We did WHAT!?

[Morgoth]

People who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same.

Fear is a mighty tool. If people get killed just by hesitating about the current government form, they'll get paralyzed, thus can't act. This is not the same as some military occupation from an outside force where you can try to resist with violence, having a brutal regime as your government will make you paralyzed.

 

I suggest you to learn some history.

[random n00b]

Ever hear of history? Do you give the will of the human being such a low regard? If their will is strong and they had enough of being under the boot heels of a tyrant they will rise and remove them by force. American and French Revolutions to name two. In England when the people had enough of the absolute rule of a monarchy, they removed his/her absolute rule so now, they have very little power. Now they have parliament who hold any real power in that country. The people of Russia suffered centuries under the Czars until they had enough and removed the entire family line by force. Only to be replaced by another oppressive system which by the way had been replaced by a less oppressive system.

 

People who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same.

No. In fact, there's more examples of successful oppressive regimes than there are successful revolutions. And the American Revolution is a special case, and a very bad example of what you are saying, at any rate.

 

The Soviet Union, the Third Reich, the Red Khmer regime, the PRC, North Korea, South American Juntas... even Iraq. there's plenty of examples that show just how effective totalitarianism can be, if implemented properly. So effective it's scary, actually. Of course successful revolutions get greatly publicized as a triumph of freedom and the power of the people and stuff... but the grim reality is that most of those attempts are met with an early, brutal end.

 

 

Fear is a mighty tool. If people get killed just by hesitating about the current government form, they'll get paralyzed, thus can't act. This is not the same as some military occupation from an outside force where you can try to resist with violence, having a brutal regime as your government will make you paralyzed.

I think the most important factor is not only fear... but the degree of paranoia caused by the popular support such regimes have. It's difficult to be a revolutionary when your neighbor next door could be a secret police agent... or confidant.

[Walsingham]

The Soviet Union, the Third Reich, the Red Khmer regime, the PRC, North Korea, South American Juntas... even Iraq. there's plenty of examples that show just how effective totalitarianism can be, if implemented properly. So effective it's scary, actually. Of course successful revolutions get greatly publicized as a triumph of freedom and the power of the people and stuff... but the grim reality is that most of those attempts are met with an early, brutal end.

 

If by effective you mean a total waste of time. A totalitarian state subordinates the lifetime output of every man women and child under it into only one thing: sustaining the state. A recursive and pointless excercise. Where a state is subordinated to a single man it becomes even more pointless because the man is guaranteed to die eventually.

 

But back on topic, with this US raid. The US has been pressuring Damascus for action to be taken against jifascists going into Iraq for years. No significant action has been taken, although to be fair there's not much the regime can do when their aparratus is so throughly subverted. So US intelligence presumably finds a training cadre in Syria and sends in Delta Force. I really can't muster much indignation, while terrorism kills hundreds each month in Iraq.

 

Slightly tangentially, I'd have more patience with these discussion if I didn't get the feeling that some people feel there's some magical non-violent way to deal with people who refuse to negotiate. And I don't mean people who pretend to negotiate as a cover for keeping the initiative. If I jump out a window it doesn't mean I'm flying.

[random n00b]

If by effective you mean a total waste of time. A totalitarian state subordinates the lifetime output of every man women and child under it into only one thing: sustaining the state. A recursive and pointless excercise. Where a state is subordinated to a single man it becomes even more pointless because the man is guaranteed to die eventually.

No, I meant effective at what they aim for. Namely, social order, repression of liberties and imposition of an ideology or other by means of opinion control, genocide, systematic rights violations, etc. Controlling the people, in one word. Those are all in an effort towards ensuring that the status quo is maintained, and therefore, the continuation of the institutions and organs of the state is guaranteed. Nobody has argued that the aim of those regimes is the development of humanity and the overall happines of their people, but you can't really deny that they are good at what they do. In that sense, it's not great as far as developing the country is concerned, compared to other systems - but this doesn't imply it's necessarily ineffective as both China and the USSR prove (for a time at least). Edited October 30, 2008 by random n00b

[Epirote]

But back on topic, with this US raid. The US has been pressuring Damascus for action to be taken against jifascists going into Iraq for years. No significant action has been taken, although to be fair there's not much the regime can do when their aparratus is so throughly subverted. So US intelligence presumably finds a training cadre in Syria and sends in Delta Force. I really can't muster much indignation, while terrorism kills hundreds each month in Iraq.

