RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company?

RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (Full Version)

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

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 10:38:57 AM)
I know it is difficult for you to understand that if someone states that Y is wrong, they should provide X evidence to support that position. According to the rules you set up I can state Columbus never sailed in a ship and did not land in what became America in 1492 and state that in some castle in Spain under a chest there is information that shows this and was kept in a daily log of some other sailor that never even knew Columbus, and this somehow becomes a "fact" that needs no other substantiation... ok, that is the universe you live in, I just do not share it with you.

WyrdRich -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 10:58:44 AM)
My small city contains the World Headquarters of the Flat Earth Society. If I post a link to some of their nonsense, does that make them right? (Actually, I don't even know if they have a website or if that crazy old man is even still alive, but it's SUCH a great example.) Consider the CNN poll we were discussing elsewhere. Facts are subject to interpretation. Edited to add: I went and looked, the name of the group I was referencing seems to have been co-opted by others. Their writings from previous decades had precisely no sense of humor.

Stephann -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 11:12:41 AM)
Mia, quite right. It isn't just about oil. However, oil certainly is a part. How many African nations have people starving, dying in the streets, and suffering bloody revolutions? I don't see the US spearheading any new forays into Somolia. Fact is, that most Americans thought 'Saddam' and immediately pictured 'Osama.' Striking Iraq was a clumsy, adolescent effort to give the American people the illusion that Bush was 'fighting back' against 'those ragheads.' Fact is, The US financial machine relies more heavily upon a stable supply of oil than the German Wehrmacht did. Fact is, that there's more political capital to be gained in drawing a line in the sand, than there is to be building bridges. Iran doesn't directly threaten the United States. Iran represents a growing power within a power vacuum. Did we really expect the Iraqi people, who for decades, if not millennia, have been taught only political fear, to suddenly master democracy? When all you know is war, the only thing you become good at is fighting. The United States hoped to gain an outpost in the middle east, of Iraq. One hundred years ago, as a conquering nation, a puppet state would have been installed. Today, US citizens clamor for 'bring home our troops!' When we leave Iraq, we will have left behind a much stronger Iran, a much stronger Syria, and a very...very angry Iraqi people, ready to join any war against us. And if you were looking at the bombed out rubble that used to be your shop and home, with the mangled bodies of your family, wouldn't you be too? Stephan

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 11:18:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich My small city contains the World Headquarters of the Flat Earth Society. If I post a link to some of their nonsense, does that make them right? (Actually, I don't even know if they have a website or if that crazy old man is even still alive, but it's SUCH a great example.) Consider the CNN poll we were discussing elsewhere. Facts are subject to interpretation. "Facts" presented on a news show have already been interpreted. "Facts" presented in a scholarly work have already been interpreted. Academics generally cite their bias' at some point in their paper, since there really is no such thing as a "true" fact. Any occurrence is viewed from a different point in space by a person who comes with different baggage in their past. An intellectually honest person understands this and checks their sources against other people. Additionally, their work is presented to other people in the hopes that the other people will add to or refute information, offer different opinions on a "fact," provide alternate sources, etc. When several dozen people cite war records showing orders given to a General Amherst to provide blankets from small pox wards to native Americans, one can assume the orders are incorrect or biased. The problem with taking that approach comes when you extrapolate out. Is anything true? Is one simply saying "I have no evidence to support my conclusion, but I know I can rely on my own deeply held inner certainty as proof?" This is my own personal opinion, but I would imagine that is the same sort of logic that Kenneth Lay, Charles Manson, George W. Bush, Pol Pot, etc., used to justify their nutty actions. Sinergy

