifiable to save the
very same life!

An excellent book to reflect on is Kierkegaard's "Fear and
Trembling". Killing due to war is unfortunate but not as
serious as premeditated murder (or even the threat of it)
if only from an ethical analysis. On the other hand, the
bottom line is this: people did die and there are not many
qualified that would know that one death was more tragic
than another (although there is very convincing evidence
of some truly despicable lives in the past) and if or in
which cases, one life is more valuable than another.

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 11:37 AM

I pointed out that 10K Iraqi lives lost in this war to remove Saddam is a very modest price to save many more Iraqi lives, since Saddam had institutionalized a murder-terror-rape political machine that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and that could be counted on to kill many more).

To which you replied that that wasn't the purpose of the war (which is irrelevant to my point, and to the Iraqis too, by the way), and you added the following::

"To take your argument to logical conclusion then we could say that the 3,000 lives lost in the attacks on the two towers are acceptable as they have led to the liberation of Afganistan and Iraq, whats 3,000 lives to the millions now in that position of not being brutalized etc etc, I suspect if I was to seriously suggest that then there would be an outcry an outpouring of vitriol against me."

This statement shows that you have little idea of what an appropriate comparison is (conceptually speaking); nor do you appear to be able to "take an argument to logical conclusion."

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 11:41 AM

And you and anyone else who is incapable of discriminating between:

A) What our purposes for the war might have been, and

B) Whether or not the war will have saved Iraqi lives in aggregate,

...needs to learn how to think analytically (at least in a rudimentary sense).

The above two issues are not the same question.

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 11:51 AM

"When it comes to killing innocents you just can't beat the USA."

The USSR and China killed far more innocents than the USA ever approached killing. Upwards of 80 million of their own citizens, even.

However, your post title would have been correct if you had written: "When it comes to saving lives, you just can't beat the USA." No country on Earth has saved as many lives worldwide as has the USA.

Come on, Cyrus: use your brain not your emotions before you make ridiculous statements like this. You are too smart to be making despicable and false statements.

daveymck

01-23-2004, 12:25 PM

Of course that is the logical conclusion to the argument you put forward;

The chain of events that led to the liberation of Iraq;

1 Terrorists attack 2 towers killing 3,000 people

2 American goverment knows the public want them to be seen to do somthing invades Afganiustan and gets rid of the Taliban.

3 America deciedes to use the current climate to finish of the job with the Bush's old foe Saddam.

4 America Invades Iraq liberates the people, kills x number of civilians, but the rest of the people are free for now. We cant say what will happen in the future as the country could very easily destablise into civil war (In fact there is death there each day). And the facts are that many Iraqis are worse off currently under US rule as they have no running water and millions now unemployed.

Without 1 then 4 would not have happened so to take the argument that the lives of x Iraqis to liberate the country were worth it then surely you also have to say as the deaths at the tower led to it so you have to add them to the x figure and say it was worth it 13,000 lives that led to the liberation of Iraq and the saving of all those who would be persecuted in the future or does it not work that way cos they are just Iraqis and the 3,000 american/british and other nations lives were worth more?

Its interesting that the terrorists killed 3,000 to further their goals and are branded evil, yet the coalition kills 8,000 people (plus combatants on all sides) to acheive their goals then they are liberators. The deaths in both situations seem to me a waste of life.

America is using the oh well we liberated them as the argument to deflect away from the fact that Iraq appears to have no WMD's, certainly none in the field in 45 minutes as was reported and so they were wrong they had no mandate to attack Iraq except that militeraly and financially it makes sense.

Its nice that rather than debate the issue and explain what you mean, you end up throwing in the little digs and attempted insults to my level of intelligence, well done.

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 12:47 PM

You are making the mistake of considering all links of a chain as of equal importance in the final outcome. Also making the mistake of presuming that without 9/11 the Iraq war would definitely not have happened (good chance that presumption is right, though).

Also in Iraq we sought to minimize civilian casualties, while on 9/11 the terrorists sought to maximize coivilian casualties.

Dethroning Saddam is much more closely linked to the saving of lives of Iraqis he otherwise would have killed, than is 9/11 linked to it.

Dethroning Hitler cost a forune in lives and money, but the alternative was regarded as even worse. Dethroning Saddam cost a relatively small price in lives (especially compared to his given predilection for slaughtering Iraqis), and a considerable amount of money. The link is clear between dethroning a dictator and his inability to butcher thousands more. The causal link between 9/11 and the Iraq war may exist somewhat. At any rate you can't just list things without which the Iraq war might not have occurred and say they are similarly justified or of equal value in the scenario.

"Its interesting that the terrorists killed 3,000 to further their goals and are branded evil, yet the coalition kills 8,000 people (plus combatants on all sides) to acheive their goals then they are liberators. The deaths in both situations seem to me a waste of life."

Can't you see where these things are not even closely parallel? Also, can't you see where getting rid of Saddam will save Iraqi lives in aggregate? And can't you see that the coalition sought to spare innocent civilians, but the terrorists sought to kill innocent civilians?

Sorry for the tone in the previous post. I have long been arguing on this board with moral relativists and with people who don't seem capable of making important differentiations (both conceptually and morally). Perhaps my patience boiled over, so apologies, since you are relatively new here.

ScottTheFish

01-23-2004, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Its interesting that the terrorists killed 3,000 to further their goals and are branded evil, yet the coalition kills 8,000 people (plus combatants on all sides) to acheive their goals then they are liberators. The deaths in both situations seem to me a waste of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing to me that otherwise rational people can't draw a distinction between flying a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians and a nation using its military to protect its citizens.

It can be argued that attacking Iraq did nothing to protect us (I would strongly disagree, but it is at least debatable) But all this "killing is killing" stuff is bizarre.

A nation has a right to defend itself. And hitting the Pentagon, the seat of our military, with a flying bomb is as clear an act of war as you will ever see. Not to mention the towers.

So why is anyone shocked that a military response ensued? Should we just say "Well, it's a shame those mean old terrorists did that, but killing is just wrong, so not much we can do to stop any future attacks. Too bad."

naphand

01-23-2004, 02:29 PM

Great post! Some people take themselves and their world-view sooooooo seriously.

Personally I have registered the name Sad_Hussein through a Party clone, but at the moment I am stuck in a bit of a hole. When things get a bit better I might start to use it (and the $500,000 in used notes I have in my suitcase).

MMMMMM

01-23-2004, 03:04 PM

" On the other hand, the
bottom line is this: people did die and there are not many
qualified that would know that one death was more tragic
than another (although there is very convincing evidence
of some truly despicable lives in the past) and if or in
which cases, one life is more valuable than another."

