Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: are we really afraid?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: are we really afraid? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 10:54:11 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania




I think we need to add your definitions of these terms to Websters, they have the definitions wrong


Main Entry: pol·i·tics
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less /-l&s/ adjective













Me thinks you might have forgot parlimentary procedures (rules of order) as the way to conduct war  LOL

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 10:54:32 AM   
pinkee


Posts: 487
Status: offline 		<states again i like both CrappyDom & SirKenin>  Am i afraid?  well, not in the sense that my life has changed day to day, but yes, i fear the return of the draft, the slaughter of civilians, the postering of no-good politicians, the loss of our troops.......i wish i saw an end to it.  pinkee

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 10:57:13 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
General point.

Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories.


And you know this how? Please offer us a list of terrorists that you know well.
 
Some of the leaders of these groups have said point blank that they are out for the destruction of the west. Without any real evidence to the contrary, past what someone "thinks" ... I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and take them at their word.


If you read what I said, I said as far as I am aware and Osama has said his objective is to drive the west out of the middle east. Yes, I have to admit some get carried away with rhetoric but so does the west but I would imagine even the most fire brand terrorist must realise that destruction of the west is beyond them but getting the west out of the middle east isn't.

Since most of the reasons for terrorism are because of western imperialism and nationalistic and territorial conflicts, I tend to believe the people who say they want the west out of the ME.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/12/2006 10:59:38 AM >

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:01:01 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests.

It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way....

Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me.


ok  now you got it back to opinion and not a statement of fact    Thanks


You still have not refuted my "opinion", which by the way there are very few "facts" when it comes to debate.... philosophy 101.. we cannot debate facts, we can only debate opinions.


I guess you don't want me to honor your opinion and yes we can debate facts.   for example one and one = 3  (11=3)  course my son thought I was nuts when he was learning math till he got into the binary system.  Then he learned that there is more than one way to express or look upon or intrepret facts.   Is the sky blue?  that is what we teach our kids,   but is the sky really blue?   No way to much smog and other junk in it.  but it is a projection of hues and we can debate what they are.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:01:23 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Do I live in the UK or in Canada?... why would I remember their parlimentary rules?

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:03:42 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Um like I said... if you have a problem with my opinion...please state it and not be obscure.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:07:29 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Do I live in the UK or in Canada?... why would I remember their parlimentary rules?


When you go to a meeting do they use some for of rules of order?   Most use Roberts Rules of Order which are parlimentary procedures.  The US Congress has their own set.  So do some other governmental entities.  Most that don't want to sit down and write their own parlimentary procedures just use Roberts and specify the edition so as to help stop confusion because they do change from time to time.

My first Union Meeting I went to because they sent the general membership an agenda that said that we had no say in what the union was doing.   I checked and they used Roberts as their parlimentary point of procedure.  I used that against them and within the first 30 seconds took over the meeting and by the end of the meeting the President, Treasurer and Parlimentarian had resigned.  It is all how we conduct the war.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:08:15 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Crushing Japan did not lead to a failed state ... nor did crushing Germany. For a more period example, crushing the forces of Slobodan Milosevic did not lead to a failed state.


Unless your idea of victory is flattening every country the US doesn't like, military action won't succeed.

Japan and Germany were not allowed to become failed states, the US and allies seemed to have people in power that were had a little more wisdom than the Bush administration had. However, WWII was a completely different war than the so called war on terror. They had a traditional leadership, their social structure was still intact and an educated population that was able to rebuild after the war and were given the resources to rebuild. Afghanistan has not got a central social structure and Iraq has no longer got a central power structure thanks to it being flattened and its power structure disbanded by the US. After WWII, the US and allies had some wise heads in charge, not the imbeciles that now run Washington.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:08:30 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Um like I said... if you have a problem with my opinion...please state it and not be obscure.


