0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 08:58 pm
That is pure crap, Lash. I did not try to humiliate Ican, he can do that quite well on his own, and remains clueless about having done so. He attempted to contend that Napoleon was a tyrrant on the order of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein. Without even going into the absurdity of scale in comparing Hussein to Pol Pot or Hitler, i simply pointed out that he had no basis to contend that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians.

But you've read one book on the mid-seventeenth century in France. Now, boom, you're an expert on Napoleon and the Revolution.

I don't act as though i know everything. Saying that Napoleon was involved in the revolution is rather like saying that the Shrub was involved in the Vietnam war. Both were in the military when those events occurred--and both took no direct part in the fighting. Even if one stretches military service in the Wars of the Revolution to contend that Napoleon was therefore involved in the Revolution, that does not support Ican's stupid (and i strongly suspect thoughtless) contention that he was a tyrrant responsible for the deaths of millions. The closest Napoleon came to participation in the Revolution outside of the normal discharge of military duties was in firing upon the crowd in October, 1795. That effectively ended the Revolution.

Whether or not Napoleon took part in the Revolution does not address the question of whether or not he was responsible for the deaths of millions. The Wars of the Revolution took place without reference to Napoleon. Had he been unable to seize power in 1799, there is no reason to assume that France and Austria would not have gone to war again, nor that England, and then Prussia, and finally Russia would have been drawn in. The history of Europe from 1520 to 1945 strongly suggests that those clowns would have found any number of reasons and opportunties to have slaughtered one another without the specific aid of Napoleon

I've addressed Ican's specious contentions. Now you want to prolong a pissing match about what you do or don't know, and what i do or don't know. But if i don't know something, i keep my mouth shut. You should try that some time, because it is evident that you don't know squat about the French Revolution, the Wars of the Revolution, and the life and career of Napoleone Buonaparte, Corsica's one gift to world history.

But i can piss all night, and all day tomorrow, if that's what floats your boat.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:06 pm
Lash wrote:
Whether or not the other member was correct in his specific assertion, I don't know--or care. I didn't like the way you waved him off dissmissively, especially since you were incorrect.


In what regard was i incorrect in pointing out to Ican that he could not support a contention that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians? You have proven nothing.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:17 pm
(I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but you don't link.

You merely narrate.

You haven't proven anything yourself.)

And, I, for one, am very comfortable saying I don't know as much as you do--I have read more than one book, and do have a working knowledge on the overview of the Fronde and Revolution, and Mazarin, and Louis 13 and 14th, and conditions of society during that time.... I have no doubt you could give a much more detailed information that could I--- I'm definitely not here as some declaration of superior knowledge. That's sort of gross. But, you were wrong, and I thought I should point it out.

You can thank me later.

(Why don't you link?)
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:18 pm
BULLETIN.....

A truck carrying a load of Viagra has been hijacked!!
The police are looking for a gang of hardened criminals.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:20 pm
Too bad you don't read French, Lash. I just went to Google and typed in "guerres de la fronde" (which is, in English, wars of the fronde). I got 13,800 hits.

From a history of the village of Lavannes:

Le siècle suivant est tout aussi désastreux pour les environs de Reims, toujours harcelés et pillés, les guerres de la Fronde font aussi leurs ravages . . .

From a history of the town of Juniville:

Outre les différents seigneurs et ecclésiastiques qui se sont succédés à Juniville, l'historien retrace les nombreuses invasions qui firent rage sur le territoire avec notamment les guerres du XVIe siècle, les guerres de la Fronde, l'invasion de 1814 et 1815 par l'année russe sous Napoléon, l'invasion de 1870 par la Prusse ou bien encore les deux guerres mondiales.

I won't go any further into the 13,800 responses which i found. I will note that Wars of the Fronde is how one translates the term "guerres de la fronde," which is a common term found in French history. Unsurprisingly, i consider French historians to be a reliable source on the history of France.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:31 pm
Now, we're Google hit counting.

Results 1 - 10 of about 216,000 for Fronde. (0.22 seconds

I win.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
That is pure crap, Lash. I did not try to humiliate Ican, he can do that quite well on his own, and remains clueless about having done so. He attempted to contend that Napoleon was a tyrrant on the order of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein.

That is a lie. I merely contended that Napoleon's wars resulted in the death of millions of civilians. You made a detailed case that the number was smaller than that, but you have not yet offered your opinion as to how big that number was taking into account all the civilians on both sides conscripted in to Napoleon's damn war.