 

Slightly tangentially, I'd have more patience with these discussion if I didn't get the feeling that some people feel there's some magical non-violent way to deal with people who refuse to negotiate. And I don't mean people who pretend to negotiate as a cover for keeping the initiative. If I jump out a window it doesn't mean I'm flying.

 

From the US point of view, it sure was the right thing to do. From Syria's point of view, it was a violation of it's boarders and it's sovereignity. Unfortunaltely for them, there is not much they can do, apart from protesting and bringing the matter to the UN, where it most probably will be vetoed down - unless they want to share the fate of Iraq. On the matter of terrorism in Iraq, there is terrorism and there is resistance and sometimes the lines are blurred. During the German occupation, for example, the resistance in my country was also labeled terrorism or would have been by today's standards.

 

There are no magical solutions to anything, although before invading a country you can always try getting them to the negotiation table with economic sanctions. Seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. And of course, it always depends on the subject of the negotiations. Some things are just not negiotiable, like the sovereignity of one's home country.

 

What gives the US the right to behave as an international police force anyway? Is it because they are the no. 1 superpower and can get away with anything? And why is it that the US applies double standards when it comes to jihad and terrorism? Pakistan, for example, supports terrorism as much as any other muslim country, by allowing fantatic religious schools to teach jihad. Also, how come it's ok for Pakistan or India or Israel to have nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but it is not ok for Iran?

Edited October 30, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

Unfortunaltely for them, there is not much they can do, apart from protesting and bringing the matter to the UN, where it most probably will be vetoed down - unless they want to share the fate of Iraq.

You sure about that, bub? How about policing their own territory and making sure the US have no reason to cross over and make a mess?

 

Oh wait, I forgot. The US weren't really after terrorists - they were bombing towns indiscriminately, for fun. My bad.

 

 

On the matter of terrorism in Iraq, there is terrorism and there is resistance and sometimes the lines are blurred. During the German occupation, for example, the resistance in my country was also labeled terrorism or would have been by today's standards.

I don't know where you're from, but I don't recall any instances of insurgency causing hundreds of civilian casualties by targeting markets during rush hour, in WW2. Might be wrong, though. But even if they were, not only were they terrorists, they were a bunch of cowardly douchebags.

 

edit: just realized you're probably Greek. For some odd reason I was under the impression that you were Argentinian...

 

 

There are no magical solutions to anything, although before invading a country you can always try getting them to the negotiation table with economic sanctions.

What, you mean how Iraq was sanctioned to the point where the "Food for Oil" programme had to be enacted to prevent a mass famine - and even now nobody's quite clear on what exactly did Saddam do with it? Yeah, that approach works real good.

 

 

Some things are just not negiotiable, like the sovereignity of one's home country.

Or the security of another's.

 

 

What gives the US the right to behave as an international police force anyway? Is it because they are the no. 1 superpower and can get away with anything? And why is it that the US applies double standards when it comes to jihad and terrorism? Pakistan, for example, supports terrorism as much as any other muslim country, by allowing fantatic religious schools to teach jihad. Also, how come it's ok for Pakistan or India or Israel to have nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but it is not ok for Iran?

The right is given to them by the American people. They have the ability and the duty to protect their country, and their responsibility is first to the US citizenry, and then to the rest of the world, in that order of priority. Sorry if you don't like how things are, but the US isn't an NGO, nor should it be. Edited October 30, 2008 by random n00b

[Epirote]

Unfortunaltely for them, there is not much they can do, apart from protesting and bringing the matter to the UN, where it most probably will be vetoed down - unless they want to share the fate of Iraq.

