Freshly free and liberated Iraqis get their guns taken away

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 10:26 pm

Vetiria wrote:That's not the name of a country.

speaking of modern day, i dunno, 1970 to present, for the sake of the discussion...

Palastine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia...want me to keep going?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 21, 2003, 10:57 pm

You said present day, not 1970 to present.

Israel took over part of Palestine for a short period, in response to attacks. They never sent a full-scale invasion.

Palestine has never invaded another country.

Iraq is controlled by the US.

When has Afghanistan ever invaded another country?

Russia was not a country 20 years ago. USSR and Russia are not the same thing.

Please, list some more.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 11:03 pm

Vetiria wrote:You said present day, not 1970 to present.

Israel took over part of Palestine for a short period, in response to attacks. They never sent a full-scale invasion.

Palestine has never invaded another country.

Iraq is controlled by the US.

When has Afghanistan ever invaded another country?

Russia was not a country 20 years ago. USSR and Russia are not the same thing.

Please, list some more.

i never said present day...US didn't have control of Iraq when it invaded kuwait, i may be wrong with palastine, i'll replace russia with the former soviet union and 9/11 comes to mind when i think of afghanistan. ya i know, al qaeda, etc...but hey /shrug

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 21, 2003, 11:04 pm

wasn't talking about a country in 2000 BC, i was talking about present day earth

Afghanistan did not attack the US. Al Qaeda did. The Taliban tried to protect them afterwards.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 21, 2003, 11:10 pm

Vetiria wrote:
wasn't talking about a country in 2000 BC, i was talking about present day earth
Afghanistan did not attack the US. Al Qaeda did. The Taliban tried to protect them afterwards.

i don't feel like wasting my time anymore...you win, gratz you.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 22, 2003, 1:14 am

As is the end result in any arguement started by Spangaloid.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 22, 2003, 3:35 am

Spangaloid wrote:give it some time, patience is a virtue.

hahahahahah. "Give it some time, patience is virtue" didn't seem to be coming out of any warhappy fucknut mouth in early March. You people really make me sick, from your circular self-contradictory arguments to your hillbilly attitudes. "Pre-emptive strike" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is more detrimental to this world then men in power who do not know how to weild their power.

the US is the only country i know of that will bomb a country to shit and rebuild it when they are done...

That's like saying, "So-and-so is the only person that I know of that will murder people and then pay the family of the victim." You cannot hide a fucking crime against humanity under a veil of altruism. I take that back. It has been proven that you can by Dubya himself.

Nothing the U.S. does now will surprise me. What a lot of you militant bastards don't understand, and probably never will, is that you are NOT better than anybody else. Your race, philosophy, language, religion, and customs are not superior to anybody else's. The fact that you have the power to do what you want doesn't mean that you are doing the right thing. So when you go out and invade a country, the entire rest of the world, save those with no dignity, will look at you the exact same way you looked at Iraq in 1991.

You may not care how you look, but neither did Iraq. You think that it is inconsequential merely because of the power you have amassed, but that is the gravest mistake you can fucking make.

Avestan wrote:I also believe that it is 5000 times more important that we removed an evil person from power than it is that we are helping to defend America. It is very important for me to to have a secure United States, but it is more important to me to see people and regime's like Saddam's destroyed. Not for vengeance, but because it is the right thing to do.

You sir, are a monster. Your priorities are really fucking fubared. I'm sorry but THE most important to me is the safety and security of my family. I have no moral endeavor that precedes this one.

In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq did more to threaten our safety than it did to secure it. We can disagree and argue endlessly about this notion, but only time will tell.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 22, 2003, 4:51 am

Vetiria wrote:name me another country that will "fuck your shit up" in the first place.