Example 1: A Jeffrey Dahmer-type lunatic attacks a young man with the intent of killing him in order to eat him for breakfast. The young man seizes a lamp and cracks Dahmer over the head with it. A life-or-death struggle ensues. One person dies. Is one life worth just as much as the other in this instance?

Example 2: A terrorist or a madman takes out a gun and starts shooting up a McDonald's restaurant. One little girl has already been fatally wounded and the terrorist is shouting how he is going to kill all the m&%$^%$&%$^#'s in there, when HDPM, who happens to be sitting there having an Egg McMuffin, calmly pulls out his pistol and plugs the lunatic between the eyes while the madman is still foaming at the mouth. Is one life worth just as much as another in this instance?

Example 3: A suicide bomber's bomb goes off prematurely, killing the bomber and his terrorist brothers-in-arms. Eight terrorists got blown to bits due to a mechanical malfunction. It also just so happens that the target destination, which was never reached, had two families for a total of seven persons. If the suicide bomber had reached the target destination, eight persons would have died there (the seven civilians plus the bomber). Are both sets of eight lives of equal value?

Any adult who can discuss the above scenarios, but not be able to discern the correct answers to the above questions, has a brain, but doesn't deserve to have one.

Lori

01-23-2004, 11:59 PM

Would you feel the same if someone had the handle - Hitler?

Bubs, the reason I ducked most of this post is because of an argument i once had defending someone called hitler at a UB table.

The argument lasted 2 hours, and resulted in people getting very upset.

Edit: Last paragraph removed as was unneccesarily provocative and that is not my intention.

Lori

ChipWrecked

01-24-2004, 12:24 AM

Who knows, it might have been his name. Some of Hitler's kin live on Long Island, including his nephew Alois Hitler.

Cyrus

01-24-2004, 02:55 AM

A friend recently proclaimed (in a public statement, no less!) that he was changing his position completely on some issue or other. He wanted to be so emphatic about this that 180 degrees were not enough for 'im and he blurted out that he was making (yes) a 360 turnaround on the issue. (I still have the clippings, as blackmail material.)

"The USSR and China killed far more innocents than the USA ever approached killing. Upwards of 80 million of their own people."

I stand corrected. (Although your figure is highly inflated.)

The proper statement, then, must be transformed into this:

The United States is world champion in killing innocents abroad. The USSR and the People's Republic of China are tied for world champion in killing innocents domestically.

I hope there are no plans for a World Series.

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 03:18 AM

The generally accepted figure is 80-100 million, I believe (Chinese and Soviet citizens killed by their own governments--through purges, orchestrated famines, gulag incarcetations, etc).

The USA might be champion at killing foreigners, but the USA is also champion at saving foreigners lives'. Also, a lot of those foreigners killed were fighting for the really bad guys.

Yes, hopefully there are no plans for a World Series.

Bubmack

01-24-2004, 06:48 AM

Good Enough. It does not really bother me personally..but just thought I would mention it.

Cyrus

01-24-2004, 08:55 AM

"The generally accepted figure is 80-100 million, I believe (Chinese and Soviet citizens killed by their own governments--through purges, orchestrated famines, gulag incarcetations, etc)."

Wheew. There's a certain frisson in talking about megadeath, don't you agree? Those "strategists" of nuclear war had multiple orgassms during the slide shows, or so they tell me.

No, the "80-100 million" figure is inflated (originally you had claimed it was "80 million").

We are talking innocent people here, as you remember, so for the USSR no soldiers or civilians can be counted that were killed in the Civil War or the Great Patriotic War (that's WWII in Sovietski). War takes two sides, at least, and the USSR cannot take the blame for the civilians killed by either side in the world war. We must bring into the sum (a) the Stalin purges of the 30s, the 40s and the 50s, (b) the famine of the 20s, (c) the deaths in the gulags, and (the post-Stalin executions or deaths caused by the regime. This would be a figure close to 20 million, in my book.

For China we have to exclude again the Civil War (Liberation War, per Mao) of the 40s and to include (a) the devastating famine of The Great Leap Forward, (b) the various executions and deaths of opponents of the regime from 1949 until today, and (c) the deaths during the Cultural Revolution. I have a= around 20 million, while the rest total something like 10 million.

Grand total something closer to 50 million than to your 80 million. (Wheee-w!)

"The USA might be champion at killing foreigners"

We agree, then.

"But the USA is also champion at saving foreigners lives."

Sorry, I already explained that this is not Accounting, where Debit for Deaths of Innocents Killed is balanced against Credit for Innocents Saved. It doesn't work like that in human lives, sorry. Only in finance.

"Also, a lot of those foreigners killed were fighting for the really bad guys."

Gonged, for this one too. We were talking about innocents, remember? Someone who works for the "bad guys" is not innocent. (I could argue with you about those "bad guys", who, for conservatives are folks like the Sandinistas, but maybe some other time.)

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 09:37 AM

"No, the "80-100 million" figure is inflated (originally you had claimed it was "80 million").

Earlier in this thread I claimed it was "upwards of 80 million". As far as I know, "80-100" million qualifies as "upwards of 80 million"--unless it just happens to be 80 million on the button, lol.

"Grand total something closer to 50 million than to your 80 million. (Wheee-w!)

Around 30 million died from Mao's man-made famine of 1959-1963. Read the rest and see if you disagree (warning: this is a well-researched university site).
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm

Regarding the fact that the USA has not only killed foreigners, but has saved foreigners, you wrote:

"Sorry, I already explained that this is not Accounting, where Debit for Deaths of Innocents Killed is balanced against Credit for Innocents Saved. It doesn't work like that in human lives, sorry. Only in finance."

Bullsh*t it only works in finance. What, lives saved don't matter or something? By your manner of accounting, shooting dead a hostage-taker who has a knife to a little girl's throat would apparently create a net loss tally of: 1 dead, zero saved. Ridiculous. The life saved does indeed offset the life taken (and even more so in this specific instance).

Cyrus

01-24-2004, 10:06 AM

Cyrus > "This is not Accounting, where Debit for Deaths of Innocents Killed is balanced against Credit for Innocents Saved. It doesn't work like that in human lives, sorry. Only in finance."

MMMMM > "Bullsh*t it only works in finance. What, lives saved don't matter or something? By your manner of accounting, shooting dead a hostage-taker who has a knife to a little girl's throat would apparently create a net loss tally of: 1 dead, zero saved. Ridiculous. The life saved does indeed offset the life taken (and even more so in this specific instance)."

I have been very patient with your seeming inability to understand simple concepts. Even in cases (such as this) whereby the argument is not about politics or any such but about terminology, you are being hopelessly naive and stubborn. Watch:

We are talking about innocents! (Start paying attention, man.) Innocents! The man holding the girl hostage is NOT innocent. Therefore, the correct "tally" is 1 bad guy killed,1 innocent life saved, so hurrah for the killer! Seriously.