You sure about that, bub? How about policing their own territory and making sure the US have no reason to cross over and make a mess?

 

Oh wait, I forgot. The US weren't really after terrorists - they were bombing towns indiscriminately, for fun. My bad.

 

I'm not your bub, ok? sheesh And no, your bad is that you put words in my mouth that I did not say in the context of the attack on Syrian soil. Smear tactics don't work on me ... neither do flamebaits ... And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country?

 

On the matter of terrorism in Iraq, there is terrorism and there is resistance and sometimes the lines are blurred. During the German occupation, for example, the resistance in my country was also labeled terrorism or would have been by today's standards.

I don't know where you're from, but I don't recall any instances of insurgency causing hundreds of civilian casualties by targeting markets during rush hour, in WW2. Might be wrong, though. But even if they were, not only were they terrorists, they were a bunch of cowardly douchebags.

 

edit: just realized you're probably Greek. For some odd reason I was under the impression that you were Argentinian...

 

Would it have mattered, if I were Argentinian? And yes, that's the difference between resistance and terrorism. Doesn't change the fact that to the occupying forces back then all resistance fighters were terrorists. Much the same as in Iraq today ... I agree with you though that there is a lot of terrorist activity in Iraq and most of it is condemnable, because it has no regards for civilian lives. However, there is also a lot of genuine resistance activity and it gets labeled as terrorism.

 

There are no magical solutions to anything, although before invading a country you can always try getting them to the negotiation table with economic sanctions.

What, you mean how Iraq was sanctioned to the point where the "Food for Oil" programme had to be enacted to prevent a mass famine - and even now nobody's quite clear on what exactly did Saddam do with it? Yeah, that approach works real good.

 

As I said: seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. Of course, you fail to even address that, because it is enconvient, may be?

 

Some things are just not negiotiable, like the sovereignity of one's home country.

Or the security of another's.

 

Agreed, though I fail to see how Syria or Iraq threatens the security of the US as a state. In fact, I don't remember the US ever being invaded and occupied for a prolonged period of time; it's always the other way round. I wonder why that is?

 

What gives the US the right to behave as an international police force anyway? Is it because they are the no. 1 superpower and can get away with anything? And why is it that the US applies double standards when it comes to jihad and terrorism? Pakistan, for example, supports terrorism as much as any other muslim country, by allowing fantatic religious schools to teach jihad. Also, how come it's ok for Pakistan or India or Israel to have nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but it is not ok for Iran?

The right is given to them by the American people. They have the ability and the duty to protect their country, and their responsibility is first to the US citizenry, and then to the rest of the world, in that order of priority. Sorry if you don't like how things are, but the US isn't an NGO, nor should it be.

 

I never said that the US was or should be an NGO. And far be it from me to deny them the right to protect their people. But there is a difference between defending your country and protecting your people and playing world wide cop. Also, you completely dodged my question on applying double standards, but that's ok. I didn't really expect anything different from you.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

Smear tactics don't work on me ... neither do flamebaits ...

...or logic and facts.

 

 

And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country?

Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez.

 

 

Much the same as in Iraq today ...

Much the same...? Much the same as when Nazi Germany invaded?!

 

 

However, there is also a lot of genuine resistance activity and it gets labeled as terrorism.

Genuine resistance? Again, against what? Their own democratically elected government? The troops that help keep the peace for that newly formed and fragile government? That's genuine, alright. Genuine terrorism.

 

 

As I said: seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. Of course, you fail to even address that, because it is enconvient, may be?

No, I didn't address it because I thought the Iraq example illustrated it enough.

 

So, pray tell, what has been accomplished with NK? A promise that they will not continue to develop nukes... even after their so-called "test" resulted in an abject failure that seems to indicate that they never had the capacity to do so in the first place?

 

But also, you fail to understand that economic sanctions DO NOT weaken totalitarian regimes - more like the opposite. It's the people who suffer the consequences of economic sanctions, not the state. And since within their boundaries information and opinions are controlled, such sanctions only serve to rally people AGAINST those who enacted the sanctions.

