View Full Version : anti-protest humor with a lot of good quotes (MP3)
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
Sabastian
17-Apr-2003, 06:11
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
My sakes this speaks volumes about the anti war movement. It really says something important. So.... bump. :wink:
i think it says more about the belligerent and arrogant mentality of many of the pro-war people; asking such a loaded question as how not doing something is going to accomplish something is just plain absurd, and berating the person when they stumble on it is downright reprehencable. i also found it rather revolting that the radio guy said himself that he did not want to fight for the cause; yet he was less concerned that then how people will treat him for fighting in the war. that recording is a wonderful example of what the mentality we need to avoid to maintain our status as a civilized society.
RussSchultz
17-Apr-2003, 10:20
i think it says more about the belligerent and arrogant mentality of many of the pro-war people; asking such a loaded question as how not doing something is going to accomplish something is just plain absurd, and berating the person when they stumble on it is downright reprehencable.
Pu-lease. The guy doing the berating was an Iraqi exile. The girl with no answers at all except "bombs are not the answer" had no tie to the situation except her unfailing commitment to push her own agenda on others. I'll let self determination rule any day. If I were the Iraqi guy, I would have been much less polite.
If she's so simple minded about her beliefs that she can't back up her arguments with anything other than a mantra of peace, then she really shouldn't be going on a talk show, now should she?
Once again, if these people are so concerned about human lives, they should DEMAND military intervention instead of protest against it in places like Iraq, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Bosnia, etc. where peace and hugs don't work. Their non answers that lead to inaction only continue the killing, rather than solve it.
Listen to how the girl laughed at him. Why do you think he became irrate? Her in her arrogance had the nerve to tell him what is best for his country.
Pu-lease. The guy doing the berating was an Iraqi exile. The girl with no answers at all except "bombs are not the answer" had no tie to the situation except her unfailing commitment to push her own agenda on others.
please yourself Russ, his history or anything else is an excuse to treat people in such a way; and of course she did not have an answer, the question was unanswerable. he might as well have asked "how can a chicken cross the road if it doesn't move." they backed her into a corner with a loaded question, gave here a whole half sentence before cutting here off to tell here she is wrong, then when she tries to ask a question in response she gets cut off in the middle of it and told to let him speak. also the complaint that she was attempting "to push her own agenda on others" with her words is one hell of a double standard when you are defending people who were condoning warfare to achieve their own.
also Legion, listen to the recording again, she started laughing well after he became irate; it takes a big twist of the imagination to claim that her laughter is justification for him getting irate.
Trawler
17-Apr-2003, 11:06
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi regime was terrible, but there are worse around.
Maybe we should liberate China?
please yourself Russ, his history or anything else is an excuse to treat people in such a way;
You must understand he is irrate because she REFUSED to answer questions. This man has a great deal of experience with the suffering of Iraqi people and was merely reacting to her blatant disrespect for him and his feelings. He didn't start out irrate he beligerance caused him to become that way.
and of course she did not have an answer, the question was unanswerable.
Oh please it has and obvious answer! The answer is leaving Saddam in power COULDN'T help the people as he IS the source of their exploitation Kyleb.
they backed her into a corner with a loaded question, gave here a whole half sentence before cutting here off to tell here she is wrong, then when she tries to ask a question in response she gets cut off in the middle of it and told to let him speak.
Nonsense. She backed herself into a corner by trying to defend and admittedly indefensible position!
He had every right to cut her off. She was bsing him and that much was obvious. She was avoiding answering the question. If should couldn't answer it the respectful reply is "I can't answer that question."
also the complaint that she was attempting "to push her own agenda on others" with her words is one hell of a double standard when you are defending people who were condoning warfare to achieve their own.
THe only person expressing mantra was here. Like a record she kept falling back on her anti-war mantra to justify her position.
What is wrong with the agenda of freeing people enslaved by a tyrant?
also Legion, listen to the recording again, she started laughing well after he became irate; it takes a big twist of the imagination to claim that her laughter is justification for him getting irate.
She refused to answer his question! Then she turned to laughing at him which only made it worse and of course she knew this.
The interviewer was correct she was coming accross like a 9 year old.
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
Is it possible there may be multiple reasons or must there be only one :?:
The Iraqi regime was terrible, but there are worse around.
Being that it was bad it was good to remove it...sounds logical...i guess since there are worse dictatorships removing one bad dictatorship but not ultimately the worst one isn't a good thing?
Maybe we should liberate China?
And what part of we does your country (australia?) represent?
