Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
I think the only consensus that is required here is that people see this 'debating' style for the arrogant conceited, self loving twaddle it really is. You do not debate Sir, you disparage. There are distinct differences between the two. I am fine and familiar with the concept of consensus, it is you who initially discounted it and claimed it as a useless commodity. As for verbosity, mine was only matched by your's in your initial post. So if anything I think we are equal asses in that regard. Perhaps indeed it is you that should look up the meaning of the word 'consensus', because in my vocabulary it means working towards a common agreement, with the emphasis on the 'working' part. It takes effort to reach agreement with others, without such agreement the world is always likely to be in a state of conflict. Perhaps that is a world in which you would like to live? It is certainly a view of the world that I am happy to reject.

Further do not presume to tell me what I feel when reading your posts. Generally I feel nothing, other than noting a common form of bigotry and error in much of the things you write. So please do not lecture me about my motivations and I will not lecture you on yours. I have already conceded that agreement between us is at best unlikely. Indeed there is not even a starting point on which any agreement could be founded, since you have clearly stated your belief that attempting to reach a consensus with people of other nations (your 'lessers') is a waste of time. Where is the 'salient point' in this? Why should I attempt reasonable debate with someone with as poisonous an attitude as you appear to possess? You may feel you have credibility Sir, but from my perspective much of this appears only to exist in your own mind.

Also since you know nothing of my politics beyond this one single issue, please refrain from calling me a Liberal. The concepts of European and American Liberals are in any case very different, but that does not make me sympathetic to any of these ideals. My politics on other matters are my own personal affair and you have no cause to question them.

Q

raid stop your whining and sidestepping and go get the defintion of concensus so we can get started. I will show you who is unable to debate.

Jeff, you following this?

ToshiroOC · Feb 17, 2003, 01:38 AM

Its debatable whether the same effect could have been accomplished with the nuclear bombing of targets that perhaps had fewer than 100k civilians in em, or whether simply detonating off the coast as a display of might would have achieved the same effect, whether the firebombing of the CIVILIAN parts of Tokyo could have been avoided, whether Nagasaki had to be bombed such a short time after Hiroshima (before even most of the government higher ups really had any chance to act on the information, or even got the information for a few), and while I do worry about Saddam killing civilians, I think that we can't let things get out of perspective here, and remember that the US has killed more civilians than Saddam has by severalfold.

Falstaff · Feb 17, 2003, 01:41 AM

llets find the shiny penny in the excrement...would the U.N. follow though on Art. 3, Art. 51 and security council resolution 1441? If turkey is attacked by Iraq or anyone else for that matter, this problematic at best, would the U.N. let us all down...again

raid517 · Feb 17, 2003, 02:08 AM

So 3200 civilians murdered is nothing, eh? So the the WTC with 3000 means nothing? "...little or no threat" from saddam.....and this comes on high from who, you? So now you are a geopolitical/military expert? Or just a goofy liberal who has no idea what his "feelgood" expressions really mean.

BTW I am still waiting on you for our reasoned discussion to start (Jeff take note).

And Saddam is in the same league as Stalin and Hitler? Well the total amount that Stalin killed is disputed, but it is generally estimated to be between 3 to 5 million, not accounting for those that died under his reign during the war, which takes the figure closer to 13 million. Hitler's total is closer to 11 million. Saddam on the other hand killed about 250,000 Iranians during the Iran Iraq war, with the full support and military assistance of the USA.

And am I a geo/political expert? No... but you might expect your director of the CIA to be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...808970,00.html

Even he thinks that the idea that Saddam poses any serious threat to the world to be without foundation. Indeed he says that the only way they are likely to pose a threat is if they are attacked first, at which point (since he has nothing to loose) Saddam might be tempted to unleash havoc. So if even your own director of the CIA finds such claims to be lacking in credibility, how are we supposed to accept them?

"So the the WTC with 3000 means nothing"

Lol this just shows how uninformed these arguments are. We had this debate weeks ago, where everybody agreed how dumb an idea it was to associate these two ideas. You like some 75% of the American population believe that Saddam was responsible for bombing the WTC. You seem unable to make the distinction, or lack the intellectual capacity to know that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are in fact not the same person - that indeed it is widely acknowledged that they are sworn enemies. Even the recent tape released by Ossama Bin Laden was a call to the world to unite with Iraq against the west AND the infidel Saddam Hussein. Yet again another false link with terror.