DOZENS if it weren't for the fact that they knew U.S. tanks would be knocking on their doors a few weeks later. As much as some of you want to hate on the barbaric U.S. and it's horrible superiority complex, it and it's military strength provide a much needed balance of power in the Middle East and Africa where dictators would cheerfully dismember their neighbors due to race and/or religion if they didn't know the U.S. and it's allies would 'fuck their shit up' for it.
Yep the U.S. does tend to stick it's nose into everything in the world. But for every fuck up, it does many good deeds as well, such as funneling millions in humanitarian aid into countries that spend most of their time complaining about what assholes we are.
If we pull back totally, and leave the world be we'll be accused of being 'isolationist' and draw hostility. If we continue policing the globe we are accused of atrocities against the 'innocent'. It's a no win situation, and if any other country has the funds and feels they can do better, I sure wish they would. We have people starving here that would be thankful for the extra help and wouldn't mind if we took away their rocket launchers.

Heh, something that's really disturbing is people seem to be arguing that pro-Palestinian terrorists are ok because they don't kill Americans. Saddam gave money to the families of these murdering 'martyrs', it doesn't matter if they killed American children or Isreali children, they still killed children. In any case he DID fund terrorism, and if one family anywhere in the world sleeps safer now, it was worth it.

Mumble

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 22, 2003, 12:27 pm

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 22, 2003, 12:41 pm

masteen wrote:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

Holy Shit Masteen Jack Nicholson stole your lines That bastard.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 22, 2003, 12:49 pm

Avestan wrote:I also believe that it is 5000 times more important that we removed an evil person from power than it is that we are helping to defend America. It is very important for me to to have a secure United States, but it is more important to me to see people and regime's like Saddam's destroyed. Not for vengeance, but because it is the right thing to do.

You sir, are a monster. Your priorities are really fucking fubared. I'm sorry but THE most important to me is the safety and security of my family. I have no moral endeavor that precedes this one.

In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq did more to threaten our safety than it did to secure it. We can disagree and argue endlessly about this notion, but only time will tell.

How sir, am I a monster? I am saying we should do what is right and you are saying that we should protect our own before we worry about anymore else. You say time will tell. There has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. It has now been almost two years and I would say we have done a fine job at internal security. You can always say time will tell and eventually something will happen. I think it is absolutely clear that if we had done nothing, something would have happened anyway. I peronsally believe that if we had done nothing, the next time would have been 10 times worse. So don't tell me that I am not concerned about my family, I just believe that as a country we cany ONLY be concerned about our family. You should look into being a libratarian, they have a lot of good ideas and you would fit right in. I just don't agree with their foreign policy ideas.

I believe in confronting the problem and not closing our eyes, clicking our heels, and hoping it disappears. That doesn't make me a monster, but your attitute might make you a coward.

edit: I really do suck at formatting quotes

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 22, 2003, 12:59 pm

Mumblefug wrote:
Vetiria wrote:name me another country that will "fuck your shit up" in the first place.
DOZENS if it weren't for the fact that they knew U.S. tanks would be knocking on their doors a few weeks later. As much as some of you want to hate on the barbaric U.S. and it's horrible superiority complex, it and it's military strength provide a much needed balance of power in the Middle East and Africa where dictators would cheerfully dismember their neighbors due to race and/or religion if they didn't know the U.S. and it's allies would 'fuck their shit up' for it.
Yep the U.S. does tend to stick it's nose into everything in the world. But for every fuck up, it does many good deeds as well, such as funneling millions in humanitarian aid into countries that spend most of their time complaining about what assholes we are.
If we pull back totally, and leave the world be we'll be accused of being 'isolationist' and draw hostility. If we continue policing the globe we are accused of atrocities against the 'innocent'. It's a no win situation, and if any other country has the funds and feels they can do better, I sure wish they would. We have people starving here that would be thankful for the extra help and wouldn't mind if we took away their rocket launchers.
Heh, something that's really disturbing is people seem to be arguing that pro-Palestinian terrorists are ok because they don't kill Americans. Saddam gave money to the families of these murdering 'martyrs', it doesn't matter if they killed American children or Isreali children, they still killed children. In any case he DID fund terrorism, and if one family anywhere in the world sleeps safer now, it was worth it.

Mumble

1. Keep preaching, but that's not what the argument was about.

2. "of you want to hate on the barbaric U.S. and it's horrible superiority complex"
Don't ever say that again.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 22, 2003, 1:01 pm

Masteen's masterful quoting of a hollywood version of a pulp novel about a deranged marine officer drunk on his own autocratic power has ended this discussion.
There's just no coming back from that.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 22, 2003, 1:03 pm

There has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11

'cept the Anthrax and the snipers but hey who's counting?

