THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

That you are unable to discern any difference between the human race and the history of Iraq shows your mind is locked in infamy.

Ican wrote;
Your logic, cice, is that of the standard bigot:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."

I'm afraid Ican you're the bigot in this case.

ican, Please post the defnition for "demogogue."
...

Your logic has evolved, cice. Now it is the logic of the standard bigoted demagogue.

If the Iraqi's are intent upon killing each other so be it. Perhaps the blood lust will subside and they will stop the slaughter. If not it will be their choice.

What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other? What if it's only a minority of the Iraqis intent on killing each other? What if a majority of Iraqis are not choosing blood lust? What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing anyone?

The population of Iraqi is about 27 million. At about one child per 2 adults, that's about 9 million Iraqi children and 18 million adults. About 12 million Iraqi adults risked their lives to vote in their last election and about 6 million did not vote.

How many of the 12 million voting adults are choosing blood lust? How many of the 6 million non-voting adults are choosing blood lust?

I bet the total choosing blood lust is far less than 1 million. But even if it were as many as 6 million, should we abandon the other 12 million adults and 6 million children who are not choosing blood lust, to those 6 million choosing blood lust?

I think not!

ican seems oblivious to events in Iraq that gets worse almost daily. Your "what if" scenario is worth less than shyt. They've been hell-bent on killing each other for over 1300 years.

Using your logic, Cice, the entire human race has been "hell-bent on killing each other for over 1300 years."

CORRECTION
Using your logic, Cice, the entire human race has been "hell-bent on killing each other for over 5,000 years."

Your logic, cice, is that of the standard bigot: some of group X are bad guys; therefore, all of group X are bad guys.

Or how about this one? Things get worse almost daily; therefore things will continue to get worse almost daily.

Or how about this one? Some atheist collectivists are cowards; therefore all atheist collectivists are cowards.

That you are unable to discern any difference between the human race and the history of Iraq shows your mind is locked in infamy.

Your logic has evolved, cice. Now it is the logic of the standard bigoted demagogue.

bigot definition
Main Entry: 1big·ot Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: bigt, usu -d.+V
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle French, bigot, hypocrite, from Old French bigot Norman
1 obsolete : HYPOCRITE; especially : a superstitious religious hypocrite
2 : one obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion

demagogue definition
Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue Pronunciation Guide
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog \gäg sometimes -gg\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Greek dmaggos, from dm- dem- + aggos leading, from agein to lead -- more at AGENT
1 : a leader or orator in ancient times who championed the cause of the common people : a leader of the popular or plebeian party or faction in the state
2 : one who employs demagogic methods; especially : a political leader who seeks to gain personal or partisan advantage by specious or extravagant claims, promises, or charges

ican, Please post the defnition for "demogogue." If you ever bother to see all the responses to your posts, guess who's seen as the "demogogue" on a2k?"

You're the one who keeps talking about "killing all the terrorists." The US army tried and failed. After almost four years, terrorism has increased, and more innocent Iraqis are getting killed by the day.

You fit the defintion quite nicely; "demogogue ican."

What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other? What if it's only a minority of the Iraqis intent on killing each other? What if a majority of Iraqis are not choosing blood lust? What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing anyone?

The population of Iraqi is about 27 million. At about one child per 2 adults, that's about 9 million Iraqi children and 18 million adults. About 12 million Iraqi adults risked their lives to vote in their last election and about 6 million did not vote.

How many of the 12 million voting adults are choosing blood lust? How many of the 6 million non-voting adults are choosing blood lust?

I bet the total choosing blood lust is far less than 1 million. But even if it were as many as 6 million, should we abandon the other 12 million adults and 6 million children who are not choosing blood lust, to those 6 million choosing blood lust?

I think not!

Quote:

What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other? What if it's only a minority of the Iraqis intent on killing each other? What if a majority of Iraqis are not choosing blood lust? What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing anyone?

The population of Iraqi is about 27 million. At about one child per 2 adults, that's about 9 million Iraqi children and 18 million adults. About 12 million Iraqi adults risked their lives to vote in their last election and about 6 million did not vote.

How many of the 12 million voting adults are choosing blood lust? How many of the 6 million non-voting adults are choosing blood lust?

I bet the total choosing blood lust is far less than 1 million. But even if it were as many as 6 million, should we abandon the other 12 million adults and 6 million children who are not choosing blood lust, to those 6 million choosing blood lust?

I think not!

The 'good guy' Iraqis have a far greater responsibility than to simply 'not kill each other.' They have the responsibility to stop those who wish to kill innocents from doing so. If they choose not to stop them, it is hardly our fault.

This is not our responsibility!

Cycloptichorn

...