GentlehandSTL -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 11:25:07 AM)
The answer to the question is: nobody is going to help, in terms of troops. The rest of the world in general and Europe in particular has learned that they don’t have to help. This isn’t a George Bush thing, it’s an America thing going back 50 years (or more) That said, many will help with one hand and curse us with the other. Everyone from Germany to Saudi. US Troops are operating inside both Syria, and Iran interdicting the flow of insurgents and supplies into Iraq. There have been rumors of this for quite some time, and it is logical, but we believe the evidence is strong this time. Of course, we get into problems of definition. If the occasional CIA or SF team gets across the border for a few days, that is troops operating inside the countries, but is of no great import. If however, US forces are regularly conducting these reconnaissances and raids, then this is an entirely different manner. In any event, I approve. They have been at war with us for some time. Its time these two terror-instigating countries were smacked on the hand, and worse Both have highly paranoid regimes, and assuming the reports of US troops are correct, we are certain the effort both regimes are putting into hunting US intruders will be intense and costly. For once it will be the US leveraging a small number of men into creating a big problem for the adversaries. And given the way these regimes operate, their secret services too will be working overtime to protect the regime from imaginary - and perhaps real too - threats from the US. And here’s the kicker…we don’t have to ‘take’ Iran is see it fall. I quick look at their geography, tells you that. And as Iran goes so goes Syria. Once these two and Iraq are ‘done, the rest of the Middle East falls into place.

mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 12:10:34 PM)
This goes back all of 50 years does it? I will tak Savak for 1200 Alex, oh!!! The daily double, I will bet it all.............. So one not often wonders the implications of the patently obvious. How is the current government in any of these 'hostile' countries set in authority? They are elected by blood, plain and simple, tribes war thereand all slights are long standing, lasting more generations than your name will (any man reading) they have this way of the strong siezing and maintaining power (it is kinda a macho thing with them) think of it as the ultimate domination and submission....and they ain't our submissives. If you kill them to a man, they will no more change their ways than you would become a fundamentalist islamic society tomorrow...they will only disappear off the face of the earth....This was the advice of the Jews...and rightly so...there is no truce. Wittness Shah an Shah.... I do not care if you personally militarize a Government of Americans to rule them, or indeginious peoples to do so for a thousand years standing, at the first sign of weakness they will revert to the ways of their genesis..... While on the subject they no more care for american thought or values than a rocket to the fuckin' moon. There was no terrorism upon us first, it is resultant of our interferance in the area. This is akin to a Man enslaving a Lesbian, ain't gonna happen and ain't worth the fight, and everyone goes about their merry way until you force these issues. So, we lack Ku, Fu, Chi, Sui and Ka.......... You must be prepared to commit every atrocity and rule without indulgence for thousands of years to do any good there. They take this shit pretty seriously, and we are just out there fucking around. At this point, saving anything given our level of commitment would consist of gathering the 'insurgents', saying 'we made a big fuckin' mistake, sorry' Hope to trade with you in the near future....'Here, you go' Ron Ron

juliaoceania -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 12:16:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich My small city contains the World Headquarters of the Flat Earth Society. If I post a link to some of their nonsense, does that make them right? (Actually, I don't even know if they have a website or if that crazy old man is even still alive, but it's SUCH a great example.) Consider the CNN poll we were discussing elsewhere. Facts are subject to interpretation. Edited to add: I went and looked, the name of the group I was referencing seems to have been co-opted by others. Their writings from previous decades had precisely no sense of humor. Of course facts are open to interpretation, but one must have some sort of fact to be able to interpret it. Now Columbus arrived in America in 1492, that is a fact. The political, social, and economic motivations surrounding this event can be interpreted and weighted. Sinergy noted that there were several sources for Indians being intentionally infected with diseases, are there sources that contradict or show that there was a different motive for this event? Is stating that in some dusty library there "might" be contravening information contradicting the established facts makes it magically so? I would be laughed at if I stated some outlandish thing like the Statue of Liberty was given to us by the Germans, and not the French at all, as I should be

dcnovice -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 12:32:29 PM)
quote: The term for the invasion of Iraq (detailed in depth in the book "Cobra II") was "Shock and Awe." Sounds like the people in charge of setting it up wanted to instill terror and fear in the hearts of those invaded. Good point, Sinergy. Hadn't thought of it that way.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 12:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GentlehandSTL The answer to the question is: nobody is going to help, in terms of troops. The rest of the world in general and Europe in particular has learned that they don’t have to help. This isn’t a George Bush thing, it’s an America thing going back 50 years (or more) That said, many will help with one hand and curse us with the other. Everyone from Germany to Saudi. US Troops are operating inside both Syria, and Iran interdicting the flow of insurgents and supplies into Iraq. There have been rumors of this for quite some time, and it is logical, but we believe the evidence is strong this time. Of course, we get into problems of definition. If the occasional CIA or SF team gets across the border for a few days, that is troops operating inside the countries, but is of no great import. If however, US forces are regularly conducting these reconnaissances and raids, then this is an entirely different manner. In any event, I approve. They have been at war with us for some time. big problem for the adversaries. Yes, but your problem is that you forget that as a nation of Laws, we have NOT DECLARED WAR on either Iran, Syria, or Iraq. Now, I understand where Bush got the money for current operations in Iraq, but I did NOT see Congress give Bush any money for operations against Iran or Syria. So, that means Bush LIED about what he was going to use some money for, then redirected it WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL to operate against Iran or Syria. I know it's a pain in the ass to follow the Laws of the United States, but that's what makes us the Good Guys.