 

 

Agreed, though I fail to see how Syria or Iraq threatens the security of the US as a state. In fact, I don't remember the US ever being invaded and occupied for a prolonged period of time; it's always the other way round. I wonder why that is?

Fortunately, people in charge realize that there are threats to national security that don't need to take the form of a standing army ready to invade. Terrorism is one of them.

 

 

But there is a difference between defending your country and protecting your people and playing world wide cop.

No, there isn't. Really. When your enemies are spread far and wide and hiding behind human shields and hit-and-run attacks their are their standard modus operandi, some policing is in order - especially when the governments of the countries where those terrorists take refuge refuse to take action to clean their own turf.

 

 

Also, you completely dodged my question on applying double standards, but that's ok. I didn't really expect anything different from you.

Funny. Because when it's the US applying double standards, then woe is me. But it's rare to see anyone complaining about the systematic violations of, well, pretty much every regulation on warfare on the part of those they fight against.

 

So, yeah, I'm pretty happy with the US applying double standards... which actually aren't.

Edited October 30, 2008 by random n00b

[Volourn]

"who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same."

 

Living in Happy Fantasy Land, again?

 

 

"And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country?"

 

Oh, come on. That's a lame comparison. And, random n00b has squashed you like a bug on this issue so I'll quyote him so you don't miss his superb answer:

 

Noob wrote: "Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez."

 

Game over.

[Hildegard]

Hildegard makes very good sense.

 

Don't say that Hurl out loud, you'll be tagged a fool by the sole holders of fact and logic on this board.

[taks]

maybe one day you'll have enough fact in your arguments, and you'll develop them with sufficient logic for inclusion into this cabal known as the "sole holders of fact and logic on this board."

 

till then...

 

taks

[Hildegard]

Those 'sole holders of fact and logic on this board' are a nothing but mere metaphoric words for a point of view shared by some people on certain points of view that I would rather drop dead then share.

That's all.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Hildegard

[taks]

you're right, ideological views are much better to hold than those based on... well, facts and logic. i mean, isn't the truth simply a viewpoint? as well as a logical argument? what was i thinking?

 

taks

[Gorth]

you're right, ideological views are much better to hold than those based on... well, facts and logic.

A little ideology every now and then isn't such a bad thing. Otherwise You guys would now have His Majesty King Washington XVIII on your coins instead of (whatever you guys currently have on your coins)

[Meshugger]

you're right, ideological views are much better to hold than those based on... well, facts and logic.

A little ideology every now and then isn't such a bad thing. Otherwise You guys would now have His Majesty King Washington XVIII on your coins instead of (whatever you guys currently have on your coins)

 

A good question really, did the french revolution and the american independence uprising have to do with facts&logic, or activist ideology?

[Epirote]

"who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same."

 

Living in Happy Fantasy Land, again?

 

 

"And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country?"

 

Oh, come on. That's a lame comparison. And, random n00b has squashed you like a bug on this issue so I'll quyote him so you don't miss his superb answer:

 

Noob wrote: "Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez."

 

Game over.

 

 

If it's a game to you, I pity you. May be, randoomn00b just fell into a logical treap, there. May be this reference was there, to provoke this exact answer. And no I don't feel squashed. And it's not a game nor a competition for me. It's a hopefully civil exchange of opinions on an issue of world politics.

[Epirote]

...or logic and facts.

 

Not the logic and facts of a war supporter, no, sorry won't work ... I don't see why I have to bend to your logic and your (mostly fabricated) facts ... sorry, no can do.

 

Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez.

 

Yeah, jeez. Now explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to me.

 

Much the same...? Much the same as when Nazi Germany invaded?!

 

Trust me, for an invaded country and its people it doesn't matter much who the invader is. Go ask an Iraqi who has lost all his family due to indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and report back what he will tell you.