Secondly, if we could show that the Nazis had somehow (no matter how, just try to follow the thought exceriment) saved the lives of one million innocent people (eg people that Stalin would be ready to execute), this would NOT, repeat NOT, wait! let me rephrase that -- THIS WOULD ABSOLUTELY <font color="red"> N O T </font> make the "net number" of innocents killed by the Nazis fewer by a million!

If the Nazis have killed ten million innocents and someone showed that the Nazis had also saved (forget how for a moment) another ten million innocents, this would NOT BE, repeat NOT BE a wash!

Fast forward to the Americans-killing-innocents-abroad argument : If the Americans have killed X thousand of innocents abroad and saved Y thousand of innocents abroad, one CANNOT say that, well, aw shucks, them Yanks are only guilty for X-Y dead. Things work that way only in finance.

...Get it, my man, or are you busy doing something else?

bigpooch

01-24-2004, 10:16 AM

Here is a riddle and see if you can answer it.

A very famous judge, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, whose life was
tragic, but whose death was necessary, prophesied the type
of death of one of his followers, yet another follower
continued to live to a ripe age. By the way, this judge is
one of the few qualified to give the correct answer in every
case! Whose life was more valuable?

Here is an important and famous example:

Two brothers are in a field and one slays the other for no
justifiable reason. After hearing of the Only True Judge's
punishment, the surviving brother wants to be killed by
someone else, but the Only True Judge ensures that he would
not be killed. How valuable was the life of the surviving
brother?

By the way, is it correct for me to think that my own life
is more valuable than everyone else's? Apparently, the
Rabbi's life was very valuable, yet he died tragically.
IMHO, his life was the most valuable, more valuable than any
other life.

Roy Munson

01-24-2004, 10:43 AM

I don't know who Peter North is or his alter ego Matt Ramsey. But whenever either one is mentioned there are always these strange comparisons to the geyser "Old Faithful". I don't understand the connection.

Roy Munson

01-24-2004, 10:48 AM

With or without the US. The world will often be at war. With 6 billion people the odds are pretty good that conflict will emerge regularly.

bigpooch

01-24-2004, 10:54 AM

One of my degenerate acquaintances did say this (and he is
an agnostic and Quebecois) or something very close to it:
"America and Canada should be carpet-bombed, just so that
they have a taste of what the real world was like." He was
alluding to WW II and especially to so many German towns
being bombed. Fortunately, we North Americans still do live
in ivory towers despite losing a few on the way!

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 11:24 AM

I get it, Cyrus...but I disagree in part.

In Iraq, if the USA killed 10K innocent Iraqis this last war, yet saved 200K innocent Iraqis from being killed by Saddam, the USA has a net credit of 190K innocent Iraqi lives--in this particular scenario--and the Iraqis are 190K lives (plus fertility rate) richer over the next, say, 15 years (not to mention being spared the terror and tortures).

In other scenarios, I'm not saying that number of lives saved somehow reduces the number of lives taken--obviously it doesn't--but it does affect the final weighing of things.

When I mentioned that the USA has saved more innocent lives than any other country, I did not mean that should reduce the number of innocent lives taken by the USA--but it is a counterweight on the scales as for determining overall goodness, and for determining whether the net influence of the USA in the world is positive or negative, and whether the USA has killed more or saved more, and by what number. In other words I previously mentioned it because you left out that very important side of things, and because morally speaking, there is a somewhat offsetting weight if we are to be judging the USA. That you left out that important offsetting weight is, IMO, probably telling as to your mindset.

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 11:42 AM

Choosing malevolence for its own sake, some persons (and perhaps some spirits) thereby degrade their own lives' value.

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 11:49 AM

"One of my degenerate acquaintances did say this (and he is
an agnostic and Quebecois) or something very close to it:
"America and Canada should be carpet-bombed, just so that
they have a taste of what the real world was like."

Your friend (if he is serious), sees no problem with punishing innocents, by time unrelated to the event he despised, in order to make a point? If so, your friend is either morally bankrupt or woefully unable to calculate moral logics.

Maybe your description of him as "degenerate" is more apropos than you realized.

bigpooch

01-24-2004, 12:14 PM

The taking of "innocent life" (a misnomer really, as only
the immature are really possibly "innocent") is clearly
wrong and the very first example of it in Holy Writ should
enlighten those seeking the higher moral ground. This
acquaintance of mine is truly sick, but sadly, there are
people that are just as sick: those that indiscriminately
choose to be suicide bombers thereby negating the value of
their own lives and putting a premature end to other lives.

The US government and British government aren't perfect, but
I respect their decision to act without the support of other
NATO allies in Iraq. It doesn't even seem to matter to me
if they ever find WMDs! The leaders are still ultimately
accountable for their decisions, and if they view that those
choices were justified (not justifiable!), then they truly
get respect for making a tough choice, considering the
potential repercussions and how the rest of the world views
or reacts to them.

Cyrus

01-24-2004, 12:16 PM

"...the USA has saved more innocent lives than any other country ... That you left out that important offsetting weight is, IMO, probably telling as to your mindset."

That you respond to my posts without so much as reading them is most telling as to your mindset.

I have already stated (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=491564&page=10&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) that "I happen to hold in the highest esteem the tremendous sacrifice of the U.S. people in uniform during WWII". What more can one say? Whether, as you put it, the U.S. has saved more innocent lives than any other country, I don't know that and I don't think it can be calculated. But we can agree that it is a LOT of people.

..Your attempt to bring the U.S. "good deeds" into the "tally" yet again, is also indicative of your mindset. Understand this much about Accounting-In-Morality : It doesn't exist!

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 01:53 PM

Just because you say Accounting-In-Morality doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't.

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 01:56 PM

Good post.

Wake up CALL

01-24-2004, 02:06 PM

Cyrus if we are to believe everything you have ever stated there would then exist the most elephantine conundrum ever devised by man.

Taxman

01-24-2004, 02:40 PM

Nobody denies the fact that Suddam Hussein needed to be removed. I'm glad we got the bastard. That doesn't change the fact however, that we clearly were not motivated by sympathies for the Iraqi people. We perviously gave Hussein chemical agents, for god's sake. If the US was such a humanitarian nation we would be everywhere freeing the opressed people of the world, but we're not. We're in the areas that have the greatest economic and political value to us. Coincidence? I think not.

MMMMMM

01-24-2004, 02:50 PM

I agree that the US government was not primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, but that does not lessen by one iota the humanitarian case itself. Nor does the fact that we can't intervene everywhere intervention may be needed, lessen the humanitarian case even slightly.

