RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ...

RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 2:12:59 PM)
Oh, don't stop, guys. This was getting good (really).

TreasureKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 2:18:22 PM)
What complete and utter nonsense. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I just think it's odd that you come here to talk about how great it is that we are occupying Iraq as an invading force... Where on earth did you imagine that? Firm said, "...I thought things were going pretty good in Iraq, overall." He also concluded with, " Are things going well in Iraq? Seems to me, while the final result is still open to debate, there are a lot of positives in the mix. More than ever before." Just exactly where was it that he said it's great that we're occupying Iraq as an invading force? By the way, you are using a "straw man" argument here. In the event that you are unaware, a "straw man" argument is the logical fallacy of refuting an extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. In other words, you aren't arguing against Firm's position; you're ignoring what he actually said and substituting a distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented version of his position and arguing against that. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro ...but dislike being called a warmonger when it is factually correct..." Newsflash... your belief in something does not make it fact. And, while you may have found one dictionary definition for warmonger that you believe supports your ideas, I propose that you read it again for what it actually says. One who advocates or attempts to stir up war. Look carefully... It does not say one who advocates (supports, defends, urges, or speaks in favor of) war. It does not say one who attempts (trys, undertakes, seeks, or makes an effort at) war. If you believe it does either, then you are missing three important words... to stir up... as in to incite, instigate or prompt. Now, you tell me... where in Firm's op did he display that he was speaking in favor of or making an effort to instigate a war? quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro It seems to me that you are the one with the problem. Your advocacy of this war puts the blood of thousands on your hands. You agree wholly with every atrocity americans commit over there because you support the war itself, and war is an atrocity. shakes head I'm not even sure where to start with this particular portion of your diatribe. For the most part, it appears to be a overly dramatic attempt to paint anyone whose views differ from your own as evil... sweeping generalization and stereotyping that don't appear to take into consideration individual circumstances. In other words, very narrow and close-minded. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro ...war is an atrocity. I am sure there are those who would disagree with your opinion wholeheartedly. War may not be preferable or even wise, but in some circumstances it is warranted. There are those who feel and truly believe that some things are worth standing up for, fighting for, and yes... even dying for.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 2:30:47 PM)
Damn. I'm glad she's on my side. [sm=hearts.gif] You got anything leaking from those new orifices, Sugar? [sm=bury.gif] [sm=blasted.gif] Firm

ModeratorEleven -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 3:13:25 PM)
Enough, children. XI

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 3:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The point I'm getting at is this: your stated objectives (above) lead me to believe that you will always deem a continued presence to be successful (on balance); in other words, within the framework of your objectives, you'll always suggest "this is the price we pay for the end goal" and that the end goal renders all actions to be the road to success. What you seem to be saying is that "my reasoning" is a circular logical fallacy. That the simple presence of American troops is defined as success, and that any actions that lead to an American presence is therefore justified. How the heck do you get that from anything I've said? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You want to change them to be like you - "self-actualisation" on your terms - and you believe a continued presence is justified in order to save various places. Within the framework of your objectives, you will always believe that actions in Iraq are justified and successful. I'm not sure that you know what "self-actualization" means. Please reference Maslow: Self-actualization — a concept Maslow attributed to Kurt Goldstein, one of his mentors — is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can. Working toward fulfilling our potential, toward becoming all that we are capable of becoming. In Maslow's scheme, the final stage of psychological development comes when the individual feels assured that his physiological, security, affiliation and affection, self-respect, and recognition needs have been satisfied. As these become dormant, he becomes filled with a desire to realize all of his potential for being an effective, creative, mature human being. "What a man can be, he must be"[1], is the way Maslow expresses it. Maslow's need hierarchy is set forth as a general proposition and does not imply that everyone's needs follow the same rigid pattern. For some people, self-esteem seems to be a stronger motivation than love. You have a problem with trying to bring this to the people of Iraq? Firm