 

Genuine resistance? Again, against what? Their own democratically elected government? The troops that help keep the peace for that newly formed and fragile government? That's genuine, alright. Genuine terrorism.

 

Against the invader, simple as that. If you believe the invaders are liberators and should be greeted with open arms, it's your right to do so, but don't go demanding that everybody should share it and embrace it as the ultimate truth.

 

What is truth?

 

No, I didn't address it because I thought the Iraq example illustrated it enough.

 

So, pray tell, what has been accomplished with NK? A promise that they will not continue to develop nukes... even after their so-called "test" resulted in an abject failure that seems to indicate that they never had the capacity to do so in the first place?

 

When countries negotiate, they usually sign legal binding contracts at the end of them. It is nevertheless undeniable that this is a case where diplomacy did work and the US got what they wanted, at least that's my take on it. You are welcome to disagree.

 

But also, you fail to understand that economic sanctions DO NOT weaken totalitarian regimes - more like the opposite. It's the people who suffer the consequences of economic sanctions, not the state. And since within their boundaries information and opinions are controlled, such sanctions only serve to rally people AGAINST those who enacted the sanctions.

 

I agree that it is the civilian population that suffers most from economic sanctions. The trick is to make the population rally against its incompetent government instead.

 

Fortunately, people in charge realize that there are threats to national security that don't need to take the form of a standing army ready to invade. Terrorism is one of them.

 

Right, yeah, and all that preemptive strike crap alongside that ...

 

No, there isn't. Really. When your enemies are spread far and wide and hiding behind human shields and hit-and-run attacks their are their standard modus operandi, some policing is in order - especially when the governments of the countries where those terrorists take refuge refuse to take action to clean their own turf.

 

And I have to take your word for it, right? You, of course, as the Grandmaster of Logic and Facts don't have to prove anything; you can claim things and expect them to be accepted as the universal, undeniable truth. Doesn't change the fact that an unauthorized police act like that still constitutes legally a casus belli. I'm pretty sure that if the same thing had happened in Greek territory, but by let's say Russian military forces, we would loudly protest and consider it a casus belli. We wouldn't go to war with Russia of course, but we definitely would bring the matter to the UN.

 

Funny. Because when it's the US applying double standards, then woe is me. But it's rare to see anyone complaining about the systematic violations of, well, pretty much every regulation on warfare on the part of those they fight against.

 

So, yeah, I'm pretty happy with the US applying double standards... which actually aren't.

 

... which you actually haven't proved; we [there is no we!] must actually take your word for that ... It's a well known fact of world politics that terrorists and rebel, "revolutionary" armies don't concern themselves to comply with the Geneva Conventions on Conduct during War. Any civilized country and its army, however, should sign said conventions and abide by them. Again explain the toleration of fanatic religious schools in Pakistan, whereas it is a known fact that these religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida and other militant muslim organizations. And boy, do they have a repressive dictator governing them, but I forget, he is a friendly one, he gives the US exactly what it wants.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

Not the logic and facts of a war supporter, no, sorry won't work

Ah... so logic and facts only have value for you depending on who puts them in front of your face, as opposed to their intrinsic value. Yeah, it's all starting to make sense now.

 

 

I don't see why I have to bend to your logic and your (mostly fabricated) facts

Yeah, I mean, why would you take off your blindfold? You're so much better off on Gingerbread Land, anyway. And that way you don't have to deal with the unpleasant feeling of having a different opinion than that of your usual "peace-loving" (who doesn't love peace, anyway?) lot - the only people whose logic and facts matter to you.

 

 

Yeah, jeez. Now explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to me.

What's there to explain?

 

 

Trust me, for an invaded country and its people it doesn't matter much who the invader is. Go ask an Iraqi who has lost all his family due to indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and report back what he will tell you.

But it does. Another ignorant comment which has very little basis on facts - shouldn't expect anything else from you. But, you see, to the Iraqis it does matter, as Saddam was a Sunni dictator who systematically oppressed and brutalised the Shiite majority of the country. Incidentally, the insurgence in Iraq are mostly butthurt members of the Sunni population, which didn't take to kindly to their status reversed.