What happened was that our own strategic and security goals happened to overlap with where humanitarian intervention was sorely needed. That's good not bad, because we can't afford to intervene everywhere it is needed. However some of the cost was, in effect, defrayed long-term (hopefully) because we are taking steps which should help us in other ways. Yes that's a cold way of looking at thing, but the fact is we simply don't have unlimited resources.

By the way, apologies for the insulting tone I may have taken towards you in a post or two. I guess after rehashing the same points for over a year on this forum I'm getting a bit fed up (which might actually be a good thing;-))

Cyrus

01-25-2004, 03:33 AM

You are being a stubborn mule, MMMMM, and you know it.

If a serial killer had saved a number of people's lives when working as a nurse (part of a nurse's job is saving people's lives) and, while working as a nurse, had also killed a number of patients, is the jury at his trial supposed to adjust downwards the number of people for whose death the killer will be punished? Will the jury engage in any sort of accounting?

If a Mother Teresa-type of nun, someone who has provenly saved one thousand lives through her good work, is shown to have killed one, just one person in cold blood, is she supposed to go free?

Give it some thought, because you don't seem to do. Do you think these are not real-life examples?

(See how foolish your argument becomes, MMMMM, when followed to its logical conclusion? It is not me you are supposed to be fighting against, as your mindset guides you to do, but my argument.)

MMMMMM

01-25-2004, 09:54 AM

"You are being a stubborn mule, MMMMM, and you know it."

No I'm not, and my name is MMMMMM not MMMMM (lol;-))

"If a serial killer had saved a number of people's lives when working as a nurse (part of a nurse's job is saving people's lives) and, while working as a nurse, had also killed a number of patients, is the jury at his trial supposed to adjust downwards the number of people for whose death the killer will be punished? Will the jury engage in any sort of accounting?"

Different sort of example, plus the nurse's job is to help saving lives.

I didn't claim Accounting-In-Morality exists in all cases. You however erroneously claimed that it exists in no cases...by sayng it doesn't exist.

"If a Mother Teresa-type of nun, someone who has provenly saved one thousand lives through her good work, is shown to have killed one, just one person in cold blood, is she supposed to go free?"

Different sort of example again. If she killed that one person in order to save more lives, and it was necessary to do so in order to save more lives, it's a whole different scenario. Alternatively if she killed that one person unavoidably it is a different scenario.

"Give it some thought, because you don't seem to do. Do you think these are not real-life examples?

(See how foolish your argument becomes, MMMMM, when followed to its logical conclusion? It is not me you are supposed to be fighting against, as your mindset guides you to do, but my argument.)"

Cyrus, some examples do not fit the bill but others do.

If the USA killed many innocent persons in WWII, but that was unavoidable, it's a whole different scenario. Consider various forms of examples and I am sure you will be able to come up with some in which Accounting-In-Morality does indeed exist.

Also, it is one thing weighing guilt and sometimes another thing when weighing net impact on the world. I'm not saying you are wrong if you say that sometimes Accounting-In-Morality does not exist, or in some cases. But if we are weighing the net impact of the USA on the world then clearly we have to consider both positives and negatives. While such accounting may be vague, it still has its place.

Also, the larger a country is, the more likely it is that, through sheer size (financial, territorial and otherwise), it will harm others in some way in it's many transactions and involvements. But it is also more likely that it will help others too. In other words, size and interaction implies that some get hurt: just as an elephant walking through the forest steps more wee creatures, thereby killing them, than does a mouse.

If you only add up those hurt by the USA in some way it is undoubtedly a large number. But in the larger picture, so too is the number helped by the USA. I was merely objecting to your focusing on only one side of the picture, since that creates a biased and distorted view (a favorite trick of Chomsky's, by the way).

ACPlayer

01-25-2004, 01:14 PM

Still obsessed by results not process. Freedom and democracy and human rights and justice are about processes not results. Tyranny, despotism, stalinism, terrorism are about getting the result you want forget the process.

MMMMMM

01-25-2004, 01:22 PM

"Still obsessed by results not process. Freedom and democracy and human rights and justice are about processes not results. Tyranny, despotism, stalinism, terrorism are about getting the result you want forget the process."

Very good, ACPlayer--so perhaps you would agree that getting rid of some of the Tyranny, despotism, Stalinism and terrorism in the world is a good thing. Perhaps too you realize that there is generally a price to be paid for freedom--and that Tyranny, despotism, Stalinism and terrorism do not generally release their grips of their own accord.

daveymck

01-26-2004, 10:07 AM

Thanks for the apology in your previous response to me.

I think the point I am trying to make re lives lost is that to your point of view its easy to say yeah we saved 190k lives (I think thats an over estimate but havent seen what the American press is saying) by killing x number of Iraqis. At what point do we say its wrong? 20,000 , 100,000, 199,999?

What if one of those 10,000 killed would have become a great leader who deposed Saddam peacefully and united Iraq? Or was to become a great scientist who was to find a cure for cancer, by killing him how many more would die.

Moral judgement is easy to do when you are at your desk/house and numbers seem small but these are real people, these are lives not just numbers. I dont see the argument of us not meaning it, whereas the terrorists did gives us any real moral higher ground, particulary in the case of Iraq which was no threat to the west at all and had no links to the Sept 11 attacks.

Within these 10,000 deaths how many new people in these counties will now be anti US/west, how many new terrorists have we already created.

Yes we needed to act against the attacks but the only way to do it is by understanding why these people want to attack us and making policy that allows us to all live in the world.

The Western way will be conflicting more and more with the Arab/Islamic cultures, the world gets smaller, corporations get bigger and spread into these countries in effect starting to westernize them which leads to more conflict that along with past US forign policies is what is leading to the terrorism and until us westerners understand that a lot of these people do not want the american way I beleive the war on terror will be ongoing for many many years.

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 10:48 AM

Yes, armchair analysis is easier--but given Saddam's brutal history I don't think it's even close when comparing which would have been worse: for 10K Iraqis to die now, or for a whole country to suffer under Saddam's (and sons') repression and terror for another two or three decades--and almost surely losing more civilians that way due to executions, tortures, rapes to boot. It's a pretty clear-cut comparison IMO with a pretty clear moral preference.

"Yes we needed to act against the attacks but the only way to do it is by understanding why these people want to attack us and making policy that allows us to all live in the world."

They want to attack us because they are wedded to a frighteningly divisive, absolutist ideology--and because they are highly frustrated that their societies have fallen behind. What they do not realize is that their frustration stems from their backwards political/cultural/religious systems which impede rather than encourages liberty and growth.