Level -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 4:46:09 PM)
quote: Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a "final warning" to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare "open war until liberation." A full-blown uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaida in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. Al-Sadr's warning appeared on his Web site as Iraq's Shiite-dominated government claimed success in a new push against Shiite militants in the southern city of Basra. Fighting claimed 14 more lives in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Let's hope things don't come unwound, progress wise.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 5:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a "final warning" to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare "open war until liberation." A full-blown uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaida in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year. Al-Sadr's warning appeared on his Web site as Iraq's Shiite-dominated government claimed success in a new push against Shiite militants in the southern city of Basra. Fighting claimed 14 more lives in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Let's hope things don't come unwound, progress wise. I think it will escalate, if Al-Sadr wants to keep a prayer of being a force in Iraq for long. He supposedly returned to Iran for consultations (or safety) during the fighting. Not sure where he is now, but he's making it pretty obvious that he is little more than an Iranian puppet. I think he's "army" needs to be eliminated, and I think the Iraq government is showing that they understand that, and have the political will to do it. Making a real nation, where all the different groups, religions and ethnic tribes can coalesce isn't always easy, nor bloodless, but to me, this is the second major indication that it's happening (the first was when the Sunni's decided to join the political process). Firm

Level -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 5:26:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY He supposedly returned to Iran for consultations (or safety) during the fighting. I think it's the latter; he seems to think that martyrdom stuff is for his followers, moreso than himself. [X(]

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 6:16:43 PM)
If someone doesn't favor the war, how could they make statements to the effect that things were going pretty well overall? Please, some reasonableness would be refreshing. I oppose the war - ergo, I think that every minute an American remains in Iraq is a foreign policy disaster. In other words, I don't think things are going pretty well overall. Invading a foreign country on the flimsiest of pretexts is an international crime. [8\|] If you support the war, then you must also agree to support every effect of war. [N.B. And that's for you, Level.] War has a foreseeable cost - it's either worth paying that cost or it's not. There will be collateral damage, things will get out of hand, propaganda will go into overdrive, rapes may occur, children may get killed, etc. All are the foreseeable results of war as understood by us adults that oppose war. There's no "do overs" with war. One atrocity follows hard upon another. People die and that's that.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 6:23:30 PM)
Sugar, So ... you don't subscribe to the belief "you broke it, you bought it"? You believe that the US shouldn't be there in the first place. Got it. This thread isn't about that. The situation exists. The question is whether or not Iraq will succeed and become a nation in which it's people will become a self-reliant, peaceful, and productive member of the family of nations. Your belief seems to be "Fuck em all. Let em kill each other until they sort it out". Have you no interest in justice? No interest in human rights? No interest in women's rights? No belief in self-determination? Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 6:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Have you no interest in justice? No interest in human rights? No interest in women's rights? No belief in self-determination? I am perfectly willing to discuss every one of those questions in terms of the people living within a U.S. jurisdiction. As far as adventuring in foreign lands with those as our guiding principles, not so much. Look at those questions again, and then please tell me what they have to do with a U.S. presence in Iraq. Self-determinism would suggest we leave right now. But you're not really ready to do that are you? To allow others to determine their own fates... Now that S.H. is gone, what other reason could we be there except to attempt to dictate the terms of the peace - a Pax Americana, if you will. Empire. Not worth it.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 6:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Have you no interest in justice? No interest in human rights? No interest in women's rights? No belief in self-determination? I am perfectly willing to discuss every one of those questions in terms of the people living within a U.S. jurisdiction. As far as adventuring in foreign lands with those as our guiding principles, not so much. Look at those questions again, and then please tell me what they have to do with a U.S. presence in Iraq. Self-determinism would suggest we leave right now. But you're not really ready to do that are you? To allow others to determine their own fates... Now that S.H. is gone, what other reason could we be there except to attempt to dictate the terms of the peace - a Pax Americana, if you will. Empire. Not worth it. You failed to answer my key question: Do you believe in "you broke it, you bought it"? You failed to answer, because you couldn't answer it without exposing your position as untenable. If you believe in the "broke, bought" concept, then the US has a moral obligation to redress the destruction. If you don't believe in it, then you are willing to allow millions of people to be thrown into a cauldron of strife and oppression. Either way, your current position is not sustainable from a moral point of view. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 7:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You failed to answer my key questions: Do you believe in "you broke it, you bought it"? You failed to answer, because you couldn't answer it without exposing your position as untenable. No, I didn't answer because I would have thought it was obvious I opposed the war from the first. I didn't say it was good to go, I have wanted us out of Iraq and I still want us out right now. I take no responsibility for the idiocy of people like yourself or the human abyss that is our commander in chief. I didn't break it, and I don't want to pay for it. If you broke it by supporting this war, you fucking fix it - and leave the american taxpayer out of it. You pay the price of being a myopic warmonger! One other possibility exists: this broken state of affairs simply isn't our problem. It's how it was, is, and may continue to be with or without pointless U.S. interference. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If you don't believe in it, then you are willing to allow millions of people to be thrown into a cauldron of strife and oppression. It's a cauldron of strife and oppression right now - under American occupation. It was a cauldron of strife and oppression under our puppet S.H. What's the difference? We could leave and according to you nothing would change except that we save money we cannot afford chasing after resources we don't actually need. As it happens, I do not personally profit from the per gallon cost of gasoline being over $4 USD. So I don't give a fuck about that at all.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 7:20:23 PM)
shrugs You have exposed your beliefs as selfish, uncaring and unprincipled. Since you admit this, I find no common ground with you to continue to discuss this thread's topic i.e. there seems to be significant progress in Iraq. That's not what you are discussing, or are even interested in discussing. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/19/2008 7:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You have exposed your beliefs as selfish, uncaring and unprincipled. Wrong again. I have exposed myself as being respectful of other sovereign nations having the right to govern themselves however they see fit to do so - whether it be a democracy, a monarchy, a dictatorship, etc. I respect other people's right to the fate that they choose for themselves. The U.S. has no right to go anywhere in the world and to dictate terms. And yes, I am little selfish. I care about Americans first, last, and always. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. I don't believe in playing at world cop, I don't want to make the world safe for democracy, I don't support foreign aid, and I don't actually care how others are getting by in the world as long as their suffering isn't because of something the U.S. is specifically doing to them. You talk about self-determinism but to you it is just empty rhetoric, a ploy, a dodge. I do mean it. For real. My caring and my principles extend exactly as far as U.S. borders, and no further.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 6:01:37 PM)
FR: Interesting item in the New York Times today. Seems like the Iranians have conceded that al-Sadr has lost, and they are throwing him to the wolves: Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force BAGHDAD — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters. ... Despite the apparent concession of Basra, Mr. Sadr issued defiant words on Saturday night. ... But it was difficult to tell whether his words posed a real threat or were a desperate effort to prove that his group was still a feared force, especially given that his militia’s actions in Basra followed a pattern seen again and again: the Mahdi militia battles Iraqi government troops to a standstill and then retreats. ... Mr. Sadr’s stock has recently fallen in Iranian eyes, the Iranian ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, on Saturday expressed his government’s strong support for the Iraqi assault on Basra. He even called the militias in Basra “outlaws,” the same term that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has used to describe them. “The idea of the government in Basra was to fight outlaws,” Mr. Qumi said. “This was the right of the government and the responsibility of the government. And in my opinion the government was able to achieve a positive result in Basra.” Firm

