1
   

Spain is just Spain

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:21 am
Speaking of being full of horse apples...

Setanta wrote:
Spaniards voted out the conservatives because they felt they had been lied to, and decided to punish the conservative government for the lies.


They voted out of fear and anger.

Fear of further terror attacks, and anger at being targeted.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:23 am
You don't get out much when it comes to the news, do ya, McG? Immediately after the election results were known, knowledgablr commentators in the United States and at BBC and ITV made this assessment, and provided exit interviews with Spanish voters who made the same statement. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:27 am
The Meaning of Spain
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:30 am
I see that in borrowing someone else's argument, you continue to fail to address the issue of the Spanish electorate's outrage at a government which had lied to them, in the hope of keeping their electoral advantage.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:32 am
Quote:
Changing your enemies mind.


That would imply compromise which the enemy has alread ruled out. Besides, it's not my obligation to convince a would-be killer that he shouldn't kill me. If he doesn't know that already and makes an attempt, I'll choose my life over his any day.

Quote:
Adapting a defensive stance to protect yourself in your own borders.


A life of perpetual seige? No thanks.

Quote:
Getting the support of the world to put pressure on your enemy to change.


Despite the reports to the contrary, that is being done. Foreign governments sieze assets, make arrests, etc. But all this action falls under the heading of "war"; it's just different aspects of the war.

Quote:
Attacking a sovreign third country with no ties to your enemy.


No ties at all huh? I'm still don't buy that Iraq and Al Queda NEVER discussed how to bring down their common and hated enemy.

Quote:
and there are countless other options.


Not any that have any applicability to reality.

You're walking the streets armed. Another armed man approaches you with the intent to kill you. What do you do?
a)Try to talk him out of killing you?
b) Try to understand his troubled background and tell him you empathize?
c) Ask other people on the street to ask him not to kill you?
d) Kill him before he kills you?

The answer to me is D, clear as day.

I will admit that there are aspects of reality where there is room for more than just black and white. However, when it comes to someone wanting to kill you and your own survival, the world is very black and white.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:36 am
Set, you have your mind set in stone, you have no wish to see the other side of the coin and you seem oblivious to my point. There is no wish on the left's part to see the influence Al Queda had on the Spanish election and taht's fine with me. The left has far more important problems than this to deal with.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:38 am
Exactly the same can be said of you, McG. The difference is, however, that the anger of Spanish voters at being lied to by Aznar's administration is made clear, and a part of the record, by the interviews done as voters exited the polls. There is nothing in that record which supports your contention about fear of terrorists.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:42 am
But, if you wish to read further and maybe see both sides of this issue, try some of these links.

Rewarding Terror in Spain

To die in Madrid

Spain's vote against mendacity

The Spanish dishonoured their dead

Spanish voters elect violence

The answer to terror is plain

Spaniards ignore logic in caving to al-Qaida

Democracy and terrorism
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
Thank you for assuming that i haven't read into the subject. Thank you for ignoring, in your extensive reading, the wide-spread reports that Spanish voters rejected the government for the lies they attempted.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
ConstantlyQuestioning (BTW you may want to change your name since your mind is set so solidly now.)

I was just pointing out that there are other options. (I didn't say what my choice would be). But, you should realize that many intelligent people of good-will disagree with the choice you made.

Some people would note that your rather black and white, set in stone rhetoric is the same rhetoric that has locked the Middle East in bloody conflict for the past 50 years. You may contrast this rhetoric with the choices made by Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Jesus.

But that wasn't my point...

My point was that saying "there are only two choices" is both false and ridiculous.

You shouldn't close your mind so readily to other options that some of us believe would lead to real peace and much less bloodshed.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 11:54 am
Setanta wrote:
Thank you for assuming that i haven't read into the subject.


Well, your stance on this subject would lead me to believe that.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:06 pm
Quote:
BTW you may want to change your name since your mind is set so solidly now


Thanks for the advise. Even those ideas of mine that are "solid" are under constant critique and analysis. That's what the name means.

Quote:
But, you should realize that many intelligent people of good-will disagree with the choice you made.


Of course I do. That's why I'm here: to debate with those intelligent and good-willed people.

Quote:
Some people would note that your rather black and white, set in stone rhetoric is the same rhetoric that has locked the Middle East in bloody conflict for the past 50 years.