 

But of course, these facts don't matter to you, because they came from a "war supporter"! Go go rational conversations!

 

 

Against the invader, simple as that. If you believe the invaders are liberators and should be greeted with open arms, it's your right to do so, but don't go demanding that everybody should share it and embrace it as the ultimate truth.

I guess the native Iraqi folks who just happen to be walking in front of the US embassy are to be considered "the invader", seeing how they are mowed down when the embassy is attacked... as are the diplomats and civilian personnel inside. Oh, and the people at the market are "the invader" too.

 

Yeah, there's a degree of subjectiveness in any truth, but you take that to ridiculous levels.

 

 

When countries negotiate, they usually sign legal binding contracts at the end of them. It is nevertheless undeniable that this is a case where diplomacy did work and the US got what they wanted, at least that's my take on it. You are welcome to disagree.

Yes, but we weren't discussing the merits of diplomacy... but the merits of economic sanctions. Starting to lose track, already? Feeling dizzy? Don't worry too much, it's probably the side-effects of having a conversation with someone who isn't a propaganda drone, for once. Edited November 3, 2008 by random n00b

[random n00b]

I agree that it is the civilian population that suffers most from economic sanctions. The trick is to make the population rally against its incompetent government instead.

Oh, wow, that's great! So, how does one implement "the trick"? Don't you think if it was so simple, economic sanctions would work much better than they have, looking at historical results? Nevermind that I just explained HOW they cannot work, in principle.

 

 

Right, yeah, and all that preemptive strike crap alongside that ...

Yup. You're finally starting to get how it works. Perhaps you're not quite as dense as you appear, after all.

 

 

And I have to take your word for it, right? You, of course, as the Grandmaster of Logic and Facts don't have to prove anything; you can claim things and expect them to be accepted as the universal, undeniable truth. Doesn't change the fact that an unauthorized police act like that still constitutes legally a casus belli. I'm pretty sure that if the same thing had happened in Greek territory, but by let's say Russian military forces, we would loudly protest and consider it a casus belli. We wouldn't go to war with Russia of course, but we definitely would bring the matter to the UN.

No, you don't have to take my word for it, as this point in particular is just politics, not logic or facts. Therefore it's ultimately a matter of opinion. I think you just proved you cannot tell the difference betweeen those things.

 

 

... which you actually haven't proved; we [there is no we!] must actually take your word for that ... It's a well known fact of world politics that terrorists and rebel, "revolutionary" armies don't concern themselves to comply with the Geneva Conventions on Conduct during War.

Does this make them exempt from the law, somehow? And if so, please explain how THAT aren't double standards?

 

 

Any civilized country and its army, however, should sign said conventions and abide by them. Again explain the toleration of fanatic religious schools in Pakistan, whereas it is a known fact that these religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida and other militant muslim organizations.

Pakistan has acted in the past against terrorists operating within their borders, and is happy to collaborate with the US on matters of terrorism. I'm sorry that your solution to everything is to bomb schools to rubble, but there's room for other things before that becomes necessary.

 

 

And boy, do they have a repressive dictator governing them, but I forget, he is a friendly one, he gives the US exactly what it wants.

No, more likely it's because Musharraf is stepping down from power and allowing a step by step transition to democracy to take place. You really need to check your facts before making these specious claims.

[alanschu]

"If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually."

 

Stated by somebody whose never had a dictator rule their country in their lifespan.

Volo logic alert!!!

 

Ever hear of history? Do you give the will of the human being such a low regard? If their will is strong and they had enough of being under the boot heels of a tyrant they will rise and remove them by force. American and French Revolutions to name two. In England when the people had enough of the absolute rule of a monarchy, they removed his/her absolute rule so now, they have very little power. Now they have parliament who hold any real power in that country. The people of Russia suffered centuries under the Czars until they had enough and removed the entire family line by force. Only to be replaced by another oppressive system which by the way had been replaced by a less oppressive system.