The economies of the oil-rich nations are virtually one-dimensional and as such they suffer. However countries like Japan and Korea rose from the ashes and without billions in oil to help them along (although the US helped, it was not to the tune of adjusted dollars in recent decades of incredible oil wealth). In other words the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries could have well-rounded economies and much greater riches, but don't, because their systems repress freedom and growth. It is not coincidental that the Far East puts the Middle Eastern nations to shame economically, when based on natural resources, things should be the other way around.

Until they secularize their societies and/or reform Islam, they are going to fall further and further behind and grow more and more frustrated and miserable.

Delusive ideas can be terrible things when they catch on and take deep hold in the mind. Many in the Middle East actually live in nearly cult-like conditions. Imagine being forced to pray 5 times a day (and in Saudi Arabia, religious police roam the streets to enforce this literally). Imagine it being a capital offense to apostasize from the religion you were born into (leave your religion for another religion or for none). Welcome to Islam.

daveymck

01-26-2004, 11:01 AM

My only response to this was OMG.

I said in a previous posting I think in this thread that I was scared of the meathead type kill em all (get my metallica quote in) attitude scared me, I feel this is even beyond that.

To me it is Nationalism gone way way mad and I hope for the sake of the world that this attitude is not prevelant throughout the US cos if it is then WWIII is not far away.

There is a song by a UK band from quite a few years ago about the UK "We're the 51st state of America", it seems if you had your way the whole of the middle east would become the 52nd (although I thought there were 52 states already).

Do you really think that the whole world should be in the US image?

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 12:36 PM

It has nothing to do with nationalism in the least.

The whole world "should" be in the image, not of the US precisely, but of essentially representative governments, democratic-style governments--non-totalitarian governments, non-fascist governments, non-theocratic governments.

People who have had the misfortune to be born into totalitarian societies, whether Stalinist, Fascist, Dictatorship, or Theocratic, simply have no choice in the matter. Their basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are severely abridged, and they are powerless for the most part to effect change.

Al-Qaeda made a threefold demand not more than a year or so ago: that America and the UK (or the West) will face further attacks unless they: 1) leave Saudi Arabia 2) stop aiding Israel 3) convert to Islam

So you see, it is not the US being the aggressor here. We are fighting an insane and ruthlessly expansionist ideology--that of radical Islam wedded to terrorism. And "radical" Islam is actually just "literal Islam" put into practice.

You see, Islamic doctrine dictates the eventual forcible conversion and subjugation the entire world to Islam. This is a very central theme of the Koran. Secular societies, and the West, hold more of a "live and let live" philosophy. Under Islamic law, however, openly preaching other religions is verboten. It is an actual crime to attempt to speak with a Muslim about converting to another religion, even in private. It is a capital crime for a Muslim to leave Islam. The Wset has a "You do your thing, we do ours" approach philosophically and religiously speaking, but Islam has a "Our religious ways should be the law of the land" philosophy. These approaches are fundamentally opposed and fairly irreconcilable at their hearts.

Here is a link you may find interesting and informative, one by a current Muslim who sees the need for great reform in Islam. Irshad Manji's new book, The Trouble With Islam, raises many important issues that should be addressed by the Muslim community. She has received death threats (as have many other authors who write questioning or criticizing Islam. Most of them write under assumed names for this very reason, but Manji is more bold and beautiful in her willingness to take widespread backwards ideology head-on and try to open it up for debate). It is sad, and indicative of its essential nature, that Islam typically attempts to squelch any critical analysis by force.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-26-2004, 12:59 PM

Do you really think that the whole world should be in the US image?

If we concur that the US *image* is one of individual freedom, economic opportunity and democratic government functions with a constitution that protects freedom of speech, religion, association and the right to be different. If we mean the American *image* that has matured to the point where women are not property and where an authoritarian government doeas not manipulate the econonmy, then my answer is a resounding YES. The whole world *should* be remade into that image.

Now I'm not sure we in the US have gotten there yet (those pesky Democrats and Republicans keep getting in the way), but we're sure closer than anywhere else.

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 01:19 PM

Can't wait for Chris Alger or andyfox to denounce this plain statement of truth as "hubris".

ACPlayer

01-26-2004, 01:47 PM

Having a group, any group, decide what the whole world "should" be is subject to the views and ideals of that particular group. Obviously, in our lives, you and I assume that freedom and democracy are the way to go. But that is what we do, based on our own prejudices -- assume it. We look around us and say that our way has produced MacDonalds, Home Shopping Network, Brittany Spears, Eminem and Snoop dog and say that is the product of our freedom loving societies, approve of it and hence conclude that for us this is the perfect way. This is circular logic of course.

An Islamist would say that the whole world "should" be in the image of a Sharia run organization. They see a Burka clad woman and approve.

A Christian fundamentalist believes that the country "should" be run by the rules and values of the Bible. They see the 10 commandments in city hall and approve.

The Hindu fundamentalist believes that the country "should" be run according to the Hindu precepts. He sees the desruction of a Mosque and approves.

A Jew believes that they have the right to land based on the writings of some body thousands of years ago. He sees the destruction of the house of relatives of a criminal and approves.

Now, I am not prepared to conclude that one is better than the other, I AM prepared to conclude that according to MY generally atheistic, individual liberty oriented philosophies a democratic society works well. Looking around me I am also prepared to conclude that we have a lot of work to do right here in the US to attain that ideal (and that we have actually been backsliding in the past couple of years).

Lastly, no one is born into this world with the right to live in a free society. We are born into this world to bear and fight the battles that we confronted to in our lives. For some like Mandela, Gandhi, Aung Sun and others is to fight for and change their societies for the better.

So, for Bush etc to neglect the building of our society while imposing their personal values on others is hubris (by definition).

Gamblor

01-26-2004, 02:02 PM

I have already stated that "I happen to hold in the highest esteem the tremendous sacrifice of the U.S. people in uniform during WWII". What more can one say?

So the difference between the highest morality of deposing one tyrannical murderous ruler, and the sheer audacity and immorality of deposing another tyrannical murderous ruler, is 50 years?

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 02:15 PM

You understand how to begin thinking about things, but not how to draw conclusions.

Relativity only goes so far; relativity is not absolute. Usually the relative is not relative when looked at in the larger framework; it only appears relative when looking at a few small pieces of the whole.

In the real world, some things ARE better than others. You are too afraid to acknowledge this when it comes to political systems or religious beliefs.

You may not believe in "God-given" rights as described by those who founded our country, but I think you will agree that those rights they said were "God-given" are the most essential and important human rights--even if you don't believe in God. One does not have to believe in God to know what God would approve, or what is simple decency with respect to one's fellow humans. And the rights we defined as most basic and derived from God are the most important, whether derived from God or merely derived from a desire to see all humans granted the most basic respect in the areas it truly matters most.

That's not hubris, that's merely respect for others at the most basic level. Other systems such as Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Theocracy do not have those most basic rights built into them. Our system does at core, even if we often deviate from it, ignore it or simply forget it.