Post by **Sylvus** » May 22, 2003, 1:19 pm

I can't speak for all of the US, but around here we credit neither the snipers nor the anthrax to terrorism. A few homegrown whack-jobs are all those were.

/edit: I spelled whack wrong =/

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 22, 2003, 1:48 pm

Tanc are you going to argue that either of those had anything to do with this situation? The anthrax originated in the US and the sniper incident was a crime, not terrorism.

If you want to bring something relevant to the table, I am all ears.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 22, 2003, 2:13 pm

Well the sniper was a muslim, no? We won't know about the anthrax til the guy is caught. Either way they're non-conventional attacks on civilians, designed to cause terror and they did. Looks like terrorism, smells like terroism. . .But anyway I agree with Kyou's analysis - there haven't been any major earthquakes either which was a point about cause and effect. I think the reason there have been no spactaculars on the US mainland is because none have been attempted not because your much-vaunted Homeland Security Dept has actually foiled any.

And while we're on the subject does anyone know where I might find out just how much money was donated to the IRA by US citizens via Noraid etc? I'm genuinely curious but not sure anyone kept count anywhere.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 22, 2003, 2:16 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Well the sniper was a muslim, no? We won't know about the anthrax til the guy is caught. Either way they're non-conventional attacks on civilians, designed to cause terror and they did. Looks like terrorism, smells like terroism. . .But anyway I agree with Kyou's analysis - there haven't been any major earthquakes either which was a point about cause and effect. I think the reason there have been no spactaculars on the US mainland is because none have been attempted not because your much-vaunted Homeland Security Dept has actually foiled any.

And while we're on the subject does anyone know where I might find out just how much money was donated to the IRA by US citizens via Noraid etc? I'm genuinely curious but not sure anyone kept count anywhere.

Ask the people that were pumping gas in New Jersey if they were not terrified.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 22, 2003, 2:31 pm

Cartalas wrote:Ask the people that were pumping gas in New Jersey if they were not terrified.

WTF! That is the craziest fucking thing. NJ is the only state where you CAN'T pump your own gas. Why the hell is it illegal to pump your own gas there? Talk about a funny law.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 22, 2003, 3:05 pm

Zamtuk wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Ask the people that were pumping gas in New Jersey if they were not terrified.
WTF! That is the craziest fucking thing. NJ is the only state where you CAN'T pump your own gas. Why the hell is it illegal to pump your own gas there? Talk about a funny law.

Its so they wont be shot.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 22, 2003, 3:22 pm

I think it's because the state passed a law making it illegal to pump your own gas. The law was designed to fight unemployment, and it worked pretty well. NJ had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the union.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 22, 2003, 3:56 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Well the sniper was a muslim, no?

Not all muslims are terrorists. Surprisingly enough, the overwhelming majority aren't!

At any rate, the snipers were caught and are being brought to justice. Good work, Johnny Law.

But anyway I agree with Kyou's analysis - there haven't been any major earthquakes either which was a point about cause and effect. I think the reason there have been no spactaculars on the US mainland is because none have been attempted not because your much-vaunted Homeland Security Dept has actually foiled any.

The earthquake analogy was an exaggeration. I understand the cause and effect message presented, and I disagree with it. There have been numerous reports of Homeland Security hearing this bit or that bit of information or detaining this suspect or what have you. While I'm sure not all of it was credible, perhaps most of it was not credible, if even a fraction of what they told us was true and they helped deter an attack of any magnitude, I'd say that's a success. Certainly they haven't intercepted anyone who was attempting to attack, that's true. But I maintain that they are making it much more difficult for terrorists (see: Al Qaeda, earlier posts) to operate, and that they very well could have prevented or at least delayed, albeit indirectly, more attacks.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 22, 2003, 5:05 pm

Xyun wrote:hahahahahah. "Give it some time, patience is virtue" didn't seem to be coming out of any warhappy fucknut mouth in early March. You people really make me sick, from your circular self-contradictory arguments to your hillbilly attitudes. "Pre-emptive strike" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is more detrimental to this world then men in power who do not know how to weild their power.