Crusher
17-Apr-2003, 11:32
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
It's more damage control than anything... people are less opposed to removing Saddam in order to free the Iraqi people, than they are to removing Saddam because he poses a security threat to America. Bottom line is that this is turning out to be a Good Thing™, despite all the protests and fears going into it.
Trawler
17-Apr-2003, 11:49
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
It's more damage control than anything... people are less opposed to removing Saddam in order to free the Iraqi people, than they are to removing Saddam because he poses a security threat to America.
I disagree. If the US could prove that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use them, I doubt there would be anywhere near the amount of resistance to the war than there has been.
Bottom line is that this is turning out to be a Good Thing™, despite all the protests and fears going into it.
I have no doubt that removing Saddam from power is a good thing, heck it's an excellent thing. I'm concerned about what may happen in Iraq and the region moving forward, but that's a different topic. Let's hope for the best!
My problem being is that we've set a very dangerous precedent. By bypassing the UN the coalition has paved the way for further military action without seeking backing from the security council.
Trawler
17-Apr-2003, 12:05
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
Is it possible there may be multiple reasons or must there be only one :?:
No probs with multiple reasons.
The Iraqi regime was terrible, but there are worse around.
Being that it was bad it was good to remove it...sounds logical...i guess since there are worse dictatorships removing one bad dictatorship but not ultimately the worst one isn't a good thing?
Not at all.
I'm concerned that public opinion is trying to be galvanised, so that if we don't find any WMD in Iraq, it doesn't really matter cause we helped out those poor Iraqis.
Do you think we're going to find WMD in Iraq?
Maybe we should liberate China?
And what part of we does your country (australia?) represent?
A small, mostly token part. I believe we had a few F18s and F111s operating in Iraq. The SAS was operating in Western Iraq, and I we had a support ship based off the coast (apparently, the first shipment of medical aid to Baghdad came from this ship).
Where America goes, Australia will follow. That much is certain.
Lezmaka
17-Apr-2003, 12:48
My problem being is that we've set a very dangerous precedent. By bypassing the UN the coalition has paved the way for further military action without seeking backing from the security council.
The UN has been bypassed in the past, this certainly isn't the first time.
No probs with multiple reasons.
Just checking
Not at all.
I'm concerned that public opinion is trying to be galvanised, so that if we don't find any WMD in Iraq, it doesn't really matter cause we helped out those poor Iraqis.
You don't need to worry. Many have already made up their minds. Trust me the leftist quacks will use this to try and bulster their mantra for years to come regardless of its outcome.
We don't NEED to find WMD. Iraq was already in violation of articles of geneva convention, 1143, and 1441 if i am not mistaken. Their reluctancy to aid us was warned against years ago as we threatened severe punishment for refusing to adhere to the mandates.
Remember we had a CEASE FIRE with Iraq. The reason that Saddam is still in power is the fault of the convoluted "peace practices" of the UN which of course aided this man to further exploit his populace allowing more to die. If you think the "peace" processes in Iraq have aided its populace think again.
Ongoing peaceful negotiations with Iraq have turned up fruitless.
Do youhonstly believe the French are interested in "peace" in Iraq? If so I must say i am puzzled. France has been trading technologies for oil control for years now (even before the Oil4food act). Saddam owes the french a lot of money. I you question the US' motives then with information such as this you ought also question France's.
Do you think we're going to find WMD in Iraq?
This isn't all about WMD.
There are a long list of this he isn't allowed to have
1. Long Range Missles
2. certain chemical precussors
3. nuclear materials of various grades
etc
Do i think we will find WMD? Yes i do. IIRC we have already found SCUDs were are only one of the various types of weapons he was not allowed to have.
I believe we had a few F18s and F111s operating in Iraq. The SAS was operating in Western Iraq, and I we had a support ship based off the coast (apparently, the first shipment of medical aid to Baghdad came from this ship).
Where America goes, Australia will follow. That much is certain.
You aren't capable of putting up an offensive against China. If you were able to gather the support of Taiwan and Japan i think you all could be able to put up a good front againts subs and ships off the coasts of japan or even starting from military bases from the Philopeans
My problem being is that we've set a very dangerous precedent. By bypassing the UN the coalition has paved the way for further military action without seeking backing from the security council.
The UN has been bypassed in the past, this certainly isn't the first time.
I agree emphatically. The UN is an invalid impotent organization. It has done very little good for the world. Much of what has benefited others has come at the cost of US support. To many of the nations backing the UN are militarily incapable of enforcing mandates of the UN. This leaves the US and England to do much of the work whilst countries like France are able to maintain their indolence.
Lol when will France (great UN supporter) apologize for invading egypt in 1956?