Does this mean that I think Saddam should live? No! I have never said this. All I have ever said is that if you want support in this world you should quit trying to hoodwink the people into believing things for which you yourselves can supply no supporting evidence. While propaganda seems to be the in thing in the USA today, do not expect other nations around the world to swallow this propaganda too. When you try to tell us things that aren't true, or for which there is little or no proof, it is little wonder that we have come to doubt your motives, especially since unlike with your own apparently goldfish like memory, the rest of the world remembers that Iraq was not that long ago your sworn ally. The policy seems insane. My enemies friend is my friends enemies friend, who is also my friend but sometimes can be my enemy??? It is a policy motivated by expediency rather than any firm sense of morality. If your prepared to screw over former friends in pursuit of your current enemies, you are going to make many more enemies than you ever will friends.

But I expect such sensible notions are wasted on you. You appear willing to even disparage those who under certain conditions would afford you their support. Well I trust you and your ultra nationalism/super Americanism will be very happy together. But for as long as people like you exist I will reject you and virtually everything you stand for.

Q

Falstaff · Feb 17, 2003, 02:15 AM

Ultra nationalist and super american, hmmmm, I could get used to that, ha ha...thanx. Now what about the U.N.? can they live up to the charter?

Falstaff · Feb 17, 2003, 02:21 AM

I think RAID517 is trying to slight us. are we "twaddle miesters"

raid517 · Feb 17, 2003, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J.Reb
raid stop your whining and sidestepping and go get the definition of consensus so we can get started. I will show you who is unable to debate.

Jeff, you following this?

Mmm I thought I already did.

Quote:

Perhaps indeed it is you that should look up the meaning of the word 'consensus', because in my vocabulary it means working towards a common agreement, with the emphasis on the 'working' part. It takes effort to reach agreement with others, without such agreement the world is always likely to be in a state of conflict.

And your point is? Maybe you have an alternate definition than this? My feeling is that you will. Perhaps your idea of consensus is to bully, insult arm twist, distort, invent, pressure and generally behave in a threatening manner until everyone agrees with you? If this is the case then it is your idea of consensus that is likely to be warped. Thankfully this does not seem to be quite the whole policy of the USA government, they retain at least some residual notions of civility. But since I cannot speak for you, I can only say that I doubt the same is true in your instance. Many of the views you express are the politics of the cave. Thankfully humanity and civilisation has moved on since then and people with similar views are rapidly becoming a rare breed.

So there you have it. My definition of consensus. Debate away with it as much as you please. For me the meaning will always be the same and narrow perspectives such as yours are unlikely to change this.

Q

raid517 · Feb 17, 2003, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
Ultra nationalist and super american, hmmmm, I could get used to that, ha ha...thanx. Now what about the U.N.? can they live up to the charter?

I think so yes. Given some careful diplomacy, agreement is always possible. Most of it is about massaging egos, with the biggest ego of all bellonging to the US of A.

Q

raid517 · Feb 17, 2003, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
I think RAID517 is trying to slight us. are we "twaddle miesters"

Lol I never forget that this is just an obscure part of a very popular technology based forum. Concequently most of what we say here is likely to be twaddle. All this chatter is likely to change nothing, it is just a good way to vent some frustrations about events that are ultimately beyond our control. That is why I feel no theat from people like J.Reb, because ultimately all this posturing is empty. It is merely a bunch of people shouting in the wind about nothing. One day that may change when people demand more of a say in the decision making processes of their govenments, but that day isn't likely to come any time soon.

Q

ToshiroOC · Feb 17, 2003, 02:42 AM

How disturbingly true, that none of these debates will matter in the end (unless you manage to convince someone to vote differently... but chances are that anyone in these debate forums is going to be equivocal enough about their political stance to allow that is pretty slim...)

The_Neon_Cowboy · Feb 17, 2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Lol I never forget that this is just an obscure part of a very popular technology based forum. Concequently most of what we say here is likely to be twaddle. All this chatter is likely to change nothing, it is just a good way to vent some frustrations about events that are ultimately beyond our control. That is why I feel no theat from people like J.Reb, because ultimately all this posturing is empty. It is merely a bunch of people shouting in the wind about nothing. One day that may change when people demand more of a say in the decision making processes of their govenments, but that day isn't likely to come any time soon.

Q

WOW! I think for the first time I agree with Raid....

scary huh?

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
Its debatable whether the same effect could have been accomplished with the nuclear bombing of targets that perhaps had fewer than 100k civilians in em, or whether simply detonating off the coast as a display of might would have achieved the same effect, whether the firebombing of the CIVILIAN parts of Tokyo could have been avoided, whether Nagasaki had to be bombed such a short time after Hiroshima (before even most of the government higher ups really had any chance to act on the information, or even got the information for a few), and while I do worry about Saddam killing civilians, I think that we can't let things get out of perspective here, and remember that the US has killed more civilians than Saddam has by severalfold.