I think giving a dictator 11 years to run inspectors and the international community in circles was enough to see that he was not going to comply. You see this as rushing to war, I see this as reluctantly enforcing resolutions.

Tell me, how is a pre emptive strike a logical fallacy? Curious what you mean on that one...

Xyun wrote:That's like saying, "So-and-so is the only person that I know of that will murder people and then pay the family of the victim." You cannot hide a fucking crime against humanity under a veil of altruism. I take that back. It has been proven that you can by Dubya himself.

So removing a brutal, mass murdering, oppresive dictator, while taking just about every opportunity to minimize civilian injuries, is a crime against humanity? Tell me, do you really not give a shit about human rights or is it just something you temporarily put aside when it doesn't happen to agree with your political views?

Comparing what we did to Iraq to what they did to Kuwait.../sigh. Comments like these totally drive people away from whatever point you're trying to make Xyun. No reasonable person could possibly compare the two.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 22, 2003, 6:34 pm

So you invade Iraq for the good of the people but you actively support the SA royals that rape the SA economy. Sadam was like Robin Hood compared to the royal family.

If the US was so concerned for the good of the Iraq people why did it take 30 years for you to remove him. I'll ignore the fact that he was once supported by the US.

The "free the people" line is so full of shit. If the US doesn't find any WMD in Iraq it should beg forgiveness from and pay reparations to all the families that lost loved ones in their imposed liberation.

You may try to twist it so that the invasion was justified to make yourselves feel better.

It doesn't make it true.

The pre-emptive thing is so retarded. Using that line of thinking you could justify 911 as a pre-emptive strike. You can justify anything. Even if you are 100% completely wrong it can still because you *believed* something *at the time*. Imagine a police officer pre-emptively opening fire on you because he thought you could possibly have a gun (after he asked you to prove the non-existance of said gun of course). A child could understand this.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 22, 2003, 6:35 pm

Wow, nice comeback Vetiria, really. I have goosebumps.
But if your little snide remark wasn't meant to insinuate that big bad old U.S. wasn't the only country primitive enough to invade another in modern times, what was it meant as?
For arguments sake, we'll just pretend Syria never attacked Israel, Iran and Iraq have a peaceful history, and Iraq never invaded and annexed Kuwait. Tell me all about life in your wonderful dream world without the agressive U.S. fucking everything up?
EDIT: Oh, and Forthe, you have a great talent for dreaming up 'what if' situations and using them to try to twist the facts of reality. If only we could harness that energy for good use, the royal family of Saudi Arabia could be deposed within a week.

Mumble

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 22, 2003, 7:04 pm

Forthe wrote:So you invade Iraq for the good of the people but you actively support the SA royals that rape the SA economy. Sadam was like Robin Hood compared to the royal family.

I never said that's why we did it. I said I really don't know whether that was one of Bush's or Rumsfeld's, or anyone in positions of power's motives. I said that was one of the things that would happen because of it.

I despise the SA royal family, but I don't think we have any good justification (ie they aren't threats to the world) for deposing them at this time, nor would our government want to. We've had a good relationship with them for decades that has been profitable for both sides. Also, Saddam was 10 times as brutal as the SA royal family (note: I'm not implying that the royal family is full of saints).

I've seen how you regard the whole Israeili/Palestinian situation Forthe. You've even gone so far as to say that groups like Hammas aren't really full of terrorists, they're just freedom fighters. I assume you want Palestinians to have free elections and their basic human rights respected. So why do you feel different about Iraqis? Why didn't you support us intervening in Iraq, even if you disagree with our motives?

Forthe wrote:Imagine a police officer pre-emptively opening fire on you because he thought you could possibly have a gun (after he asked you to prove the non-existance of said gun of course). A child could understand this.

