AXIS of Evil.

Brandon9000 wrote:

why would I be required to answer the questions of someone who had already, in the very same thread, ignored a question I asked him?

Considering your historical eagerness to "win" debates you seem to suffer from a deficiency in common sense.
A question was posed in the introductory post.
It is up to the participants of that thread to resond to the question, not to make demands of the poster to respond to their questions.
I highly doubt that a debate would function as it should if you avoided the topic and instead demanded that the organizers respond to your questions.
Seems silly to me, but I'm sure you have a perfectly logical explanation for why you're right.

My jibe was not personal, it was similar in kind to many comments that have in the past been made in your direction. The nature of it was related directly to the discussion throughout the thread, namely, to respond to the question.
I merely pointed out Asherman's articulate post and suggested that you could combat the criticisms of your MO by following his example.

In the future I will be mindful of your fragile ego and rethink my responses to you so as to not cause any undue harm.

Brandon.
I am still waiting for you to stop posturing and for once give a direct, intelligent response to a question asked. Is that too much to ask or for you to comprehend?
Have you ever wondered why almost every thread you are involved in ends the same way.

The Axis of of evil statement made by Bush during the state of the union speech made for good copy. But was it a diplomatic blunder?

...Furthermore, I believe that it is ultimately never helpful to ignore great evil abroad in the world or to pretend it isn't there.

Blatham, do you consider the 3 nations named to be other then evil? If so, what would you consider them?

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, do you consider the 3 nations named to be other then evil? If so, what would you consider them?

Is Myanmar evil? Is china evil? Is rupert murdock or google in some sense or to some degree evil for doing business with them? Is america in some sense evil for helping Hussein build his military and his hold on power? Was germany evil? All of germany?

The term isn't analytically useful in descriptions of groups, if useful at all. It functions as a way of saying "I/we don't like" something or someone but doing so in a way that ends reflection or more complex analyses. You may as well ask, is James Baker supporting evil when he offers a "realist" portrayal of american foreign polcies/options. How is it that Hussein suddenly became evil when he was not earlier?

Saddam Hussein was obviouly evil throughout his entire adult life, not suddenly.

The Axis of of evil statement made by Bush during the state of the union speech made for good copy. But was it a diplomatic blunder?

au1929 wrote:

The Axis of of evil statement made by Bush during the state of the union speech made for good copy. But was it a diplomatic blunder?

probably didn't change much with l'il kim. he's kinda insecure and beligerant. it did, however, provide him with an excuse to get all huffy, no matter how thin his rationale is.. even if he's the only one buying it.

from what iranian folks here tell me, the axis remark put a pretty good ding in whatever movement was being made away from theocratic rule in iran. that may have happened anyway due to other factors, but making threatening comments doesn't seem to have helped the internal pro-democracy movement there.

all in all, the axis of evil declaration seems to have been helpful to dubya (for a while), but it hasn't solved any problems for the rest of us.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein was obviouly evil throughout his entire adult life, not suddenly.

and the way you deal with evil is to....smile and shake hands with it? (rummy, remember), sell it armaments? give it intelligence data? allow it to purchase from america the chemical constituents used against the Kurds and then withhold criticism when he uses it on them?

"Axis of evil" has the same truth value as "blondes have more fun" or "don't squeeze the Charmin".

You've been sold a product. Perhaps you think that is exaggerated. Andrew Card, on when the war might start... "From a marketing standpoint, you don't roll out a new product in August."

Inability to psychically predict the outcome of every action of ours is not a fault.

Brandon, you insist that I am the imbicile, but perhaps it is the imbicile who needs to be prodded to answer a simple question for 3 pages.
Perhaps the imbicile is the self-proclaimed masterdebater who fails on almost every account to follow proper debating protocol.
Maybe it is the imbicile who resorts to puerile, grade school ad hominems when asked to respond to the question presented in the original posting.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Inability to psychically predict the outcome of every action of ours is not a fault.

Is this your rationale for giving Bush and Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt re the mess in Iraq? Only a psychic would know that adequate post-invasion planning was needed?

Dartagnan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Inability to psychically predict the outcome of every action of ours is not a fault.

Is this your rationale for giving Bush and Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt re the mess in Iraq? Only a psychic would know that adequate post-invasion planning was needed?

If you read my post, you ought to know that I was talking about our relationship with Saddam Hussein in the 80s. Try reading posts before you reply to them.

I do not regard the invasion of Iraq as a mistake at all. At the moment of invasion, based on the totality of our information about Iraq, there was a non-trivial chance that Hussein was continuing to develop WMD in hiding. Only an absolute fool would have put his head in the sand and ignored this moderate chance of an absolute calamity. Diplomacy having failed, Bush was right to invade. Your idea that every war which is difficult is a mess is naive.

Blatham, you have not answered my question.

"The battle this nation is in is a spiritual battle, it's a battle for our soul. And the enemy is a guy called Satan...Satan wants to destroy this nation. He wants to destroy us as a nation and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."

McGentrix wrote:

Blatham, you have not answered my question.

Do you still beat your grandmother? Who is more incompetent, Reagan or Dubya? Is France evil? Are republicans evil? Are democrats evil? Is Halloween evil?

Your question wasn't an attempt to get aid or provoke understanding. It was an attempt, though not intentional, of avoiding complexity.

What on earth can the term "evil" mean? Does it refer, as General Boykin holds, to the footprints of Beezelebub?

Quote:

"The battle this nation is in is a spiritual battle, it's a battle for our soul. And the enemy is a guy called Satan...Satan wants to destroy this nation. He wants to destroy us as a nation and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."

Does it refer to some circumstance (a baby burning in a fire or your cousin being eaten by a grizzley or your neighbors being blown apart in a bombing raid)? Does it refer to some intention held by a self-aware person? Can it be applied to any past British or Dutch or American policy? Any present American policy? Any present American leader? Was Love Canal an "evil"? Are tobacco execs "evil"? Can you imagine yourself in the shoes of a Lebanese computer technician who's wife and children were heat-melted by phosphorous weapons two months ago and now has unchangeable notions about "evil" and who is properly described by the term?

You tell me what "evil" means.

Blatham, do you consider the 3 nations named to be other then evil? If so, what would you consider them?