hmmmm.... I still wonder where I stand with you on this subject Craven.
What do you think of my views on the subject?
I don't know your views on the subject.
Craven said:
Quote:...there are plenty of logical ways to go about defending the choice to go to war.
Great. But they should have been given BEFORE we went to war -- not as rationalizations afterwards.
These morons said we were going to war when we did because WE HAD TO. Supposedly Saddam's weapons posed that great a threat to us.
That is what we have to deal with - not these latter-day rationalizations.
Quote:I happen to think that many of the people who share my opinion about the justification of the war exhibit "blind faith" and I certainly do not think those who supported the war are the only ones guilty of it.
On these forums I happen to believe that there is a greater ratio of anti-war people talking out their asses than the pro-war camp.
You are free to "believe" whatever you want. I happen to think you are full of **** on this.
Quote:Â…oops, it was actually about the lack of gonads. I wish the ad hominems against the politicians would be replaced by rational discourse.
That is one of the things I was talking about when I referenced talking out of one's ass.
Yeah, of course you do. For some reason, you want things sanitized.
If I were to say that Bill Clinton was intelligent, erudite, and well-spoken -- that would be considered an assessment -- and reasonable material for comment. But apparently you think if I note that George Dubya is stupid, uninformed, and speaks like a failed candidate for high school class president - somehow, to you, that constitutes an ad hominem attack and represents a person "talking out of one's ass."
I have no idea of what has come over you recently, Craven. I remember you as a much more sophisticated individual back when we spoke in Abuzz. Lately you've become a schlump.
I fervently hope you do some introspection and get back to being real.
Craven and McG I must admit you both had me LOL with your analogies. Brilliant, both of them, very creative.
And the funny thing is, by and large, I would buy into either of these stories, really, overall (not in every detail of course, but then thats not what narrative analogies about "what the case is really all about" are like). They both, in the end, make a convincing statement of opinion.
I must admit I am a little bit of two minds about McGentrix' initial resort to narrative in replying to my post, though; because I would have preferred to see - or to also see - a continuation of the dissection of info and arguments, as well.
Its quite frustrating to carry on an argument with someone about very concrete arguments - who on the SC said what on the basis of what proof for what motivations and authorized by which resolutions whose exact fomulation meant what, that kind of thing - and to see that as soon as you (try to) refute some of those details, your "opponent" of the day resorts back to the "overall" argument, instead.
Perhaps I'm a bit oversensitive on that, but I actually think it's important to keep the "general argument" and the specifics of one particular argument apart. Who knows, McGentrix, perhaps I think the war overall was actually partially justified - or at least can be said to have served some legitimate goals in hindsight - while still thinking the WMD line is bullshit, and the administration's erstwhile attempts to bully its allies into buying it and current attempts to cover up about it are absolutely shameful.
And I've seen it happen here just too often that as soon as you get into the specifics of the UN resolution text X or SC member Y that the pro-war poster had cursorily referred to, instead of trying to show where you went wrong in your interpretation of those specifics, the 'opponent' of the day would refer back to the general thing: 'but dont you know the guy was evil, we had to stop him sometime, didnt we?' Well, yes, probably, but that's not what we were discussing right then, we were discussing the arguments you/the US was just using to justify starting this war now - and the degree of bullying or even lying that might have been involved in it. And thats an important topic, because some rogue state being evil in itself is no excuse for running slipshod over international law and institutions - because if you do, you yourself [the US] pose a greater danger to "world security" than any single rogue state that might still have a fraction of the WMD you have, and might just pass them on to terrorists, does. For sure, its not like I never suddenly 'disappear' from a thread or something for many days on end (better things to do), but I still kinda experience this fleeing back into the general impressionistic picture when one's specific arguments ("3 countries" and the like) are countered as a kind of cover-up.
So that's the whining part. Nevertheless, I must wholly admit that the narrative analogies bit was a whole lot more fun to read than all the quotes and legal interpretations ! <big smile>
Frank Apisa wrote:
Great. But they should have been given BEFORE we went to war -- not as rationalizations afterwards.
This has nothing to do with before the war vs. after the war. Before the war many logic based motivations for the war were given. I happened to disagree with them.
Frank Apisa wrote:
You are free to "believe" whatever you want. I happen to think you are full of **** on this.
Coming from a guy with such an extremely negative opinion of conservatives it is to be expected that saying conservatives talk out their asses at a lower ratio than liberals here on these forums would elicit a scatological response.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Yeah, of course you do. For some reason, you want things sanitized.
This has ****-all to do with wanting it to be "sanitized". I simply expressed a wish that the level of political discourse remain higher than simply speaking of a politician's balls.
Frank Apisa wrote:
If I were to say that Bill Clinton was intelligent, erudite, and well-spoken -- that would be considered an assessment -- and reasonable material for comment. But apparently you think if I note that George Dubya is stupid, uninformed, and speaks like a failed candidate for high school class president - somehow, to you, that constitutes an ad hominem attack and represents a person "talking out of one's ass."
I'd consider either to be talking out of your ass. Positive vs. negative is not the point.
The point is that after the first 500 times we get that a member likes Clinton and hates Bush and discussion of the issues at hand are far more interesting than repeating it ad nauseum.