The Japanese, when they started the war, set the terms of exposure for their civilian populace. In other words, in the conduct of the war they put civilian casualties on the table in Japan as TBD, not us. In our decisions during the war, if civilian casualties within Japan occurred it was because we figured it would save American lives, as by firebombing Tokyo and by dropping the two atomic bombs. As regrettable as it was, if it shortened the war in terms of less Americans killed, appreciably, then it was justified. The estimates were 1.5 million casualties if we invaded Japan. Based on that, it was appropriate.

War is not nice, it is not pretty, it is not civilized. Japan could have chosento surrender considerably ahead of when they did, were they concerned. Look to them for explainations, and begin with Dec 7.

radTube · Feb 17, 2003, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
besides Finnish politics is terribly conservative anyway....it would never work for the USA...

You're surely right. It wouldn't be very wise to apply the same politics to a country of over 200 million people and one of some five or six million...

. But at least we don't have to face angry terrorists. (I have to confess I've never been interested in Finnish politics, nor do I feel the need to agree with our government about everything.)

ToshiroOC · Feb 17, 2003, 04:32 AM

I know it saved American lives, and that it was justified, but there were hundreds of other ways to handle the situation to avoid such massive wanton slaughters of innocent civilians! Detonating just off the shore would have still killed a few thousand, but better that than hundreds of thousands, and I'm sure that the Japanese would have taken the hint. And there was no reason to kill civilians for the fatal mistakes of their non-elected leaders.....

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
So 3200 civilians murdered is nothing, eh? So the the WTC with 3000 means nothing? "...little or no threat" from saddam.....and this comes on high from who, you? So now you are a geopolitical/military expert? Or just a goofy liberal who has no idea what his "feelgood" expressions really mean.

BTW I am still waiting on you for our reasoned discussion to start (Jeff take note).

And Saddam is in the same league as Stalin and Hitler? Well the total amount that Stalin killed is disputed, but it is generally estimated to be between 3 to 5 million, not accounting for those that died under his reign during the war, which takes the figure closer to 13 million. Hitler's total is closer to 11 million. Saddam on the other hand killed about 250,000 Iranians during the Iran Iraq war, with the full support and military assistance of the USA.

LOL. Saddam is just getting started. Give him the WMD he wants and then see how proficient he is. I would be content if the madman is stopped before he killed ANYBODY.

And am I a geo/political expert? No... but you might expect your director of the CIA to be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...808970,00.html

Even he thinks that the idea that Saddam poses any serious threat to the world to be without foundation. Indeed he says that the only way they are likely to pose a threat is if they are attacked first, at which point (since he has nothing to loose) Saddam might be tempted to unleash havoc. So if even your own director of the CIA finds such claims to be lacking in credibility, how are we supposed to accept them?

LOL. You accept CIA info floated into your waiting mouth? I just bet you do. If so, you should have been alarmed about terrorists attacking us years ago, because the CIA certainly rang the bell loudly enough. Of course Clinton shares many of your views, so nothing was done.

"So the the WTC with 3000 means nothing"

Lol this just shows how uninformed these arguments are. We had this debate weeks ago, where everybody agreed how dumb an idea it was to associate these two ideas. You like some 75% of the American population believe that Saddam was responsible for bombing the WTC.

That only shows your ignorance. I know noone who believes that. And I was not here three weeks ago, as I said before.

You seem unable to make the distinction, or lack the intellectual capacity to know that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden are in fact not the same person - that indeed it is widely acknowledged that they are sworn enemies. Even the recent tape released by Ossama Bin Laden was a call to the world to unite with Iraq against the west AND the infidel Saddam Hussein. Yet again another false link with terror.

What false link? One based on my inability to see the names are different? That is what you descend to, that I cannot read, to come up with a point? Who here do you think is not scratching their heads right now?

Does this mean that I think Saddam should live? No! I have never said this. All I have ever said is that if you want support in this world you should quit trying to hoodwink the people into believing things for which you yourselves can supply no supporting evidence. While propaganda seems to be the in thing in the USA today, do not expect other nations around the world to swallow this propaganda too. When you try to tell us things that aren't true, or for which there is little or no proof, it is little wonder that we have come to doubt your motives, especially since unlike with your own apparently goldfish like memory, the rest of the world remembers that Iraq was not that long ago your sworn ally. The policy seems insane. My enemies friend is my friends enemies friend, who is also my friend but sometimes can be my enemy??? It is a policy motivated by expediency rather than any firm sense of morality. If your prepared to screw over former friends in pursuit of your current enemies, you are going to make many more enemies than you ever will friends.

We do not want that madman to have nuclear weapons. We do not want him to have biological or chemical weapons. Is that clear enough? Or should I slow down?

