|
Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 5:46:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Which makes it extremely difficult to try to reason with either of you (as I've tried several times) - not to get you to agree - but to at least acknowledge that other valid points of view can exist and disagreements on the issue doesn't make someone evil.
Perhaps if you tried the approach of bringing some relevant information to the discussion you would have a better chance at engaging us in a reasoned debate.
Please re-read the sentence that you quoted above.
Done, and your point is?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
The approach you use, to pick one example out of a hat, involves comparing the Civil War with Iraq. You dont bother to provide any sort of relevant comparison, you just lamely opine that there was a musical chairs of generals picked by Lincoln to fight the war and state that the same sort of thing is happening here. You dont say why musical chair generals is a bad thing. You dont give specific examples of generals in the Civil War not allowed to finish out their jobs. You dont bother to make a concrete comparison between a specific general in the Civil War and a specific general in Iraq. You dont clarify how not removing a specific general from their position would have resulted in a different outcome in a specific situation. Additionally, you dont examine and discard information relevant to the situation which would either agree with or disagree with your position.
You are the one with difficulty in following any kind of logical argument. The "Civil War" comments are prime examples. My comment was that I believe that Petraeus can win this war, although I wasn't sure that earlier generals could have.
You brought it up, FirmHandKY. I never mentioned the Civil War. I asked you to clarify the statement, you stated that you are standing behind your True Believerism in the face of the vast amount of educated and intelligent people who write and/or lecture about the problems in Iraq.
quote:
You made the inference that no general has or can make a difference, and no new one or can or will, because Bush is the one picking them. My response was to direct you to another example where a US Commander in Chief played musicial chairs with generals in a conflict, and eventually found the one that won the war.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence.
Who Lincoln picked as general had almost nothing to do with winning the Civil War. What had to do with winning the Civil War was an industrial base, a larger population, and the support of Europe.
Why we lost Vietnam had nothing to do with who the general was. We lost Vietnam because the indigenous population did not want us there, were heavily armed with small arms and never fielded a conventional army against us, and were willing to fight and die to make us leave. Sound familiar?
Why we will eventually lose Iraq has nothing to do with who the general is.
quote:
Simple, but you go off on all kinds of unrelated tangets. Reconstruction? Smart aleck comments about the South? Why? I dunno. You just do that all the time. It's your style of discussion, I think, mixed in with a strong dose of egotism, an ability to miss the obvious and that smug attitude you carry around.
As I pointed out, you are the one that brought up the Civil War.
As I also pointed out, when faced with being asked to explain your position, your approach is to go on the attack.
Whatever works for you.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
But the statements you often make are not overly clear, and what you generally do when pressed is to either go on a personal attack, as you did here, or else provide vast reams of irrelevant data (as you did on the Antarctica ice mass loss thread), possibly hoping that the person will not have the time or the interest in reading it.
Just because you can't understand it, does not make it irrelevant. It just means that you don't understand it.
I understand it quite well. You posted reams and reams of information about computer modelling a situation in response to a comment I made about two satellites determining that ice mass had lowered on two continents over the last 11 years at a rate of 36 cubic miles a year.
So I asked you why you thought computer modelling was relevant to the thread?
Naturally, you went on a personal attack.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Neither of these two approaches qualifies as engaging in reasoned discussion. While I suspect you dont care what I think, I find it tiresome to listen to those who pontificate irrelevant nonsense. Additionally, I pick fights with people for a living; odds you will ever emotionally upset me by posting anything are so small as to escape detection by modern science.
I too have a problem with pontificators and irrelevant nonsense. But I at least attempt to engage people who qualify under both qualifier.
Fair enough, so, the current questions I have asked you are.
1) What is the relevance of computer modelling to the loss of ice mass in Antarctica?
2) What does the Civil War and the choice of generals by Lincoln have to do with Iraq?
quote:
And I'm really tired of hearing about how you "pick fights with people for a living". Maybe you need a new model for your behavior.
Turn the computer off, sign up to run a marathon, organize a bake sale to buy Bush a new tank, take up a new hobby, my interest in whether you are tired or not escapes detection by any known technology currently in use.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Bush has had how many DHS Czar / leader people? Bush has had how many generals over in Iraq? Bush has had how many civilian leaders of the reconstruction of Iraq? Bush has asked for more troops, more money, more resolve, more whatever how many times? The point that NG and I are making is that nothing Bush has done so far has actually accomplished anything to try to stabilize the country. Yet he continues to spout this mindless drivel that we need to go along with him just a bit longer and he will succeed. Unfortunately for him, his track record does not stand up to scrutiny; He has not actually accomplished anything positive in his life or career, and every company or government he has been in charge of has seen a vast squandering of the surplus his predecessors left, become the poster child city for toxic pollutants by corporate scum, and either gone bankrupt or been bailed out by friends from Daddy's Rolodex. I dont know about you, but I fear Bush and his manic desire to speed the world towards it's apocalypse. Perhaps cockroaches, when they evolve for a few million years, will have a better chance of not killing themselves in their hubris and greed for power.