You are also forgetting that secularism is essential to a live and let live philosophy. The West says it is OK for Islam to exist and do their own thing. Islam says it is only really OK if only Islam exists, but it makes temporary provisions for coexistence because it sometimes must. So you are getting the basic approach to moral and philosophical questions down pat, but you are not being discriminating enough in your perception or reasoning.

The basic difference is this: Christianity and Judaism say it is OK for other religions to exist, though they may feel they have the moral high ground. They do not outlaw other religions. Islam however takes the view that it is NOT OK for other religions to exist, and Islam does outlaw other religions (to various extents depending on the country in which it is practiced). So as you can see, this is an asymetrical situation.

Tolerance and Intolerance are not fully interchangeable. You seem to think that they are, and that Intolerance has just as much right to exist and be practiced as does Tolerance. But this is a nihilistic, and morally and spiritually inferior, view.

ScottTheFish

01-26-2004, 02:19 PM

You're right, people believe a lot of different things. However IMO there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong (in some cases, not all), regardless of geography or religion or tradition.

It's WRONG for a government to oppress its people, WRONG for women to be treated as a piece of property, WRONG for a dictator to run a country with an iron fist and torture/execute anyone who oppese him, etc.

I don't care if someone "approves" of women being treated as a piece of property, or blowing up a mosque. That doesn't make it right.

I'm not saying the US or anyone should impose their morality or whole society on anyone...but this concept of a sliding morality scale based on religion or geography is BS.

Everything's not gray. SOME things are black and white.

Cyrus

01-27-2004, 12:54 PM

Cyrus > "I have already stated that "I happen to hold in the highest esteem the tremendous sacrifice of the U.S. people in uniform during WWII". What more can one say?"

Gamblor > "So the difference between the highest morality of deposing one tyrannical murderous ruler, and the sheer audacity and immorality of deposing another tyrannical murderous ruler, is 50 years?"

The difference between fighting against Hitler and fighting against Saddam Hussein is inherently colossal and, thus, blindingly obvious.

You think I'm gonna engage in yet another crusade to educate you on yet another elementary concept? I have already failed as to what constitutes fascist ideology and your unknowing adoption of one. So "I will let others elaborate".

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 02:05 PM

A better comparison is Saddam Hussein to Joseph Stalin, where the primary difference is one of scale. Hitler had an agenda which neither Stalin nor Hussein subscribed to. Interestingly, Stalin was Hussein's idol, and Saddam studied and emulated Stalin's tactics very well. In many ways it could be accurate to view Hussein as a diminutive Stalin.

ACPlayer

01-27-2004, 04:06 PM

In the real world, some things ARE better than others. You are too afraid to acknowledge this when it comes to political systems or religious beliefs.

I acknowledged and concluded that in MY view a democratic system works best as a social system. However, I have met with many hindu/muslims who believe are extremely happy with their lives and rules imposed on them.

I dont want my Rabbi telling me I cant eat a crab bisque or a ham and cheese sandwich because that interferes with my freedom of choice. But can I tell a Jew he is wrong to listen to the Rabbi.

I want to eat meat on Friday (turning the clock back 50 some years here to make the point) but my Bishop says no, again interfering with my freedom of choice. But I can I tell a Catholic he is wrong?

Each of the religions have a view point. Each of the religions evolve over a period of time. I can disagree with them, but can I tell them they are wrong?

Regarding Islam's view of converting the world. This is a view shared by the Christian fundamentalist community. The Mormons still go out on missionary tips to other countries. I have personally had Christian ministers talk to me about finding jesus(I was not born into a Christian family). The problem is not Islam but the ascendency of fundamentalism around the world. Armstrong's thesis is that the ascendency of fundamentalism is a reaction to the extreme secularist trends of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. That this a natural pendulum that swings over time.

On that thesis both India and Iran are interesting examples. In India after Independence Nehru and the Congress preached and built a society based on secular principles to the point where the power of the Hindu upper classes was being suppressed. That changed with the elections of the hindu fundamentalist groups.

In Iran, the fundamentalists found their power by focussing on the repressive, US backed Shah regime. They took the power. There are of course already stirrings where the hard liners have had to give up some of their poweres. People like the woman who got the Nobel prize this year are struggling to loosen the power of the extremist mullahs.

So, I am forced to reject your condmenation of Islam. I do however join you in condemning ALL religious fundamentalist trends around thw world. Do you agree with that?

It still does not give us the right to invade a country to make these changes.
One does not have to believe in God to know what God would approve, or what is simple decency with respect to one's fellow humans.

Of course one has to believe in god to accept this statement.

Gamblor

01-27-2004, 04:24 PM

I have already failed as to what constitutes fascist ideology and your unknowing adoption of one

Do you find it disturbing that you choose to categorize an ideology, without understanding any of the rationale or tenets thereof, instead of examining it individually on it's specific idiosyncracies and merits?

You know, where you reject the right of the individuals of the state to determine the ideology of their government? And the right of individuals to determine the moral basis for "right" and "wrong" within their nation? Would you rather enforce your beliefs, as libertarian as you claim they are, to the point where the electorate is not allowed to choose who and who will not lead them and what principles govern said leadership?

Don't they have a word for that?

Oh, yes. Fascism.

On the side, I hope you're aware of Alan Dershowitz's standing as the foremost civil libertarian lawyer on the planet... Okay, Just checking.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 05:14 PM

Take your example of what foods you are permitted to eat.

"I dont want my Rabbi telling me I cant eat a crab bisque or a ham and cheese sandwich because that interferes with my freedom of choice. But can I tell a Jew he is wrong to listen to the Rabbi.

I want to eat meat on Friday (turning the clock back 50 some years here to make the point) but my Bishop says no, again interfering with my freedom of choice. But I can I tell a Catholic he is wrong?"

That's just the point. If a Jew wants to abstain from ham or a Catholic from meat on certain days, fine! But a Jew has no right to tell a Catholic that a Catholic cannot eat ham, nor does a Catholic have the right to tell a Jew that the Jew cannot eat meat on Fridays. HOWEVER, that is precisely what Islam does conceptually speaking, whereas Judaism and Christianity don't! And on much more important matters, too!

Example: Under Islamic law, you cannot openly preach Judaism or Christianity...see the difference now, ACPlayer???

Under Western law, a Christian may become a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or anything else (maybe some Christians think he will go to hell if he so apostasizes, but so be i--he is still legally allowed to convert away from the faith). HOWEVER, under Islamic law, a Muslim cannot convert to any other religion, and the penalty for apostasy is death! Understand now, ACPlayer???

M:"One does not have to believe in God to know what God would approve, or what is simple decency with respect to one's fellow humans."