safodc -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 12:38:49 PM)
Clearly ,the world can not support more than one religion (or more than one race,for that matter) Eventually ,this will take care of itself.We won't be here to see it,but,history demonstrate will keep repeting itself to no end. ALL Religions are a cancer ,so is racism.

WyrdRich -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 1:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Is anything true? Is one simply saying "I have no evidence to support my conclusion, but I know I can rely on my own deeply held inner certainty as proof?" This is my own personal opinion, but I would imagine that is the same sort of logic that Kenneth Lay, Charles Manson, George W. Bush, Pol Pot, etc., used to justify their nutty actions. Sinergy What a terrific example of using selective facts to support a point of view. What happens to it though, if I throw a few names back, say, Galileo, Newton, Columbus or Reagan?

mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 1:22:00 PM)
LOLOLOLOL, Not a goddamn thing, it ain't even in the same galaxy of thought for fucks sake. And I hope you are referring to someone else when you include Regan in that august body. Tacho Brahe

Jack45 -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 2:05:01 PM)
Paul Craig Roberts who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, puts this all in perspective in his latest column.

WyrdRich -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 3:20:21 PM)
Outside the box thinkers who changed the world? I took from the pinnacle of the list, but the principle is the same. Yup, that Reagan. (But I only used him to check a rumor that if we can get you sufficiently worked up, a "2" will start flashing in your avatar's temple)

juliaoceania -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 3:27:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOLOLOLOL, Not a goddamn thing, it ain't even in the same galaxy of thought for fucks sake. And I hope you are referring to someone else when you include Regan in that august body. Tacho Brahe I got a pretty good chuckle at that myself, imagine[:D]

seeksfemslave -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 4:57:55 PM)
First of all Ms JO has switched from my point about Truth and Socio Political statements to what may be called historical facts. The name Columbus re occurs. Ms JO states as a fact that C Columbus arrived in America in 1492. If I state without providing a source that this is untrue , am I wrong ? Further if we were arguing a few years ago and possibly even today, some would say that C Columbus discovered America. If I say without providing a source that this is also untrue, am I wrong ? If historical sources provide contradictory facts, which they do, how other than by experience and personal judgment do we decide which is more likely to be true. If I say that the invasion of Iraq was justified, am I wrong.? If you say, and write a scholarly article , that it was not, and your article is quoted as source material, are you right ?

juliaoceania -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 5:14:30 PM)
quote: Ms JO states as a fact that C Columbus arrived in America in 1492. If I state without providing a source that this is untrue , am I wrong ? Yes, and I will think that you are until you provide some sort of evidence to the contrary. Most will think you are wrong until you provide some evidence they feel they can count on. Now if you want to talk about "What is real?" and assert that what is commonly known as real isn't only based upon your word for it, fine, but that means I have no interest in debating you. The next thing you will say is that AIDS isn't real, and money grows on trees, that is where conversations like these go in my experience, I have no interest. quote: Further if we were arguing a few years ago and possibly even today, some would say that C Columbus discovered America. If I say without providing a source that this is also untrue, am I wrong ? But that was just silliness because there were people already here, but since they were viewing the world through ethnocentric lens, they refused to view the natives as "discovers" that mattered at any rate. Now of course history gets reinterpreted based upon new information, such as sites where the Vikings were foud to be here "first" as far as explorers from Europe, and there may still be others that have yet to be discovered.. but this was found to be so based upon the archaeological record and other records. There was proof, not some random post on a message board. quote: If historical sources provide contradictory facts, which they do, how other than by experience and personal judgment do we decide which is more likely to be true. "If" that is the case I would examine both sides and then I would cautiously align my opinion with the bettter supported side, which would not be some records that supposedly existed in some library. I would have much more reliance on named and dated sources that had been cross compared. quote: If I say that the invasion of Iraq was justified, am I wrong.? If you say, and write a scholarly article , that it was not, and your article is quoted as source material, are you right ? That is an opinion about a historical fact. That is different from denying that the invasion ever took place at all.