Perfect example of illustrating my early comments about you and NG's point of view. Anyone who doesn't think the way you do are utterly evil and unredemable. As I said, you believe Bush to be:
You have yet to provide any contradictory evidence. What you do is attack me personally.
quote:
1. Stupid,
2. Mentally unbalanced, and
3. Criminal (evil) and chooses his position out of avarice, hatred or petty motives.
No room in your world view for disagreements of principle and intent.
Case in point.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
What Bush has done in Iraq has been to basically change the name of the person who kills, tortures, exploits, etc., the locals from Hussein to Bush. As I have said before, as an American citizen I am frankly ashamed that these things are being done in my name and with my tax dollars. I liked the US worldview from the 1950s and 1960s which had us as a white hatted cowboy riding in to town to save the day. While I can list lots of examples as to why this was a silly viewpoint and not in keeping with how the rest of the world saw the US, I was happy, to pick an example out of a hat, that the United States and Canada were the first rescue workers on the ground to save people when Kobe was levelled by an earthquake. This is the USA that makes me want to salute the flag. The one that Bush is the poster child for makes me want to go live in New Zealand.
As I have also pointed out before, why are those of you true believers in the essential goodness and value of continuing the War in Iraq not putting your own personal safety on the line by going over there and doing what needs to be done to make it happen? If you think I am calling somebody "evil" by suggesting that they go fight a war they passionately believe is a good thing, than you and I are simply going to have to disagree with the definition of the word "evil." I will continue to find it simply fascinating that individuals are so willing to shed other people's blood, as long as they themselves are not inconvenienced. As Erich Marie Remarque pointed out, wars are fought by the wrong people. I can only hope that my words reach one of you True Believers In Bush types and you enlist today to put your money where your mouth is.
As I have also pointed out before, why are those of you true believers in the essential goodness and value of continuing the War in Iraq not putting your own personal safety on the line by going over there and doing what needs to be done to make it happen?
Chickenhawk:
“Chicken hawk” isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.
...
The cry of “chicken hawk” is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of “chicken hawks” ought to be just as dismissive of “chicken doves.”
I did not use use the word chicken hawk, but your dissertation on the subject is fascinating.
quote:
Other points:
The term is an ad hominem, since labeling someone a chickenhawk does not actually address the argument for the use of military force; it is instead only name-calling that attempts to stifle actual debate.
There is a double standard in using the term. Only conservative Republicans who support the war in Iraq are being referred to as chickenhawks even though the term can also be applied to liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton who avoided the Vietnam draft and, yet, as President, ordered troops to Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.
Extending the "chickenhawk" approach into other American political debates would mean that, for example, only police officers (and ex-police officers) could advocate that policemen fight crime.
Interesting dissertation, but I stand by my comment that it is really simple to grind your teeth and scream for more war from the safety of one's Barcalounger.
Perhaps the reason you are upset is because you are projecting your feelings for yourself onto what I post?
quote:
I think that a "True Believer" is what describes you:
mass movements that appeal to the frustrated; people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future and to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a compact collective whole to escape themselves. Some categories of such people are the poor, the misfits, the creative thwarted in their endeavors, the inordinately selfish, the ambitious facing unlimited opportunities, minorities, the bored, and sinners.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
However, I asked you to answer two questions so if you can leave off the personal attacks long enough to actually debate the issue, we can get the thread back on topic.
I suspect you wont be able to, but Hope Springs Eternal.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Maybe one of you will open a book and open your mind and realize that the insanity of the occupation of Iraq is a thousand times worse than the insanity of the occupation of Southeast Asia.
uh huh. Not based on facts, but only on emotion. I'd really like to see your sources on this one.
I post sources all the time. I am surprised you would make the comment that you would really like to see my sources, although I guess I am not overly shocked.
I can only assume from your comment that you did not bother to read any of the sources I have already posted.
Are you suggesting you are unable to research links or turn the pages of a book or magazine?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Perhaps at least one of you will stop and think about the fact that your True Believerism means more people's lives are cut short by death or TBI or whatever and they are brought home to fight another war against the Veterans Administration to get the benefits they thought their enlistment would provide for them. But that is a different thread.
I love my country, but I am ashamed of the government that many of you elected to run the place.
makes me want to go live in New Zealand.
Then I respectfully suggest you apply for your visa.
Knew that was coming.
What is interesting about certain people is they are so out of control of their emotions and postings that one can play them like a Kazoo.
See my post on the asshole classes thread.
quote:
Returning to topic ...
It is people such as yourself, that make my "resolve" even stronger in this issue.
FirmKY
Put your resolve where your mouth is.
www.goarmy.com
www.navy.com
www.marines.com
www.airforce.com
Sinergy
|
|
|
|