 

People who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same.

 

 

You realized you picked 3 rich nations right?

[Llyranor]

Hey alanschu, ever hear of history?

[Epirote]

Ah... so logic and facts only have value for you depending on who puts them in front of your face, as opposed to their intrinsic value. Yeah, it's all starting to make sense now.

 

Logic is governed by the rules of the respective scientific discipline. doh Facts, have to be examined, as to whether they are real facts or propaganda lies. doh

 

Yeah, I mean, why would you take off your blindfold? You're so much better off on Gingerbread Land, anyway. And that way you don't have to deal with the unpleasant feeling of having a different opinion than that of your usual "peace-loving" (who doesn't love peace, anyway?) lot - the only people whose logic and facts matter to you.

 

Good one, thanks for making my day. I'm ROFLMAO. I abide by the rules of logic as outlined in the respective scientific discipline. Mostly anyways. And again: there are facts; and there are mass media propaganda lies. The so called fact that the former Secretary of State presented to the UN to get an alliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was a fabricated propaganda lie. Proof: no WoMD have been found since the start of the invasion in Iraq. And that's a widely accepted fact internationally. Yes, you have to take my word for it. or you could google the whole thing and form your own opinion.

 

 

But it does. Another ignorant comment which has very little basis on facts - shouldn't expect anything else from you. But, you see, to the Iraqis it does matter, as Saddam was a Sunni dictator who systematically oppressed and brutalised the Shiite majority of the country. Incidentally, the insurgence in Iraq are mostly butthurt members of the Sunni population, which didn't take to kindly to their status reversed.

 

Hey, what's worse than ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care. And yes, that was a sarcastic remark. Seriously though, it is an internationally widely accepted fact that fanatical religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida. I've seen even the BBC report about it, if I'm not mistaken. And if I find the time, I'll be glad to provide you a link.

 

But of course, these facts don't matter to you, because they came from a "war supporter"! Go go rational conversations!

 

I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. I just question why it was so important to get rid of Saddam, when there are numerous other ruthless dictators around with or without the potential to endanger the security of the US. That's one question you dodge repeatedly. I'm as rational as your next neighbour, or your next forum member here. I was educated in German High School, and there was a big focus on rational and critical thinking. Something you obviously lack. *plonk* Sorry, about that.

 

I guess the native Iraqi folks who just happen to be walking in front of the US embassy are to be considered "the invader", seeing how they are mowed down when the embassy is attacked... as are the diplomats and civilian personnel inside. Oh, and the people at the market are "the invader" too.

 

Yeah, there's a degree of subjectiveness in any truth, but you take that to ridiculous levels.

 

Again, just so you get it into your thick head. There is terrorism in Iraq, which has no regards to civilian casualties, and which is condemnable. The invader is an invading army or more precisely a coalition of allied forces. That's a fact, no way around that. Everything else is bending logical definitions.

 

Yes, but we weren't discussing the merits of diplomacy... but the merits of economic sanctions. Starting to lose track, already? Feeling dizzy? Don't worry too much, it's probably the side-effects of having a conversation with someone who isn't a propaganda drone, for once.

 

Yeah, whatever you say ... *plonk* To impose economic sanctions you will need to employ diplomacy. Am I right or am I wrong? And if you are implying that I am a propaganda drone, you have proved for all to see that you are not capable of having a civil and rational discussion on a www forum. I feel sorry for you. It seems the blindfolds, of which you accuse me wearing them, are fastened tight to your face. End of line for now.

[random n00b]

Logic is governed by the rules of the respective scientific discipline. doh

It's the other way around, actually. Logic is a self-contained system with a set of isolated general principles. Science or partiality have nothing to do with those. But it's good that you admit that logic isn't universal, as it explains your squirming when faced with arguments that you cannot defuse.

 

Any other fundamental misconceptions you need cleared (beside those already discussed)?