I don't have a problem with your opinion.  I had a problem stating it as non-debatable fact.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:14:39 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		I read exactly what you said. You said, "as far as I am aware" ... my point is that you probably are not all that aware, when you really break it down. Neither am I, by the way ... I don't think I know a single Islamic terrorist. All we really have, are our opinions.
 
As far as the reasons for terrorism, being Western imperialism ... that too is only your opinion. Charles Martell, were he alive today, might not agree. There is historical imperialism everywhere you look. Enough to go around, so it seems.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:22:36 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Crushing Japan did not lead to a failed state ... nor did crushing Germany. For a more period example, crushing the forces of Slobodan Milosevic did not lead to a failed state.


Unless your idea of victory is flattening every country the US doesn't like, military action won't succeed.

Japan and Germany were not allowed to become failed states, the US and allies seemed to have people in power that were had a little more wisdom than the Bush administration had. However, WWII was a completely different war than the so called war on terror. They had a traditional leadership, their social structure was still intact and an educated population that was able to rebuild after the war and were given the resources to rebuild. Afghanistan has not got a central social structure and Iraq has no longer got a central power structure thanks to it being flattened and its power structure disbanded by the US. After WWII, the US and allies had some wise heads in charge, not the imbeciles that now run Washington.


You completely ignored the Balkans, which was not flattened, and by all accounts is doing quite well. Japan and Germany were not allowed to become failed states ... you are correct. The same could clearly happen in Iraq ... or not. We really don't know, now do we?
 
You betray yourself with the Bush tirade at the end of your post.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 9/12/2006 11:23:17 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:29:01 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"It's not that other factors aren't worth considering. They have value and can have a huge impact, when applied on top of military strength."
 
.......i tend to agree with that evaluation.
 
"All that was built on top of heavy casualties suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese."
 
........however......was the North Vietnamese army on anything like the same par as the American one? If not, then we have to look at how pure military power lost a war.
 
"Any death is tragic, obviously, but the stark truth is that the casualty count isn't high enough for that intangible to have any meaning to a wide number of people."
 
.........your point works if all the terrorists want is a death toll. However, if that isn't their primary aim, more a side effect, then we have to concede that they may have won a round. What was the aim of bringing down the WTC? Isn't it possible that they may have already achieved it? One can look at public pronouncements from AQ etc.....but that must be seen as propaganda. There was a recent story in the news about a plane load of people who saw a couple of middle eastern people getting on the flight and effectively had them chucked off. Clearly that reaction was born out of fear.....furthermore such fear based reactions polarise people. While we are so polarised we spend so much energy being paranoid about the enemy on the other side of the dispatch box, or that foreign looking bloke down the road,  that we lose sight of the main thing. While we lose sight of the main thing we give our enemies a free go.
Some people have spoken of how they value diversity in opinion, i respect that position very much. However, reaching a consensus is not about squelching dissent. Although it may be like that in less civilised countries. Surely consensus is about bringing all shades of opinion on board, without denying any of them.
 
 

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:45:34 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: caitlyn

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You completely ignored the Balkans, which was not flattened, and by all accounts is doing quite well. Japan and Germany were not allowed to become failed states ... you are correct. The same could clearly happen in Iraq ... or not. We really don't know, now do we?
 
You betray yourself with the Bush tirade at the end of your post.


Let's discuss the Balkens. The Balkens had a problem with themselves and not with anyone else. All the Balken countries apart from Serbia wanted independence and they got it or at least devolved government. Hence, there was a political solution once Serbia got a bit of military persuasion. Even Serbia wasn't 100% behind its leadership so Milosovic didn't have unlimited domestic support. Yugoslavia which was an artificial construct failed but the the Balken states were always intact.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/12/2006 11:46:20 AM >

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 11:49:33 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Philosopy,

caitlyn is a sophist, pure and simple, she dances around things and is simply playing games. 

We flattened Germany and Japan but then we instantly set about rebuilding their economy.  Our dear leader turned Iraq into a lab experiment for their ideas about free markets and have clearly shown they can't even improve a third world country.