Frank Apisa wrote:
I have no idea of what has come over you recently, Craven. I remember you as a much more sophisticated individual back when we spoke in Abuzz. Lately you've become a schlump.
I fervently hope you do some introspection and get back to being real.
Frank, "being real" or "sophisticated" has nothing to do with me agreeing with you. Get over yourself. If you think talking about a politician's balls is interesting don't expect me to share the same "sophistication".
Balls, said the Queen,
If I had two, I'd be King ! ! !
Actually Frank, if you want to attack somebody for disapproving of a level of discourse that resorts to comments about the size of people's balls, attack me - I commented on it first.
dlowan wrote:Actually Frank, if you want to attack somebody for disapproving of a level of discourse that resorts to comments about the size of people's balls, attack me - I commented on it first.
Actually, dlowan, I never attacked or even mentioned the question of people resorting to comments about the size of anyone's balls. In fact, I must have missed that particular line of discussion -- or simply read t and forgot it -- which is what I try to do with all extraneous material.
So your comment to me is a complete mystery!
fair enough - sorry I misunderstood you! I thought you referred to it in your comments to Craven.
Administration rationale for going to war....
This is probably best demonstrated by the following link...to a clock actually, but the principle is the same.
http://www.lares.dti.ne.jp/%7Eyugo/storage/monocrafts_ver3/03/index.html
Blatham
I've always said that there are some [green] little men working in my computer! :wink:
Balls...let's tie them up in a final knot here.
It was I who first swung them into the discourse. They weren't mine, they were Paul's. Further, I made no suppositions regarding their ontological status nor their displacement. I merely, innocently, personally stated that as regards Paul's, I would be happy - REALLY happy - if a tattoo artist's needle was working it's magic on and into them.
That should end all that, then.
As regards Craven's notion that supporters of the war here have been more careful in thought and research than have opponents...he and I wouldn't agree on this matter. Nor would we agree on the how sphincter vocalizations is a more agreeable discourse element that that alluded to in paragraph one above.
nimh wrote:
I must admit I am a little bit of two minds about McGentrix' initial resort to narrative in replying to my post, though; because I would have preferred to see - or to also see - a continuation of the dissection of info and arguments, as well.
Its quite frustrating to carry on an argument with someone about very concrete arguments - who on the SC said what on the basis of what proof for what motivations and authorized by which resolutions whose exact fomulation meant what, that kind of thing - and to see that as soon as you (try to) refute some of those details, your "opponent" of the day resorts back to the "overall" argument, instead.
Perhaps I'm a bit oversensitive on that, but I actually think it's important to keep the "general argument" and the specifics of one particular argument apart. Who knows, McGentrix, perhaps I think the war overall was actually partially justified - or at least can be said to have served some legitimate goals in hindsight - while still thinking the WMD line is bullshit, and the administration's erstwhile attempts to bully its allies into buying it and current attempts to cover up about it are absolutely shameful.
And I've seen it happen here just too often that as soon as you get into the specifics of the UN resolution text X or SC member Y that the pro-war poster had cursorily referred to, instead of trying to show where you went wrong in your interpretation of those specifics, the 'opponent' of the day would refer back to the general thing: 'but dont you know the guy was evil, we had to stop him sometime, didnt we?' Well, yes, probably, but that's not what we were discussing right then, we were discussing the arguments you/the US was just using to justify starting this war now - and the degree of bullying or even lying that might have been involved in it. And thats an important topic, because some rogue state being evil in itself is no excuse for running slipshod over international law and institutions - because if you do, you yourself [the US] pose a greater danger to "world security" than any single rogue state that might still have a fraction of the WMD you have, and might just pass them on to terrorists, does. For sure, its not like I never suddenly 'disappear' from a thread or something for many days on end (better things to do), but I still kinda experience this fleeing back into the general impressionistic picture when one's specific arguments ("3 countries" and the like) are countered as a kind of cover-up.
So that's the whining part. Nevertheless, I must wholly admit that the narrative analogies bit was a whole lot more fun to read than all the quotes and legal interpretations ! <big smile>
Nimh, while I am very opinionated, I am not as knowledgable as the people who draw up the resolutions that are brought before the security council. One of my great downfalls in life is that I trust people to be able to do the jobs that they do. For example, I am an expert at many things computer oriented. I can troubleshoot a network, PC or many other problems better than any one I know. However, if my car breaks, I take it to a mechanic because I trust they are as good at what they do as I am at what I do.
I trust that the president is MUCH better at being president than I am. I trust that Colin Powell is better at being Sec. of State than I am. I trust them to be able to make the decisions that they do based on information unavailable to me. I can give my opinion on their actions, but I feel they know what they are doing and trust that they do it well. Like I said, it's one of my failings in life.
Whoever drew up resolution 1441 must have had a reason for creating it. Obviously, as my previous synopsis stated, Saddam has not complied with the previous resolution. If he had, 1441 would not have seen the light of day. However, he has shown 12 years of contempt and disregard of UN resolutions. Why would we suddenly believe that Saddam would now allow the UN to do it's job?
McG, UN Resolutions are in most cases not enforced by military intervention. If that were so, the US and Israel will have been bombed to smithereens. We can't use one resolution against Iraq and ignore all others. They are all enforceable or all the others are of quesitonable value to the world community. c.i.