Your hysterical reaction to my alleged over estimate marks you the clueless one. You either did not understand my argument or you were more interested in pretending my argument was other than it actually was than pursuing truth. My argument had to do with establishing a perspective for evaluating historical and contemporary US flaws. It had nothing to do with comparing Napoleon, a 19th century tyrannical murderer, with the tyrannical murderers of the 20th and 21st century (so far). Others here readily understood that, but not you ... or else you pretended not to understand it.


Without even going into the absurdity of scale in comparing Hussein to Pol Pot or Hitler, i simply pointed out that he had no basis to contend that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians. ...

Simply pointed out? Hah! That's an absurd fiction and/or lie. If you had simply pointed out my alleged error, and provided evidence to support what you thought was a more accurate estimate, then your claim of "simply pointed out" would have some validity. But that is not what you did. You vilified my lack of an historical knowledge that you perceive to be equal to your own. I made reference to one encyclopedia article as the basis for my estimate and you went beserk because that article didn't consider all you had studied on the subject.

That's nuts!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:50 pm
I made the point that you had not made your case. Which is a far cry from making a case that you were wrong. I simply pointed out that you had not proven your case, then provided detail to show how difficult it would be for you to do so.

You flatter yourself, nothing you have ever written has induced a berserk state in me. You're projecting your own typical response to being shot down. I continue to consider that you lack sufficient historical background to support the absurd contentions you make on almost a daily basis. That is not vilification--your knowledge, or lack thereof, is not a discrete individual subject to be vilified.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 10:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
I made the point that you had not made your case. Which is a far cry from making a case that you were wrong. I simply pointed out that you had not proven your case, that provided detail to show how difficult it would be for you to do so.

You flatter yourself, nothing you have ever written has induced a berserk state in me. You're projecting your own typical response to being shot down. I continue to consider that you lack sufficident historical background to support the absurd contentions you make on almost a daily basis. That is not vilification, your knowledge, or lack thereof, is not a discrete individual subject to be vilified.


This is sadly absurd in its clear revelation of your inability to face your own fallibility. I readily admitted that I didn't know the things you said I didn't know. Go back and see. My admissions are all in blue.

You did not shoot down the actual argument I was making. You merely provided persuasive evidence that Naopleon in his wars was probably not responsible for the death of millions of civilians. I readily admitted that probability in blue too.

However, that is not central to the argument I was actually making. Hell! It's at best superfluous to the argument I was making. It wasn't all about Napoleon. It wasn't even all about you and your knowledge of Napoleonic history among other histories. The argument I was actually making was one others here understood ... why not you?

Again, my argument was about a proper perspective for evaluating US flaws both historical and contemporary. My actual argument is not invalidated even if you were able to provide some evidence that instead of millions only thousands of civilians were killed by Napoleon's wars. Correct that to: [/B]only hundreds of civilians were killed by Napoleon's wars.

You really screwed up on this big time!

When you're through digging this hole of yours, you can climb out whenever you finally take your feet out of your mouth.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 10:16 pm
No one will tease you. Come on. Time to give it up.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 11:01 pm
You really have a limited grasp of reality, don't you Ican. Time and again, you have trotted out your feeble attempts to delineate the Iraq disaster in simple terms, in black and white--and you have attempted to validate your claims with false allusions to history. This is just one example. You tried to claim that the War of 1812, World War I and World War II were pre-emptive wars, as though that would justify Iraq. When called on that, you then decided you would unilaterally redefine pre-emptive. Then you come along with this claptrap of justification of the war by referring to murderous tyrrants. Not only is your historical knowledge weak to non-existent, your analogies don't hold up. Hussein was never the threat to the world that Hitler posed. Hussein was never a homocidal maniac of the character of Pol Pot. He certainly never approached the scale of either of them. This whole "we've done it for the good of the world and the Iraqi people" horseshit was cobbled together after the fact, when no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or a connection to the September 11th attack was forthcoming. So you not only know jack **** about history, you're trying to re-write the history of the last few years.

I've dug no hole, and i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. You spew nonsense all over these boards every day. I take very little notice of it, but i do enjoy rubbing your nose in it from time to time.

Once again, you consistently demonstrate a significant lack of historical knowledge. It beggars your ludicrous contentions about the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 02:57 am
Most of the other right-wingers who used to favour this thread with their opinions about how this invasion was done for the best of reasons and the highest of motives have now faded away. Most now realise most of the truth I think, and find it hard to face.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 05:19 am
Thus speaketh McTag ..... in the background a bell slowly tolls as Bush and his droogies cackle in the house of blanc .... meanwhile at 40000 feet ... reality bites

Laughing Shocked
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 08:06 am
Or at ground zero. One wonders why the Iragi's consistently present tthemselves as such good targets by lining up outise of anything to apply for jobs.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 08:12 am
McTag wrote:
Most of the other right-wingers who used to favour this thread with their opinions about how this invasion was done for the best of reasons and the highest of motives have now faded away. Most now realise most of the truth I think, and find it hard to face.