One cannot "betray" an argument.  If I said that Bush is a cum eating faggot who prefers the horses of cocks to men and then argued that the sun rose in the East, how on earth can my hatred of Bush "betray" that argument.  I betrays I am biased surely but it in and of itself does not make my argument stronger or weaker, only logic, knowledge, and insight can do that.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 12:10:44 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		The North Vietnamese military was much stronger in that terrain, relative to the United States military ... than the army of Iraq and/or Iran is in this terrain, relative to the United States military.
 
I hope the current round of "United States invented" opponents are not interested in body counts. That would make them very foolish, and as such, nothing to really be afraid of.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 12:22:39 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Philosopy,

caitlyn is a sophist, pure and simple, she dances around things and is simply playing games. 

We flattened Germany and Japan but then we instantly set about rebuilding their economy.  Our dear leader turned Iraq into a lab experiment for their ideas about free markets and have clearly shown they can't even improve a third world country.

One cannot "betray" an argument.  If I said that Bush is a cum eating faggot who prefers the horses of cocks to men and then argued that the sun rose in the East, how on earth can my hatred of Bush "betray" that argument.  I betrays I am biased surely but it in and of itself does not make my argument stronger or weaker, only logic, knowledge, and insight can do that.


And truth and not generalizations

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 12:33:50 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		caitlyn,

I am going to take a chance and assume that when you say "I hope" that what follows is something you actually mean as opposed to whatever it is you then run around saying you meant. 

quote:

  I hope the current round of "United States invented" opponents are not interested in body counts. That would make them very foolish, and as such, nothing to really be afraid of.

 
If body counts aren't important, and only military ability and might is, why exactly did we leave Vietnam and let our enemy take it over?  Or is it that you could really care less how many of America's brave men and woman are killed or maimed on the battlefield?  If body counts didn't matter, why would people use car bombs or for that matter, are you saying that the innocent men and women who died on 9/11 don't matter because it is just a "body count"
 
The occupation in Iraq, the stuggle to bring peace to the middle east and end the hold extremists have on religion has almost nothing to do with military might and far more to do with body counts.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 12:43:51 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Fact: Bush started an unnecessary war, now that is stupid in anyones book. General Schwartzkop said, the US army in Iraq would be like a mamouth in a tar pit. He was not the only military person to question the wisdom of a war in Iraq. The British military did too. Iraq was contained and the war was completely unnecessary. Iran now has a free hand. Bush could have out manouvred both Iraq and Iran if he hadn't commited his forces. Yes, according to Caitlyn's tactics, the US could flatten both countries but what then? Which country next? Which will happen first, will Bush run out of countries to destroy or military to deploy? His policy isn't smart.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 1:04:38 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Um like I said... if you have a problem with my opinion...please state it and not be obscure.


I don't have a problem with your opinion.  I had a problem stating it as non-debatable fact.


Um, why is it that people have trouble understanding that one does not have to frame everything "this is my opinion". I stated an opinion based upon facts that I know of.. If you want to debate that, let me know, but chastising me for the way I frame my opinion is really a moot point... or shall I say... pointless. Most people can recognize a firmly stated opinion when they see one, they do not need it spelled out for them.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: are we really afraid? - 9/12/2006 1:20:09 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		It's not that everyone has to frame everything with the phrase, "this is my opinion" , as much as a realization that some don't agree with the very groundwork from which some posts are made.
 
I'm sorry ... not you, or me, or philosophy, or meatcleaver or Ken, or President Bush himself ... know if our policy in Iraq is a bad one or not ... period. People like you and I, don't even know what the real policy and objective is ... so have no way to judge, past opinion.
 
So, it's not that all posts need to be op-ed pieces, but by the same token, you have to understand that when you start a post with the typical "bash the Bush" speak about how fucked we are in Iraq ... you're going to encounter some people from the same political spectrum as yourself, that are willing to actually let things play out before reaching a conclusion.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 9/12/2006 1:21:44 PM >

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: are we really afraid? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203