More like a person has already shot one police officer in the past. You've been monitering him over the years since and seen that he hasn't changed his ways and is still trying to aquire more weapons, while you've continued to warn him over and over again and tried persuade him by means other than direct force to give up his pursuit of said weapons and failed. The smart thing to do would be to take him out before he has a chance to kill again.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » May 22, 2003, 10:06 pm

We've had a good relationship with them for decades that has been profitable for both sides

So typical of someone who has their tongue so far up another's ass just so long as they happen to be shitting out gold bricks. You are muddling "good" and "profitable" together.

tinyurl.com/bztk

On my BBC television show, Newsnight, an American journalist confessed that, since the 9/11 attacks, US reporters are simply too afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions that could kill careers: "It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," Dan Rather said. Without his makeup, Rather looked drawn, old and defeated in confessing that he too had given in. "It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often."

Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks.

And if you'll read further down, you'll note that kissing SA royal ass and turning the other cheek whenever the gold brick dons its familiar greenish/blackish/brownish tinge has been the norm since the Reagan era. Like a good lapdog, you'll devour whatever the shit the oil barons will feed you.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 23, 2003, 1:10 am

Mumblefug wrote:Wow, nice comeback Vetiria, really. I have goosebumps.
But if your little snide remark wasn't meant to insinuate that big bad old U.S. wasn't the only country primitive enough to invade another in modern times, what was it meant as?
For arguments sake, we'll just pretend Syria never attacked Israel, Iran and Iraq have a peaceful history, and Iraq never invaded and annexed Kuwait. Tell me all about life in your wonderful dream world without the agressive U.S. fucking everything up?
EDIT: Oh, and Forthe, you have a great talent for dreaming up 'what if' situations and using them to try to twist the facts of reality. If only we could harness that energy for good use, the royal family of Saudi Arabia could be deposed within a week.

Mumble

Read the thread. It was about present day. Not 20 years ago.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 25, 2003, 7:15 am

Brotha you're a fucking neanderthal. I'm sick and tired of making up for your educators' incompetence.

Making war to prevent war is a logical fallacy.

If you don't understand why this statement is true then there is no hope for you.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 25, 2003, 4:36 pm

the point he is making is that making war now, could stop more wars in the future. That is not a logical fallacy, you just have to be able to understand causality a little better.

I am not going to argue that this war stopped others, but calling him out simply for making that point makes you look like the one who cannot understand a train of logic.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 25, 2003, 4:46 pm

Yeah, like killing a serial killer to prevent future murders is a logical fallacy too?

Your arguments are about as shallow as your beliefs. Just sit back and smoke a bowl dood, it's all good

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 25, 2003, 5:44 pm

Avestan wrote:the point he is making is that making war now, ***could*** stop more wars in the future. That is not a logical fallacy, you just have to be able to understand causality a little better.

I am not going to argue that this war stopped others, but calling him out simply for making that point makes you look like the one who cannot understand a train of logic.

You have bought into the fear argument I'm afraid.

Definate war to prevent potential war(s) without proof of an imminent threat isn't logical at all. It would be just as logical to kill anyone that matches the typical profile of a serial killer, to borrow from Brotha. Killing those people now ***could*** prevent killing in the future after all. It would probably thin out this board's member count considerably.

Without proof we have to resort to hypotheticals and fantasy to judge pros and cons. How would you feel if your own life, or those of your family, was being bartered on those hypothetical scales.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 25, 2003, 6:58 pm

Life ain't perfect. People die. It is a good thing to minimize how many people die.

If it turned out that by my death, 100 would be saved, I would like to think that I would make that sacrifice. Maybe you do not feel the same.

The problem is that many people do not have that choice. That is surely a tragedy, but we do not live in an ideal world and those decisions are made for others every day in every society.

The main argument for dropping the atomic bombs was that by killing hunderds of thousands, we were saving millions. I believe that argument, but if you sit around looking for absolute proof, the millions will die and you will never see the chance come again to save those people.

The argument is valid. We cannot do nothing and wait for absolute proof because it will never come, we have to do what we believe is right based on whatever information we have.