ACPlayer: "Of course one has to believe in god to accept this statement."

No, one doesn't. Use your imagination.

Gamblor

01-27-2004, 05:30 PM

A Jew believes that they have the right to land based on the writings of some body thousands of years ago. He sees the destruction of the house of relatives of a criminal and approves.

Bullsh*t.

First, a Jew believes that he needs a homeland and the logical conclusion is that land he lived on thousands of years earlier - it's not just writings, it's a continuous ideological imperative since 570 AD. The plan was to live in peace but as we all know the Arabs were not fans of mass Jewish immigration to Palestine. And thus the mess.

They'd much rather see an absence of murderers - but given that impossibility, they are left with deterring murderous behaviour. I'm sure a Hamas member who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family doesn't face house demolitions. These policies are the results of years of gradually increasingly hard measures to prevent terrorism - they didn't suddenly say, "Hey, let's tear down their houses!"

ACPlayer

01-27-2004, 05:56 PM

Understand now, ACPlayer???

I understand your point. I just disagree with you and believe your point is derived from your view of what the outcome should be. In this case, your view is that apostasy is bad. There are plenty of other well educated, intelligent people who disagree with you.

I just hope that you will one day see that true individual freedoms includes not imposing your views on others by force, however, incorrect you find those views. I have hope, but then I am by nature an optimist, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Under Islamic law, you cannot openly preach Judaism or Christianity

I am fully aware of this.

The problem is not Islam. The problem is all fundamentalist religious thought.

Regarding your point of what god will approve, how can someone who does not believe in god know what god would approve.

ACPlayer

01-27-2004, 06:03 PM

To borrow your eloquence:

Bullsh*t.

A Jew needs a homeland. So a tribe in Eastern India becomes Jewish in the past 30 years and moves to Israel and starts a new settlement. The guy who lives there is told there is, how did you put it, "a continuous idealogical imperative since 570AD" move aside, do it peacefully or you will be shot, go somewhere else we dont care where, your are after all just an Arab Snot and we are the chosen people.

\

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 06:24 PM

"In this case, your view is that apostasy is bad."

No, that's not my view at all.

I don't think apostasy (leavinbg one's religion) is bad. The problem I have with Islam regarding this matter is that under Islamic law, apostasy out of Islam is an actual crime under the legal definition, under the criminal code. And it is potentially punishable by death. (of course, apostasy out of any other religion into Islam is perfectly acceptable under Islamic law).

"I just hope that you will one day see that true individual freedoms includes not imposing your views on others by force, however, incorrect you find those views."

That's just my point, you bonehead ;-) Islam attempts to impose its religious views on others by force. That's what I have a problem with (along with the oppression of women).

"The problem is not Islam. The problem is all fundamentalist religious thought."

No, the problem is attempting to impose fundamentalist religious views on others by force. In the West, only a few individual lunatics do this (abortion clinic terrorists for example). Under Islamic law, entire governments do this. That's the problem with Islam.

The problem is asymmetrical.

Gamblor

01-27-2004, 08:03 PM

A Jew needs a homeland. So a tribe in Eastern India becomes Jewish in the past 30 years and moves to Israel and starts a new settlement. The guy who lives there is told there is, how did you put it, "a continuous idealogical imperative since 570AD" move aside, do it peacefully or you will be shot, go somewhere else we dont care where, your are after all just an Arab Snot and we are the chosen people.

Eastern India?

Nope. That is hardly the case.

Ask (http://mailto:webmaster@shechem.org) the settlers themselves.

If you'd done any research, and not simply taken the CNN at face value, you'd know that every single settlement is built outside established Arab cities, even in cases where extremely sensitive religious issues are involved.

For example, let's examine the case of Elon Moreh. The Jews established a settlement outside the city of Shechem (now Nablus, from the Ancient Roman "Neapolis" = New City, i.e. the New City to replace the Old Jewish one) so they could visit the grave of one of the most famous Jewish leaders in history, Joseph (as in Technicolour dreamcoat). Unfortunately, the Arabs did not appreciate the encroachment and began to harass and murder settlers. Therefore, the IDF must go and protect those settlers, who really want nothing more than access to Joseph's Tomb (Kever Yosef).

In protecting them, we begin what the media refers to as the "Cycle of Violence" where increased protection brings increased belligerence on the part of the Arabs.

I don't entirely blame them for not wanting the increased IDF presence, but start throwing "ethnic cleansing" around is simply a lie.

What have we learned?

1) The racism is quite the opposite from the way it is portrayed - the Arabs have made it quite clear that the West Bank is to be 100% Judenrein.

2) The Jews did not begin expropriating land until it was needed to protect the citizens of Israel.

Taxman

01-27-2004, 08:51 PM

Well spoken, though I still question the value of some of the supposed assistance we are currently providing. I know how discussing poltics can get, and I'm sure I've crossed the line of civility on occasion, so don't worry about it too much.

ACPlayer

01-28-2004, 06:16 AM

Thanks for the link. It was very "enlightening". About as intelligble to me as your normal dumb-ass arguments.

Here is a link to the particular settlers I referred to. It is in english, i hope you can understand it. mizo jews (http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=indian+jew+israel+settlers&pag e=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26 amp%3BrequestId%3Deff892a9180657bf%26amp%3Bclicked ItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Dindian%2Bjew%2Bis rael%2Bsettlers%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A %252F%252Fnews.bbc.co.uk%252F2%252Fhi%252Fsouth_as ia%252F3228054.stm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A %2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fsouth_asia%2F32280 54.stm)

Note that these are people who started converting recently. Have started immigrating and settling in Israel. I wonder if they are really escaping poverty and the violence that has long effected that part of the world, or whether it is to build the kingdom.

Edge34

01-28-2004, 06:38 AM

Matt,

Hey, i'm probably way behind your post here, i don't check on this "other topics" forum, well...ever. But your logic is thoroughly flawed...

1) You act as though the American army, as well as other countries', INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. TO even insinuate that is an insult and a poorly thought-out opinion.

2) You have zero information on "how many people killed had anything to do with terrorism"...the fact of the matter is, if you've got terrorist CAMPS lined up, chances are most of the people in terrorist camps are...terrorists! War may not be pretty, but there's a big difference in some guys flying planes full of innocent people into towers full of innocent people, and the possible innocent lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq...i'm not saying its not sad, but that's the way these things are.

3) 4 million Vietnamese deaths put ONE HELL of a blip up on the radar stateside, my friend. Now, i'm a bit too young to say i saw any of it, but I know my history - this thing has blown up in the States' face ever since it happened. And with 6 million Jews, there's a little thing called GENOCIDE...gas chambers, rape rooms, the whole 9 yards. THAT'S why it was a holocaust.