I probably qualify as one of those right-wingers, McT. Although it may seem I have faded away and/or realized the "truth," I do still monitor these threads periodically, but with my eyes wide open. I admire the skill with which several here still attempt to press the good fight, but I long ago realized the futility of discourse with those who see neocon boogeymen behind every shrub. (No -- I chose not to use the term "bush" as that seems to activate the froth & foam response from so many here.)

Having been twice banned from these airwaves for heated exchanges on this subject with certain "pillars" of the community (and threatened with outright excommunication) I've found it safer to watch from afar. I will admit I marvel at the freedom with which some here slander those with right-leaning opinions and seem to enjoy total impunity in doing so. Perhaps I simply travel in the wrong circles.

I also admit it is frustrating to continue to be denied PM privileges (mysterious security risks and an eligibility formula that changes daily -- ???) as a means of communicating outside the public board. (Hotmail accounts are suggested as alternatives ... Rolling Eyes )

But ... please let it be known that I have not "faded away" or that I "realise most of the truth ... and find it hard to face."

I've simply accepted the limitations of having a right-of-center opinion here at stepford.com.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 08:15 am
And, Whooda nails it once again Smile

<stepford.com....LOL!....too true!>
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 08:28 am
And Whooda is usually right on. And from someone once banned here also, salute!

s
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 09:06 am
LEST YE FORGET

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT

Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor. It is al Qaeda and the governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based that must be stopped in our own self-defense.

Nothing the Bush&Adm or the Blair&Adm intended or didn’t intend, said or didn’t say, conspired or didn't conspire, or otherwise did or didn’t do can change these facts. The truth of the existence or non-existence of ready-to-use "WMD" in Iraq, or of a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda cannot change these facts.

Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more. That is what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and that is what we are attempting to do in Iraq[/quote]

Foxfyre wrote:
There are some, however, who think you must be seriously hurt or killed before you are allowed to protect yourself. The frightened wife must not get a restraining order against the man she knows will hurt or kill her until he actually does the deed. They are more concerned about the feelings of the young thug on the corner than they are about the fears of the driver who offends him when he locks the car door. The civil rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of innocent people to not be threatened by him. The rights of a terrorist to not be embarrassed or made uncomfortable are more important than the need of an innocent victim about to be beheaded. So, a pre-emptive strike against a country with a track record for terrorist acts and that is on the record as having intentions to hurt you must not be touched until they commit the act.
...


The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens. Al Qaeda declared war against Americans in four different fatwas in 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2004. These fatwas (except the 2004 fatwa) and the war they repeatedly declared were actually perpetrated against Americans prior to our invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1: Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans plus approximately 1500 dead non-Americans.


Quote:
President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists.


The US subsequently attempted to pre-empt further attacks by al Qaeda and remove al Qaeda training bases and camps by invading and replacing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, because of the failures of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al Qaeda training bases and camps from their respective countries.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Afghanistan was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Afghanistan and the replacement of the Taliban regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda bases and camps to be re-established in Afghanistan once the US left Afghanistan.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Iraq was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Iraq and the replacement of the Saddam regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda taining bases and camps to be re-established in Iraq once the US left Iraq.[/quote]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT

1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A, G]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan.

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. Terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in December 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier, and after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.[References A, B, C, D, F]

7. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E, F]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

10. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

REFERENCES

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org

G. Osama Bin Laden “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”-1996, and, Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
(scroll down to find them both)
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 09:36 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
I also admit it is frustrating to continue to be denied PM privileges (mysterious security risks and an eligibility formula that changes daily -- ???) as a means of communicating outside the public board. (Hotmail accounts are suggested as alternatives ... Rolling Eyes )


When you would have followed some threads here, and would have looked in the 'Announcemnts', you had noticed that this applies to a lot of members and has nothing at all to do with you.

It's interesting, though, that someone "denies" you priviliges - how did you get this "right"? :wink:
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 09:46 am
sumac wrote:
And Whooda is usually right on. And from someone once banned here also, salute!

s


Geeze, I thought this site was the be-all, the end-all wrt freedom of speech. I'd love to see what it was that got you two booted. Surprised
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.87 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 09:00:41