MzMia -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 8:10:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GentlehandSTL The answer to the question is: nobody is going to help, in terms of troops. The rest of the world in general and Europe in particular has learned that they don’t have to help. This isn’t a George Bush thing, it’s an America thing going back 50 years (or more) That said, many will help with one hand and curse us with the other. Everyone from Germany to Saudi. US Troops are operating inside both Syria, and Iran interdicting the flow of insurgents and supplies into Iraq. There have been rumors of this for quite some time, and it is logical, but we believe the evidence is strong this time. Of course, we get into problems of definition. If the occasional CIA or SF team gets across the border for a few days, that is troops operating inside the countries, but is of no great import. If however, US forces are regularly conducting these reconnaissances and raids, then this is an entirely different manner. In any event, I approve. They have been at war with us for some time. Its time these two terror-instigating countries were smacked on the hand, and worse Both have highly paranoid regimes, and assuming the reports of US troops are correct, we are certain the effort both regimes are putting into hunting US intruders will be intense and costly. For once it will be the US leveraging a small number of men into creating a big problem for the adversaries. And given the way these regimes operate, their secret services too will be working overtime to protect the regime from imaginary - and perhaps real too - threats from the US. And here’s the kicker…we don’t have to ‘take’ Iran is see it fall. I quick look at their geography, tells you that. And as Iran goes so goes Syria. Once these two and Iraq are ‘done, the rest of the Middle East falls into place. Thank you, this appears to be the way we are heading.

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 9:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Is anything true? Is one simply saying "I have no evidence to support my conclusion, but I know I can rely on my own deeply held inner certainty as proof?" This is my own personal opinion, but I would imagine that is the same sort of logic that Kenneth Lay, Charles Manson, George W. Bush, Pol Pot, etc., used to justify their nutty actions. Sinergy What a terrific example of using selective facts to support a point of view. What happens to it though, if I throw a few names back, say, Galileo, Newton, Columbus or Reagan? Sure. Galileo studied the movement of celestial bodies and was killed (If I remember right) by religious zealots who stated that the Universe could not possibly work the way he said it did. Problem was that anybody that really looked up into the sky and studied it tended to arrive at the same conclusion that Galileo did. Newton studied the movement of objects in space, and ended up developing a new set of mathematics to describe this. Nobody could actually prove that apples do not fall from trees. Columbus ignored what everybody believed and went off and did what he had to do. He brought back things like corn and the like to show the people in Europe. Im not sure what the hell Reagan did, but the last time I got shouted down because I was dissing a great leader. Nobody was willing to actually answer the question of what he actually did, but this did not detract from their perception that he was somehow a great leader. The first three all PUBLISHED THEIR WORK for other people, explaining what they did, and the methodology they used, and waited for people to come back and refute it. The only problem was, nobody could insist Columbus did not sail west and bring back things not found in Eurasia. Nobody could argue that celestial bodies move the way that Galileo stated they did, which proved the Earth rotated around the sun, not vice versa. And nobody could prove that Newton was wrong and apples fall away from the center of mass. Thank you for offering perfect examples that prove my point, WyrdRich. Sinergy p.s. Might want to not use Reagan next time. The list of scientific discoveries he made is rather scant.

dcnovice -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/13/2007 10:02:13 PM)
Notes from a research geek: [:)] quote: Galileo studied the movement of celestial bodies and was killed (If I remember right) by religious zealots who stated that the Universe could not possibly work the way he said it did. According to Wikipedia, he was forced to recant and seems to have been under house arrest, but he wasn't actually killed. quote: Columbus ignored what everybody believed and went off and did what he had to do. Wikipedia again: "In fact, few people at the time of Columbus’s voyage, and virtually no sailors or navigators, believed this. Most agreed that the earth was a sphere." The real debate was about whether Columbus's calculations of Earth's circumference were correct. They weren't; the planet is much larger than he thought. If he hadn't lucked into finding land, he and his men would likely have died at sea. Columbus also believed to his death that he'd reached Asia, not found a new world.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625