RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ...

RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (Full Version)

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

Message

kittinSol -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 2:36:24 PM)
People here have conversations. Sometimes they go well, sometimes they don't. Often, they are fun exchanges, lighthearted and inconsequential. I appreciate most posters' personality quirks, they're part of what makes human relationships, even online, interesting. I like taking a glimpse through another person's eyes, even if I don't have many affinities with him or her. If some posters piss you off, why are you playing this passive agressive game with them? Just tell them like it is, it'll go down a lot better than a bloody Marie on a hangover. Not everybody is worthy and earnest in their discussions all the time, because collarchat isn't a lecture theatre. And alcohol: it's bad for you. Just say no.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 3:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Firm, one of the problems is that we cannot be effective peace keepers, because we are Americans. The peace keepers need to be able to speak the language and understand or live the culture. Iraqi forces must step up, and I am now of the belief that if the country plunges into civil war, then so be it. The people of Iraq need to learn and stumble forward on their own. What I do feel we need to do is address the Iranian issue, and make sure they stay out of it, and stop assisting fighters crossing the border. Not to mention the possibility of nuclear threat from Iran. the strategic positions of those area can be covered via air, unmanned craft and very few troops. Here is some good reading on the subject http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Hain.html Orion, I read the article. It is very interesting in light of the adoption of current US counter-insurgency doctrine in Iraq. I think that doctrine addresses the core (although not all the "gadget madness") of US forces currently there. This doctrine - first and foremost - acknowledges that the battle is won or lost in the population. We seem to be progressing in that area. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 3:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Then I think any objective view must see that there has been no significant progeress. Considering the US's strategic interests in the region are worse now than before the war started. 1. What would you see as significant progress? 2. I disagree about the US's strategic interests being in worse condition than before the war started. I actually think we are in a much, much position than we ever have been. I think the dissonance comes from many people confusing personalities and people with interests and nations. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:05:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Making up reasons for the unreasonable is called rationalisation. And "self-superior" is a term pointed enough to be name calling yet obsucre enough to be essentially meaningless. Ok, Z. I'll bite. 1. What is unreasonable, and what rationalizations are we using to disguise it? 2. "Self-superior" is an apt description of the way that some people think, act, and post. I don't think it is "obscure". I think that Cait and Treasure are simply trying to state an observation without being insulting. Me? I might have used such terms as "smug", "cocksure", egomaniac", "self-important", "self-righteous", "narcissistic", "delusional", "insecure" or plenty of other words that would have given generally the same meaning, yet would have been very much more insulting. Why would you attempt to denigrate someone attempting to communicate an idea with the least amount of personal offense given? Are you hoping that there will be a flame war? Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:06:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I was against the idea of going to war, so if i was to say things seem to be going well ( security wise ), how would that make me a warmonger. Taking into account i have been against it ? Add to that the fact its hard to incite a country to go to war, five years after the event. Because the war is ongoing. Because the will and money to continue the war must be reconsidered from time to time. Because it must be advocated and supported every day or people will decide not to support the war. C'mon, advocacy of the war makes someone a warmonger. That's a dictionary defintion, see: http://www.answers.com/topic/warmonger Exactly how insulting is it supposed to be to call someone that advocates all of this war business a warmonger? If they don't like that description perhaps they could avoid doing the things that are so aptly described by the word as defined. But yeah, that's my fault the language has words like that.

Politesub53 -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:13:07 PM)
But the OP didnt advocate anything, all Firm did was state an opinion of how it was going. Surely a better argument, other than using the word warmonger, would be to dispute his facts ?

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:19:06 PM)
Caitlyn, Email, the other side. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I was against the idea of going to war, so if i was to say things seem to be going well ( security wise ), how would that make me a warmonger. Taking into account i have been against it ? Add to that the fact its hard to incite a country to go to war, five years after the event. Because the war is ongoing. Because the will and money to continue the war must be reconsidered from time to time. Because it must be advocated and supported every day or people will decide not to support the war. C'mon, advocacy of the war makes someone a warmonger. That's a dictionary defintion, see: http://www.answers.com/topic/warmonger Exactly how insulting is it supposed to be to call someone that advocates all of this war business a warmonger? If they don't like that description perhaps they could avoid doing the things that are so aptly described by the word as defined. But yeah, that's my fault the language has words like that. Yeah, well ... your own link gives the pretty much the same definition I used before: A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. Some may even admit that their selfishness includes the lust for war for personal satisfaction. It's an insult, and you know it. Now you are just twisting in the wind. You'd probably just be better off leaving the issue alone, rather than continuing to make yourself look bad. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:25:05 PM)
Personally, I think your advocacy of the war makes you look worse than anything I could say or do. FWIW, the definition given is a lot more pithy: Meaning #1: a person who advocates war or warlike policies You are at pains to insist that the word is purely insulting rather than descriptive.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 But the OP didnt advocate anything, all Firm did was state an opinion of how it was going. Surely a better argument, other than using the word warmonger, would be to dispute his facts ? A closer reading reveals that at first I didn't call him a warmonger. I asked him if he was one. Then the conversation evolved and I decided he was basically a warmonger. Again, not because it's a term of disparagment, but because the term aptly describes his political position on the war.