Edge34

01-28-2004, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What if one of those 10,000 killed would have become a great leader who deposed Saddam peacefully and united Iraq? Or was to become a great scientist who was to find a cure for cancer, by killing him how many more would die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know i'm way behind you guys' ongoing discussion, but I do believe there's a bit of flawed logic here. I can't say its impossible that one of the potential innocents killed COULD become a major scientist who might have discovered a cure for cancer...those are small odds, and I tend to believe that if that progress is going to be made, its going to be made in a much more technologically advanced, economically sound culture (ie. USA, Britain, others). But my main thought is about the possibility of one innocent being killed potentially becoming a great leader capable of peacefully deposing Saddam...do you wonder why there's a reason that hadn't happened in the 10+ years since the first Gulf War? I think it has something to do with the fact that if you didn't support Saddam, he had you executed or something...just a rumor, but I hear there's a pretty strong set of evidence for it.

Gamblor

01-28-2004, 11:31 AM

That was an e-mail address, not a link.

Here's the English (http://www.shechem.org/eindex.html) website.

So the "scores" of Mizos who decided they didn't like the poverty of India decided to abuse the Law of return and convert to Judaism for the express purpose of moving to a wealthier nation?

You are aware that a "score" is 20 people, correct?

Let's assume "scores" refers to 10 scores of people.

Of 750,000 in the West Bank, 200 are Mizo?

This is significant to you?

In fact, most settlers, more than any, are American.

ACPlayer

01-28-2004, 01:34 PM

Is this significant?

Of course. It is one example that as a lay person I know of. How many others are there?????

Is this significant?

Of course. It is indicative of a mind set of bringing in marginal people to add to the population so as to push out the rightful inhabitants of the land.

Is this significant?

Of course. Are these the people with this right that goes back to 570 AD?

ACPlayer

01-28-2004, 01:37 PM

The problem is asymmetrical.

And here we have the key. THe problem is not asymmetric. You are assuming it is asymmetric, because you assume that your viewpoint is the valid viewpoint.

Gamblor

01-28-2004, 02:56 PM

Of course. It is one example that as a lay person I know of. How many others are there?????

A ridiculously small amount. Think about it. 750,000 people vs. at most, what, a thousand converts? Maybe two?

It is indicative of a mind set of bringing in marginal people to add to the population so as to push out the rightful inhabitants of the land.

At the time the settlements began, and even to this date, the land is sovereign to nobody, despite Arab claims to the contrary. This recent claim that the Israelis have violated the Geneva convention regarding transfer of occupier's population is a sham, in that Israel ceased to "occupy" Arab land when Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank. At that moment, official title to the land was up for grabs, despite the native population's sudden claims of "Palestine" as a political entity - it was when the Jews won the war that the whole Palestine sham began. But ultimately, the Jordanian renounciation is why Jewish towns in the "West Bank" are 100% legal politically and under international law.

But ultimately, the Arabs are still human beings and they have a right to self-government. Which leads nicely into my second point.

Are these the people with this right that goes back to 570 AD?

You just don't get it.

I have never claimed that the right of Jews to this homeland (specifically, what is now referred to as the West Bank) goes back to 570 AD. I have never claimed that the bible gives Jews the exclusive right to be there, and not a single Israeli would. However, they do have a right to be there as much as anyone else, just like any Hindu can achieve citizenship of Canada. So why, upon the establishment of new towns outside Arab cities were they met with such belligerence? They're only Jews, if they wanted to transfer the population, they simply would have.

They only wanted access to the sites that held the remains of Jewish forefathers, as I have said a thousand times, the tomb of Joseph (rumours of his technicolour dreamcoat's presence there are greatly exaggerated) and the burial site of Abraham himself, the man who started this whole thing. Both of those sites are smack dab in the middle of Nablus, whose name is nothing more than a Roman cheap shot at the Jews (same as the name "Palestine"), and Hevron, whose population was mostly Jewish until the Arabs expelled the Jews in 1948.

What ended up happening is the same thing that happened when Jews first began to move to the region. They were met with severe anti-semitic violence. Leave it to the anti-semites to ask "Well there must be a reason they deserved it. Let's do a little research, and if we re-examine and spin history a little bit, I'm sure we'll find a reason the Jews were at fault." Leave it to the rest of the world to believe them. Upon the realization that the Arabs were simply not interested in living peacefully, ever, what else were they to do? Pick up and move somewhere else, as they have forever beforehand?

A little history lesson I've already gone over: The story of David and Goliath is pretty famous, and Goliath (Galiat, in Hebrew) was a Philistine, not an Arab (they're not even closely related). When the Romans conquered the Holy Land and destroyed the Temple, they called it "Palestine" as a final insult to the Jews they exiled. Similar situation for Nablus. It used to be called Sh'chem, and is often mentioned in the Torah. When the Roman's conquered, they understood the religious significance to the Jews of Joseph's Tomb, and changed the name to "Neapolis", or the New City, as in, not the old Jewish city. The Arabs do not have a letter "P" so were forced to call it "Nablus".

So much for birthright.

MMMMMM

01-28-2004, 03:26 PM

"And here we have the key. THe problem is not asymmetric. You are assuming it is asymmetric, because you assume that your viewpoint is the valid viewpoint."

NO, you nitwit;-)

Listen:

Side A and Side B: each saying their view is right and the other's view is wrong, is symmetric.

However, if side A attempts to impose its views by force on side B, but side B does not attempt to impose its views by force on Side A, the situation is no longer symmetric.

Any chance this has penetrated that armor-plated skull yet;-)?

Diplomat

01-28-2004, 05:18 PM

So, err...how about that Party handle, eh boys?

-Diplomat

Gamblor

01-28-2004, 05:23 PM

I hate it blah blah blah

Retort?

Gamblor

01-28-2004, 05:35 PM

Osama Dubya war oil Iraq jihad War on Terror Rumsfeld Israel blah blah blah

PS no Branny sat night, last minute change of venue to GBH

Put my name on the 15/30 and 20/40 at 10:30pm. Finally got in the 15/30 at around 1, and was breaking even...

By about 7, I was stuck about 6 bets and tilting, when I decided that was it for the night. I waited for the blinds, and decided UTG K /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif was my last hand. So I raised. Why not?

Called in two MP places when maniac button makes it 3.

4 to the flop (12 SB) of 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

I bet out, MP caller, button raises, I call, MP calls.

3 to the turn (9 BB) of J /images/graemlins/spade.gif.

I check, MP checks, button bets, I call, MP folds.

2 to the river (11 BB) of K /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I bet and button calls.

He showed 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif.

No cure for tilt like beating a maniac at his own game.

Oh, and when I left after 11 hours, at 8:30 am, I still hadn't been called for the 20/40.