When it comes down to it, we elect officials to make educated guesses, because very few things are absolute. If it is decided that they made poor decisions by the people they represent, they do not get re-elected. This is true for the economy, foreign policy, whatever. I believe that our actions were justified, and I do not say that lightly. I know that people lost their lives in this conflict, but I believe that in the long run people and lives were saved. Certainly you cannot simply base all decisions on this criteria alone, and I do not beleive that other wars were averted by attacking Iraq, but in the end, I would make the argument that this war has ultimately the humane thing to do. I do not need to see examples of where a stray bomb or missile hit a house. I am sure these things happened, and I do not take any of that lightly, but you will never see difinitive proof of the people that are alive even today because we DID go into Iraq. Those people are there, and that number will increase as time goes on.

I never heard any of these protests when we went to Bosnia. Certainly lives were saved there because of a war. Do you refute that Bosnia was worthwhile as well?

I just find it difficult to rebuke a point simply because you cannot see past what is videotaped or signed on the dotted line. Ultimately, you have to decide what is right with the information you have, and if you are unwilling to act(or not act) on that information, you will go nowhere and you will accomplish nothing.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 25, 2003, 11:46 pm

Making war to prevent war is a logical fallacy

Brotha, do you refute the truth of this statement?

I'm not talking about serial killers, I'm not talking about Iraq. Look at the sentence and tell me if you think it is true or false. That is all I want to know about you.

Avestan wrote:the point he is making is that making war now, could stop more wars in the future. That is not a logical fallacy, you just have to be able to understand causality a little better.

Causality? Making war now "could" also cause more wars in the future. To base not just a personal philosophy, but the foreign policy of the most powerful nation that has ever existed on a completely self-contradictory statement is at the very least sad and at the most detrimental. The theory itself is completely fucking absurd.

Put that together with the fact that when it comes to world politics, there are no checks and balances. Governing the world should be the task of most if not all of the worlds inhabitants. Within the U.S., people are innocent until proven guilty, but the U.S. doesn't uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why? Within the U.S., there is majority rule with minority rights, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why? Within the U.S., the government uses checks and balances to protect its people, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?

The argument is valid. We cannot do nothing and wait for absolute proof because it will never come, we have to do what we believe is right based on whatever information we have.

This is fucking absurd. Taken to its extreme, this argument says that we should invade the entire fucking world because every single country has the potential and the means to one day attack us. Absolute proof IS the standard, or it was. Anything less is illegitimate simply because as you stated, you are basing your opinion on belief and not fact.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 26, 2003, 12:18 am

Xyun wrote:Brotha, do you refute the truth of this statement?

I'm not talking about serial killers, I'm not talking about Iraq. Look at the sentence and tell me if you think it is true or false. That is all I want to know about you.

That's an incredibly simplistic way to look at things and semantic arguing at its finest. Of course, technically, it can be seen as contradictory, but it makes perfect sense.

I used the analogy to show just how flawed your logic is. Based on what you're claiming, killing a serial killer to prevent future murders makes no sense, but that's clearly not the case.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 26, 2003, 1:32 am

flawed logic?? WHAT FLAW YOU FUCKING MORON????

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 26, 2003, 1:42 am

Making war could cause more war, while not making war could also cause more wars. On the flip side, if you make war now, you can prevent it later, but if you don't make war, then that can also prevent it. There is no right or wrong, it all falls on diplomacy, or lack thereof.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 26, 2003, 1:47 am

Starting a war with Iraq in order to pre-empt a war with Iraq and you are saying that he is using flawed logic?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 26, 2003, 2:21 am

Xyun wrote:flawed logic?? WHAT FLAW YOU FUCKING MORON????

Dude what happened to the peace and love? Did you not get your hourly tokes of weed or something?

I explained why I disagree with the statement you made, I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it...

kyoukan wrote:Starting a war with Iraq in order to pre-empt a war with Iraq and you are saying that he is using flawed logic?

I wasn't debating the merits of invading Iraq or not invading Iraq. I was responding to his general statement that making war to prevent future wars is a logical fallacy.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 26, 2003, 7:34 am

You don't know how to fucking debate. Peace and love towards humans not baboons you imbecile.

technically, it can be seen as contradictory, but it makes perfect sense.

This is logic??? Technically it is contradictory but it makes sense?? You fucking contradicted yourself in 1 sentence and then you have the nerve to tell me I'm using flawed logic?