The 'good guy' Iraqis have a far greater responsibility than to simply 'not kill each other.' They have the responsibility to stop those who wish to kill innocents from doing so. If they choose not to stop them, it is hardly our fault.

This is not our responsibility!

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other? What if it's only a minority of the Iraqis intent on killing each other? What if a majority of Iraqis are not choosing blood lust? What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing anyone?

The population of Iraqi is about 27 million. At about one child per 2 adults, that's about 9 million Iraqi children and 18 million adults. About 12 million Iraqi adults risked their lives to vote in their last election and about 6 million did not vote.

How many of the 12 million voting adults are choosing blood lust? How many of the 6 million non-voting adults are choosing blood lust?

I bet the total choosing blood lust is far less than 1 million. But even if it were as many as 6 million, should we abandon the other 12 million adults and 6 million children who are not choosing blood lust, to those 6 million choosing blood lust?

I think not!

The 'good guy' Iraqis have a far greater responsibility than to simply 'not kill each other.' They have the responsibility to stop those who wish to kill innocents from doing so. If they choose not to stop them, it is hardly our fault.

This is not our responsibility!

Cycloptichorn

The goodguy Iraqis are trying to stop badguy Iraqis from murdering goodguy Iraqis. They require our help. That's neither their fault or our fault.

All this is of course a judgment call. Frankly, I trust my judgment more than I trust your judgment.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing each other? What if it's only a minority of the Iraqis intent on killing each other? What if a majority of Iraqis are not choosing blood lust? What if a majority of Iraqis are not intent on killing anyone?

The population of Iraqi is about 27 million. At about one child per 2 adults, that's about 9 million Iraqi children and 18 million adults. About 12 million Iraqi adults risked their lives to vote in their last election and about 6 million did not vote.

How many of the 12 million voting adults are choosing blood lust? How many of the 6 million non-voting adults are choosing blood lust? I bet the total choosing blood lust is far less than 1 million. But even if it were as many as 6 million, should we abandon the other 12 million adults and 6 million children who are not choosing blood lust, to those 6 million choosing blood lust?

I think not!

The 'good guy' Iraqis have a far greater responsibility than to simply 'not kill each other.' They have the responsibility to stop those who wish to kill innocents from doing so. If they choose not to stop them, it is hardly our fault.

This is not our responsibility!

Cycloptichorn

Do you hold responsible the peaceful inhabitants of the inner cities for the violence erupting around them as well?

How about the peaceful majority in Darfur?

Should responsibility for the genocide perpetrated in Rwanda be laid at the innocent majority's feet? What precisely do you expect any of these people to do?

"The goodguy Iraqis are trying to stop badguy Iraqis from murdering goodguy Iraqis. They require our help."

So simple. And I'm sure you can justify America's sicing of Saddam on the Iraqis in the first place. And justify our arming and funding and selling lethal substances to him after he had used WMD. Our working with both sides in the Iraq/Iran war that killed a MILLION people.

I cannot justify any of that, because it is not justifiable.

By not meeting our responsibility to help the goodguys now, like we did not meet that responsibility in the past, we would again increase our risk of middle eastern badguys murdering us goodguys.

Also the twisting of intelligence and lies that led to this current war.

I think what actually led to the current war is debatable. I think what should have led to the current war is: 9/11 plus 9/11 perpetrators being trained in Afghanistan plus some of the trainers of those 9/11 perpetrators escaping to Iraq in December 2001 plus those Iraq based trainers of 9/11 perpetrators training future perpetrators in Iraq.

Simple. I simplify things also. I say that since the Bush/Walker family and their cohorts have armed the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler, Saddam, bin Laden and many like them in between that they've found a tried and true formula that enriches them to the detriment of humanity and that the progression will continue into the next generation and the next until we finally call them on it and prosecute them for crimes against humanity.

I'd be happy enough to first stop the people--whoever they are--doing all that bad stuff, and then think about their prosecution.

Cyclops,
Your candor is the only part of the preceding post I can respect. Holding responsible the victims of hideous crimes against humanity for their plight is deplorable. The suggestion is disgusting to the point of absurdity.

The woman dispatched along with her children by a car bomb is in no way responsible for her demise nor that of her children. I could easily fill a dozen pages with examples that demonstrate the absurdity of your position. So could you. Rethink it.

...
The same goes for Iraqis. Not their fault that their country got messed up, but it sure is their problem. In the end it isn't the responsiblity nor the problem of the US; we can withdraw, go home, play defense, do whatever - though we will undoubtedly suffer the consequences of our folly, we don't have to live there. They do. Therefore it is a much bigger problem for them, then us, and I suggest they get their act together to solve it, because we won't be able to do anything about it.

Cycloptichorn