Those people would be wrong. The rhetoric that has kept the ME locked in conflict revolves around, "Jews are infidels and pigs" and "Americans are too", and "your lives belong to Allah, not yourselves, so go blow yourself up taking as many infidels as you can"

My rhetoric is quite different: My life is mine and mine alone. I do not accept any claim on my life. It is my absolute right to defend that life with any and all force available to me. It's not my obligation to give morality lessons to a would be murderer. (do you think that it is?)

Quote:
You shouldn't close your mind so readily to other options that some of us believe would lead to real peace and much less bloodshed.


I'm willing to hear arguments against mine and other suggestions on how to deal with terrorism. That doesn't mean that I'll necessarily agree with those opinions, but I'll give them their due consideration. And the fact that I may disagree with said opinions does not indicate any sort of close-mindedness on my part. If it does, then the fact that you disagree with me means you're close minded as well. See how both sides can use that little trick (disagreement with me = closemindedness). Isn't that a logical fallacy as well?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:08 pm
Quote:
You're walking the streets armed. Another armed man approaches you with the intent to kill you. What do you do?
a)Try to talk him out of killing you?
b) Try to understand his troubled background and tell him you empathize?
c) Ask other people on the street to ask him not to kill you?
d) Kill him before he kills you?

The answer to me is D, clear as day.



You missed out 2 words in option d) "Try to...

In fact you would fail. Your opponent isn't quite so dumb as you think. If he's intent on killing you, he will do so, from behind, quite sneekily, and you would know nothing. But that's not fair you might say to St Peter. But St Peter replies "he knew you would kill him given half a chance so he never gave you any chance at all. All's fair in love and war. I'll be around if any of you people ever want to try the love option. But you don't belong here 'bye".
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:17 pm
Quote:
Your opponent isn't quite so dumb as you think.


And I'm not quite so oblivious as you seem to think.

Are you saying that the fact that one might be murdered in a sneaky and surprising way means we should never try to defend ourselves?

Quote:
"he knew you would kill him given half a chance so he never gave you any chance at all. All's fair in love and war. I'll be around if any of you people ever want to try the love option. But you don't belong here 'bye".


Oh, I should have loved the person who killed me, and I'll go to hell for having the audacity to try to defend myself? But if I'm unarmed and never try to defend myself, I go to Heaven?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:19 pm
Don't get pulled in, CQ. It's an abyss on the left...
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:23 pm
Quote:
Don't get pulled in, CQ. It's an abyss on the left...


And give someone real ammo in calling me closeminded? The moment we refuse to hear the opposition's arguments is the moment our minds do close and begin to atrophy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 12:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Well, your stance on this subject would lead me to believe that.


How quaint, exactly my thought.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 01:31 pm
Quote:
Oh, I should have loved the person who killed me...?


Well maybe not loved exactly, but perhaps you could try and find out what was bugging the guy. After all its definitely unnatural to go around in a state of murderous intent. Maybe you could get behind some bullet proof glass and asked a question or two. Or use an intermediary.

Its in your interests to do so. If you never know why he was motivated to act like he did before you shot him dead, you can never be sure there aren't more who think exactly the same.

Of course he might turn out to be a completely deranged psychopath, in which case shooting first may not be a bad idea. But what if he turns out to be as rational and as sane as you are, only driven to extreme acts by extreme circumstances? Or maybe your dispute is all based on a misunderstanding that could be amicably resolved? Who knows from these improbable beginnings a beautiful friendship may arise.... :wink:
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 02:07 pm
Steve,

I admire your optimism, but I don't think it's well founded.

While I'm doing the research for an A&E Biography special on my attacker, trying to understand why he's attacking me, he is only interested in attacking me. While I try to understand, he tries to harm. That puts me at a distinctive tactical disadvantage. My focus should be only on the preservation of my life (at the cost of his if necessary).

You say I should discover why he wants to harm me, but the "why" is irrelevant in the grander issue. He can give no reason that I will consider valid. The ONLY justification for using force against another human being is in defence/retaliation against force intitiated against you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 02:20 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
While I'm doing the research for an A&E Biography special on my attacker, trying to understand why he's attacking me, he is only interested in attacking me.



Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 10:26:44