Based on what you're claiming, killing a serial killer to prevent future murders makes no sense, but that's clearly not the case.

man, you just don't fucking get it. This does not refute my argument. You know why?

CAUSE I'M NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT SERIAL KILLERS--

take my advice, go back to school

Salis · Post by **Salis** » May 26, 2003, 1:49 pm

Sadly Brotha's perception of logic probably goes as far as 'it's that mad shit Spock uses on Star Trek.'

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 26, 2003, 2:13 pm

Xyun,

Absolute proof is not the standard. It never has been the standard. Can you image the gridlock in all walks of life if gevernments, CEO's, and all decision makers decided that would not act on anything without absolute proof? Nothing would get done. On the other hand it is absolutely true that Saddam violated the resolutions set forth at the end of the Gulf War and it is absolutely true that he murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands in his own country.

You claim that he does not know how to debate. I won't refute this, but you are the one blowing your top at every comment. That is not exactly fine debating form either.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 26, 2003, 2:30 pm

you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » May 26, 2003, 3:19 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Not true, being that your in the military you should know that.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 26, 2003, 4:02 pm

Ok Xyun, I was assuming that you were just playing dumb or something to help win an argument. It honestly never crossed my mind that a human being could actually be this mentally retarded. I'll explain it one more time, just for you, although based on the lack of thought expressed in your previous posts you're probably just going to come back with another "omg wtf are you talking about brotha? im too fucking stupid to understand even the simplest of concepts, so im just going to call you an imbecile. oh yeah, and you can't debate either- PWNED!!!!!!."

Making war can (remember we're not talking about Iraq) in the right cases prevent future, more devestating warS (note the plural there. You haven't been too quick to pick up on little things like that so I thought I'd give you a little boost, sort of a quick PL so you can maybe carry on a decent conversation. Of course, like PLing, your other skills are still going to be lacking- such as vocabulary, understanding, and IQ, so it's probably a futile attempt by me).

Making war now can save lives in the future. "but innocents are being killed omg you stupid cowboy jackass." I won't give you a hint this time. The time to graduate elementary school has come, whether or not you're ready for the minitature diploma and pat on the head, however, will be decided by if your next post is something along the lines of "brotha im sorry for arguing with you, from the begining i should have seen how superior your intellect is to mine and i should have just taken it up the ass" or the response that's basically the same as every other post you've ever made- devoid of anything even remotely resembling intelligence.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 26, 2003, 5:13 pm

Trek wrote:
Spangaloid_PE wrote:you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Not true, being that your in the military you should know that.

am i supposed to just throw the entire egg on the grill, shell and all?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 26, 2003, 5:17 pm

No, you can use easy eggs.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 26, 2003, 5:20 pm

wtf is that shit? maybe the cooks know, but i just eat the food, i don't make it /shrug

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 26, 2003, 5:23 pm

Easy eggs are egg substitutes. Whether it is healthier, more morally sufficient, or what have you, I don't know, I don't buy them. But I do know that a great deal of restaurants use them as opposed to real eggs.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 26, 2003, 5:31 pm

Making war can (remember we're not talking about Iraq) in the right cases prevent future, more devestating warS (note the plural there. You haven't been too quick to pick up on little things like that so I thought I'd give you a little boost, sort of a quick PL so you can maybe carry on a decent conversation. Of course, like PLing, your other skills are still going to be lacking- such as vocabulary, understanding, and IQ, so it's probably a futile attempt by me).

Out of curiosity can you name a war that prevented a bigger war? I know it's sort of a logical trap since by the logic you stated the bigger war never happened. However, I'd like you to use hypotheticals to show me a war that prevented a bigger war. I know it can't be conclusive since again as I stated earlier by the logic you used the bigger war never happened, but I want to hear your best example/argument for the logic. Personally I don't see how a war can stop a bigger war, in fact most of the time it just causes more wars to come out in a cause/effect type situation. Kuwait begot the Gulf War which lead to Gulf War II: Revenge of Bush( sorry had to throw that in

). In any case I was just wondering if you could back up your logic with something other than attacks on other posters since that is all I saw in support of your argument.