 

 

Facts, have to be examined, as to whether they are real facts or propaganda lies. doh

Yep. The only "facts" I've referenced in this discussion are the massacre of Iraqi civilians by the insurgency and the failure of economic sanctions. Those are both well documented. But I guess those, as with logic, aren't universally valid.

 

 

I abide by the rules of logic as outlined in the respective scientific discipline. Mostly anyways.

Yeah, mostly, except when it doesn't suit your purposes. You've made it pretty clear so far, but again it's good that you make an explicit admission.

 

 

The so called fact that the former Secretary of State presented to the UN to get an alliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was a fabricated propaganda lie. Proof: no WoMD have been found since the start of the invasion in Iraq. And that's a widely accepted fact internationally.

Your point? I already conceded that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Stop trying to deviate the attention from the present situation on Iraq. The war ended in 2003. Elections were held in 2005. What you have now is essentially an international peacekeeping force that's under constant attack from sectarian terrorist groups whose aim is to destabilise the country as dictated by their ethnic hatred.

 

 

Seriously though, it is an internationally widely accepted fact that fanatical religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida. I've seen even the BBC report about it, if I'm not mistaken. And if I find the time, I'll be glad to provide you a link.

Yeah, great going there bub. I ask you about ethnic problems as the real underlying reasons for terrorism in Iraq, and you answer with some drivel about islamic schools. Any other irrelevant or incoherent gibberish you want to add? How about talking about the World Cup while you're at it?

 

 

I just question why it was so important to get rid of Saddam, when there are numerous other ruthless dictators around with or without the potential to endanger the security of the US. That's one question you dodge repeatedly.

Yep. I've dodged it repeatedly by answering and talking about it, as much as you wanted. Read the thread instead of assuming what I'm going to write (or not write at all). Edited November 3, 2008 by random n00b

[random n00b]

I'm as rational as your next neighbour, or your next forum member here. I was educated in German High School, and there was a big focus on rational and critical thinking. Something you obviously lack. *plonk* Sorry, about that.

Yeah, it's a shame they didn't teach you to read in that German High School of yours, though. See if you can get your money back.

 

 

Again, just so you get it into your thick head. There is terrorism in Iraq, which has no regards to civilian casualties, and which is condemnable. The invader is an invading army or more precisely a coalition of allied forces. That's a fact, no way around that. Everything else is bending logical definitions.

No. Just because your mind cannot fathom the intricacies of a reality that's not black and white, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Terrorism in Iraq isn't focused solely on "the invader" without regards for civilian casualties. It does specifically target civilians - that's the key difference. Further, their aim is not to expel the Coalition forces, but complete destabilisation, as evidenced by their threats during the 2005 election, and their systematic attacks on local law enforcement units. I know that painting the US as the evil nazis and the Iraqi insurgents as romantic freedom fighters helps shoehorn that ludicrous vision of the world into your malnourished mind, and hey, it's your mind after all - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

To impose economic sanctions you will need to employ diplomacy. Am I right or am I wrong?

You are wrong, as per usual. The Cuban embargo is proof of this. But in most cases, economic sanctions are enacted AFTER diplomacy fails, under the guise of an UN Resolution, in which the target of the sanctions has no say whatsoever.

 

 

And if you are implying that I am a propaganda drone, you have proved for all to see that you are not capable of having a civil and rational discussion on a www forum.

You fail at reading comprehension, miserably. Unless you talk to yourself on a frequent basis, that is.

 

 

I feel sorry for you. End of line for now.

Hey, for somebody who so easily accuses others of not addressing your points, you do that yourself quite a bit, and rather inelegantly, too. Go ahead, you have your work cut out for you. Don't try too hard, though - thinking isn't something you are accustomed to (whatever they taught you at the German High School was most definitely not thinking), and I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. Edited November 3, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorth]

you have your work cut out for you. Don't try too hard, though

Shamelessly taken out of context, the words makes for nice recycling. Looks like it's time for a cool off period and maybe a better planning session on how to post without the snide remarks and personl grievances (goes for everybody)