You, as an act of appeasement, would not worry about it until he is on your doorstep lighting the fuse. That to me is the height of stupidity.

Now you remember, he gets 3000 english deaths up front, as that is what is of such small concern to you that happened to the US by other terrorists. He also gets many additional deaths allowed because you poo poo Stalin and God knows who else. So I can't see you getting upset until tens of thousands at least have been killed in England...and presumably you allow greater ratios in other countries with only mild concern. THE US IS TRYING TO STOP ALL THESE DEATHS, get that through your thick skull. There is no reason to give a madman any wiggle room, he is not out to do any of us any good.

But I expect such sensible notions are wasted on you. You appear willing to even disparage those who under certain conditions would afford you their support. Well I trust you and your ultra nationalism/super Americanism will be very happy together. But for as long as people like you exist I will reject you and virtually everything you stand for.

And I expect that blind euro liberals like you will heard across the Atlantic screaming for help if your appeasement approach fails, as it will. As I said previously, that is your history.

Q

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Mmm I thought I already did.

Don't lie. You never posted any definition.

And your point is? Maybe you have an alternate definition than this? My feeling is that you will. Perhaps your idea of consensus is to bully, insult arm twist, distort, invent, pressure and generally behave in a threatening manner until everyone agrees with you? If this is the case then it is your idea of consensus that is likely to be warped. Thankfully this does not seem to be quite the whole policy of the USA government, they retain at least some residual notions of civility. But since I cannot speak for you, I can only say that I doubt the same is true in your instance. Many of the views you express are the politics of the cave. Thankfully humanity and civilisation has moved on since then and people with similar views are rapidly becoming a rare breed.

So there you have it. My definition of consensus. Debate away with it as much as you please. For me the meaning will always be the same and narrow perspectives such as yours are unlikely to change this.

Noone cares what your definition of concensus is. Go to the dictionary and present the standard one which will be accepted by all. And stop your damn lies.

Jeff, take note. He will do anything to avoid a reasoned discussion. As I said, you can never get 5 out of 10 liberals to even participate in such a discussion. That is because they smell defeat, and defeat it surely would be. They are sad creatures.
Q [/b]

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
WOW! I think for the first time I agree with Raid.... scary huh?

Go take your temperature Neon....

Actually what he said is half true, which is a big step up for him. He said that what he has posted here is twaddle. That has been obvious to everyone else for quite some time, but evidentally he has just tumbled to it.

But then he broke the spell by then saying that what I post here is also twaddle. Again hopes for him dim... The world stands waiting....is he capable of learning...of thought, of wisdom, of even common sense? We shall see in the next episode.....

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
I know it saved American lives, and that it was justified, but there were hundreds of other ways to handle the situation to avoid such massive wanton slaughters of innocent civilians! Detonating just off the shore would have still killed a few thousand, but better that than hundreds of thousands, and I'm sure that the Japanese would have taken the hint. And there was no reason to kill civilians for the fatal mistakes of their non-elected leaders.....

Japan did not take the hint, that's why there was a second atomic bomb. Read the history - the military had decided to fight on after the first bomb. After the second bomb, the emperor stepped in - an unprecedented event - or we would probably still be fighting.

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J.Reb
Japan did not take the hint, that's why there was a second atomic bomb. Read the history - the military had decided to fight on after the first bomb. After the second bomb, the emperor stepped in - an unprecedented event - or we would probably still be fighting.

Interesting to note, though, that the Japanese themselves did not grab the opportunity after bomb 1 to save civilian lives. That means they did not place much value on their lives - or at the least that their lives were part of the price the government was willing to pay. Therefore, a bomb offshore would have had no effect.

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 05:25 AM

And there was no reason to kill civilians for the fatal mistakes of their non-elected leaders.....

Did you know that when the heavy bombing of Japanese industry started, that they put production tasks out into private homes? Read up on their airplane industry, for example. That decision was unconscionable, but it does show that the Japanese government was willing to put the civilian lives on the line for possible destruction. They were also arming school children....no, I think you are way off base trying to pin everything on the US.

Everything considered, the US quite possibly made the right decision.

J.Reb · Feb 17, 2003, 05:32 AM

And how is it, as you are examining the Pacific war civilian casualties, that I do not hear you condemning Japan for starting it?? Or the Bataan death march, or innumerable other Japanese autrocities? You go straight to the US as a culprit, are you giving Japan a pass or what?

ToshiroOC · Feb 17, 2003, 05:37 AM

Please, don't start accusing me - Japan was just as bad or worse than America, I'm just taking issue with the fact that so many people seem to be ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussein and Hitler aren't the only mass murderers in recent history (and Saddam isn't even close to most of the more recent ones by several fold...)