stella41b -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 6:13:42 PM)
Things are going well in Tibet too I guess. But that doesn't justify China's occupation. "Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." Lenin

Leatherist -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 6:17:11 PM)
Hitler made things "better" for aryans by killing off other undesirables. Funny how history repeats itself. Even the jews have become nazis-to the palestinains. They are even segregating them in ghetto called "Gaza". When you become what you claim to despise, it is time to look in the mirror.

cloudboy -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 6:33:29 PM)
I've been watching JOHN ADAMS on HBO. One theme of the show is how John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were each preoccupied with betraying the Revolution and or the Constitution. Jefferson's main concern was that the Federalists, who wanted a national bank, a national army, and strong central authority would turn the US into an imperial power along the lines of Great Britain. Adam's great concern was that factious political parties would divide the nation and put party interests before the national interest. The WAR in IRAQ has shown each of these chickens come home to roost. 1) The US has in fact become the imperialist, meddling power that Britain was in the 18th Century. 2) Bush invaded IRAQ to help increase Republican congressional seats in 2002 and to win back the Presidency in 2004. Arguably neither 1 or 2 is in the national interest. ---------- The Reason Firm's post is so, how should we say, laughable, is that the IRAQ war has now lasted longer than WWII and its still such a quagmire that pulling out troops and bringing them home remains a troubling political question. Its a basically a crime against humanity to think of the lives lost and the resources wasted on a badly planned, badly executed, built on lies --- war of agresssion --- that we can't win.

Level -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/20/2008 6:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro If you support the war, then you must also agree to support every effect of war. [N.B. And that's for you, Level.] That's an incorrect statement.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875