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Personally, I think your advocacy of the war makes you look worse than anything I could say or do. FWIW, the definition given is a lot more pithy: Meaning #1: a person who advocates war or warlike policies You are at pains to insist that the word is purely insulting rather than descriptive. Certain words are inherently insulting in a culture. I daresay that if I (purely for the sake of illustration) agreed that I was a "warmonger", you'd be throwing it back in my face on any and all posts and threads about the war. And why would you do such a thing? To attempt to discredit my position or opinion. Would you use a neutral or positive word to do that? No. You'd use the most insulting term that Mod 11 would let you get away with. Such as "warmonger" Give it up. You are embarrassing yourself. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:39:44 PM)
You'd be happier somehow if I said you were hawkish or jingoistic?

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro You'd be happier somehow if I said you were hawkish or jingoistic? ahh, now, perhaps, just maybe we can have a conversation. If you called me a "hawk", I likely wouldn't find that insulting, no, although it doesn't really get the nuances of what I believe about the use of force in a military sense. "jingoistic" is another negatively shaded, meant-to-be-insulting word. Firm

SugarMyChurro -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 4:48:27 PM)
As you have made much of this word, I have to ask: Did you vote for Bush? Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you continue to support both wars? Would you support the invasion of Iran?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:31:10 PM)
Firm, at this time in some areas we are progressing but losing ground in others. The problems between the religious factions have been going on for a very long time, and as we are liked more by one we are disliked more by another. As we help one, the other uses it as a way to show we are the enemy. It is a quagmire that cannot be won by the measures that we would normally apply. The cost is going to bankrupt us. I am all for doing what needs to be done, but we must be fiscally responsible about it. I am all for withdrawing not just from Iraq, but all foreign soil and applying the Jefferson theory of "Commerce with all, ally with none." quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Firm, one of the problems is that we cannot be effective peace keepers, because we are Americans. The peace keepers need to be able to speak the language and understand or live the culture. Iraqi forces must step up, and I am now of the belief that if the country plunges into civil war, then so be it. The people of Iraq need to learn and stumble forward on their own. What I do feel we need to do is address the Iranian issue, and make sure they stay out of it, and stop assisting fighters crossing the border. Not to mention the possibility of nuclear threat from Iran. the strategic positions of those area can be covered via air, unmanned craft and very few troops. Here is some good reading on the subject http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Hain.html Orion, I read the article. It is very interesting in light of the adoption of current US counter-insurgency doctrine in Iraq. I think that doctrine addresses the core (although not all the "gadget madness") of US forces currently there. This doctrine - first and foremost - acknowledges that the battle is won or lost in the population. We seem to be progressing in that area. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro As you have made much of this word, I have to ask: Did you vote for Bush? Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you continue to support both wars? Would you support the invasion of Iran? Off topic. You're motivation is suspect. If you want to make a logical, non-insulting argument about how this somehow affects the current situation in Iraq ... feel free. Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:48:30 PM)
Humerous to watch someone make an insult, and then try to convince others that it is not insulting. Insults are perceptions, so how about anyone that believes it was not meant as insulting just pipe up and say so. At best you miscommunicated, at worst you are a liar that is back peddling and not accepting personal responsibility. Typical of many in our society today. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Personally, I think your advocacy of the war makes you look worse than anything I could say or do. FWIW, the definition given is a lot more pithy: Meaning #1: a person who advocates war or warlike policies You are at pains to insist that the word is purely insulting rather than descriptive.

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 6:57:58 PM)
Bush used us as he perpetuated another fraud upon us, just like Johnson when he faked the Gulf of Tokin to get us into NAM, Unfortunately I was all ready there when he did so....To debate the right or wrong leaves us going no wheres,just make sure that we place someone in the white House that won't do it again...I believe we are there for quiet a while and A speedy with draw of our troops would put the middle east in peril but what do I know...bounty

Zensee -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 8:58:55 PM)
As has been pointed out endlessly, KY - bush lied (and lied and lied about lieing and...) to get into Iraq. Defending that by cherry picking possible benefits from a heap or disasters, is rationalisation. As for "self-superior", you confirmed my suspicion that it was a barb wrapped in cotton woool. As for flames, I'm not the one who started a thread with heat written all over it. Z.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: SIGNIFICANT progress ... (4/21/2008 9:02:21 PM)
Zensee, I see many people like to use excuses, rather than accept responsibility for their own actions. Bounty, you are correct but a long war has ill effects on our economy, and right now I am thinking only of my country.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875