Setanta wrote:This is true, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it, O'Bill. You just make yourself look a fool to continue to adopt a falsely indignant stance of resentment about characterizations which i never applied to you. You refuted nothing, because i did not at any time claim that all people who might be described as being on the right behaved in that manner. As for "integrity," i was simply addressing the topic of the thread. Get over your silly self.
By singling out Brandon as A2K's only consistent supporter of the war, in a thread that named me specifically in its opening post, your implication was abundantly clear. Hence, my indignation was valid. To the extent your tirade now specifically only includes "some" war supporters and specifically absolves me I have no further qualm with your generic statements. To that end, I have already acknowledged the factual basis of the claim and offered an essentially similar, just as easily verifiable, claim regarding "some" anti war folks. Now that you've backpedaled into a reasonable position, however, your entire point is meaningless insofar as NO ONE has ever argued to the contrary. Not only will I gladly concede that "some people on the right" have changed their justifications; I'll voluntarily concede that water is wet, bricks are hard, and my beloved Green Bay Packers won't be playing in this year's Super Bowl.
One more thing:
Setanta wrote:My point was secure from your whining, O'Bill, no matter what self-righteous and false remarks you may want to make about Snood's integrity.
Why would you deny this complement to Snood's integrity? He, without hesitation, repeatedly, admitted that the target of his accusations was overbroad
as opposed to the denial even while backpedaling I've come to expect from you.
Frank Apisa wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:
Good to see you Frank.
Good to see you
and you, too, Ti!
Quote:Frank Apisa wrote: As part of his defense, Saddam Hussein, on a couple of occasions, indicated that the "toughness" (the free world called it "brutality") he showed was necessary for the stability of the country
was necessary to keep disparate forces in check so that the country could operate in a reasonably civilized manner.
Did that part of his defense make sense?
It does if you think Apartheid was a fine peace keeping compromise. Or, more pointedly, if you saw nothing wrong with 20% of the population dominating the society.
That sounds like a "NO"
but I really want to check. Are you saying you think the argument does not make sense?
Let there be no doubt; that's a NO. I'm not sure how that could be at all unclear. Regardless of disagreements on how best to solve the crisis; I can only assume both camps (as well as the middle) were reasonably disgusted by Saddam's heinous oppression (to the extend they were aware of it at all).
Well, Bill...earlier in this post you spoke of Snood's supposed unwillingness "to acknowledge a perfectly valid point."
I guess the only way to handle this response is to say that that is precisely what you are doing.
Saddam was absolutely correct in what he was saying
that part of his defense was completely valid
and being proved so right now. That does not in any way mitigate against the fact that he was a brutal scumbagh
nor that the means are, in the case, any way justified by the ends. But if acknowledging "a perfectly valid point" really meant anything to you
you would acknowledge this one.
I see what you mean. I hereby acknowledge that yes, Saddam likely had to act in heinous ways to keep his stronghold on his constituency. I don't, however, see the relevance of this acknowledgment. This is like a kidnapper defending the act of imprisoning his victim; by stating that he had to do it in order to restrain his victim. Since such a position does nothing to absolve his guilt; where is the relevance of it's inclusion as part of a defense?
There is no reasonable way one can defend himself against the charge of murder by stating it necessary to retain the power to murder. The Iraqi courts recognized this, and ruled accordingly.
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote: Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:Are the Iraqis better off now than they were with Saddam Hussein?
Was Alice Paul better off behind bars being force fed than she was before she made her protests? Was the United States better off for mounting the Civil War in 1863?
This "seeming to answer without actually answering" is something I've not seen in you before this.
If you really don't want to answer
no problem, Bill
but I really do not understand your response.
Again I'm confused. in 1863 the United States was in the middle of a civil war and it's unlikely many people at that time, here or abroad, thought the Americans were better off than they had been a few years earlier. Sound familiar? It should... because that's essentially where Iraq is today. That a murderous tyrant, or "strong man" if you prefer, delayed the inevitable by means of mass murder, torture and rape, while a minority of like minded people enjoyed the spoils of his oppression, can not and should not be confused with "better off".
The Shia were unfairly oppressed by Saddam. Sunnis may now face the backlash... but a reversal of this tyranny is not an equitable solution, IMO, and being as it was the United States who cut the chains of oppression, I would consider it a travesty if we then turned the blind eye while one tyranny was replaced by another. It may be a long row to hoe, but the only shot these people have of ever living in peace is if they can agree on a compromise that leaves neither living in the chains of oppression. Consider it an idealistic fantasy if you must; but
if this can be accomplished; it may very well serve as a beacon of hope to oppressed people living in other nations dealing with the same issues.
I consider it the height of inconsistency that the peace-nics are the ones who most scoff at the notion of world-peace. In the high-tech world of the future; I believe the likely alternative is world-destruction, so it is unlikely I'll be joining the believers of hopelessness anytime soon.
Frank, I don't find your objection to my Civil War analogy relevant as my point was merely to demonstrate that a "better off" conclusion requires first a conclusion to the action itself, and secondly an opportunity to assess the totality of the results in retrospect. No comparison of justification was intended.
It should be obvious that said totality can not be assessed at this time in regard to the current action (good or bad). Your assessment may well be proven correct, but at this juncture it is merely a prediction as the totality of the consequences are not yet available for assessment. A similar assessment in 1863 would have been equally speculative.
I hit the wall in online poker at about the break even, after paying vig, mark. With the fall of PP, local games have become very common, and I much prefer playing in person. The ability to utilize my professional sales instincts on top of my already proficient ability to calculate my outs and pot odds have improved my winning percentages dramatically.
Not to mention, tipping the house is considerably less expensive than being raked.
I wish you all the best in the New Year and foreseeable future as well!