I compare the UN to my mother see.
It kind of goes like this
Mother (UN) completely powerless and poor incapable of raising and controlling her children (constituents). Along comes US (new husband) who can provide income and help control her children.
Without the US (Husband) she is inaffective as a parent and individual much like the UN is economically and militarily incapable without the US.
RussSchultz
17-Apr-2003, 17:00
kyleb:
The question was completely answerable, as others have stated, and there's only one reasonable answer. He is asking how leaving Saddam in power will bring about "justice and peace for the Iraqi people". Of course, the question is mostly rhetorical. It, as phrased, leads to one answer ("It doesn't"), and begs another: "What does bring about justice and peace for the iraqi people?". Not that I'm certain that the Iraqi gentleman would have asked the second question, it was obvious she didn't have that answer either (or she wouldn't have repeated "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" so many times).
While she's not directly advocating leaving him in power, the effect of her stance (anti-war) is essentially that. The mantra "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" is all nice, but if sanctions don't work, asking politely doesn't work, and if you won't use force bring about change, the end result is exactly the opposite of peace and justice for the Iraqi people. Because of this, the anti-war movement is many times pro-dictator.
Furthermore: When I say "pushing her agenda", I mean she lacks "standing" (to use a legal term) to really have much of a say. She's not the one being oppressed, at risk of dying in attempting to cast off that oppression, or has family or friends in such a position. She's not the one going to do the fighting (though, admittedly, she might have some relatives or friends that might) She should defer to those who are affected and not be an obstructionist in a situation that doesn't affect her.
Russschultz you are an idiot! We, the leftist protestors hate you because you present practical solutions to problems we try to make as convulted as possible. How dare you think that absolutely no good could come from allowing Saddam to remain in power! Now you listen! A good reason to keep him in power was (insert mantra here) as it would prevent blah blah blah. War will only kill less then Saddam does every year and ultimately remove a tyranical dictator from power - the power to exploit. As humanists we recognize his evolutionist perogative to exploit others! If you were as open minded and educated as we are you would feel the same. Your rightist-trash programming has made you more succeptable to logic ergo your pragmatism. Learn to think in the future before you respond!
i am not going to let you lead me into another sophistical argument with you Russ, or respond to the irrational babbling of Legion either; i said what i wanted to say and i will leave it at that.
RussSchultz
17-Apr-2003, 20:22
"sophistical"
Nice way to dismiss an point of view without addressing it. Feh.
i never considered such things nice at all.
RussSchultz
17-Apr-2003, 21:17
i never considered such things nice at all.
Then why'd you do it? *boggle*
sorry, i was being a bit of a smartass; i was referring to sophistical arguments themselves which i consider anything but nice, which is why i aviod them.
Joe DeFuria
17-Apr-2003, 21:29
i was referring to sophistical arguments, and i don't do it.
Hrumph.
I guess one man's sound logic is another man's sophistry....
RussSchultz
17-Apr-2003, 21:48
sorry, i was being a bit of a smartass; i was referring to sophistical arguments themselves which i consider anything but nice, which is why i aviod them.
To clarify: calling an opinion "sophistry" is a convenient, yet piss poor, way of avoiding discussing an issue and denigrating the other party at the same time.
Perhaps my sarcasm didn't drip far enough the last time.
Sabastian
17-Apr-2003, 23:40
Hrm, I always thought that sophistry was a study that teaches its students to argue any point successfully. I believe that it was a line of study in ancient Greece that these people were hired upon completion to write or create arguments for politicians or the wealthy in order they may be able to get a desired outcome. It did not matter if the argument was truthful or not and the students were trained to confuse their opponents or outright prove the premise of their opponent was wrong. In reality though the work does not pursue the truth and this is why so many hate a sophist.
that is basically Sabastion, aside from the fact that distaste for sophists is has never been particularly wide spread. the majority tends not to be bemused by such things and hence have little opinion one way or the other; while those of the few often belong to consortiums that find such practices as effective tools to meet their goals. in the days of Greece such techniques went generally unchallenged; and those who chose too speak up were often compelled to drink of the hemlock, or some similar fait. also, much of the field of law and politics, as well as media and advertising, are rife with sophistry even today; i have seen some comments that are destined to become classic examples from Donald Rumsfeld recently.
oh and Russ, i understood you the first time. if you find it denigrating to have your arguments labeled as sophistry, i recommend you lay off the rhetoric, at least when dealing with people who are versed in the subject but chose not to involve themselves with it anyway. if you have never formally studied the subject, i highly recommend you look into it. Protagoras is the first and probably the best example and Gorgias as well, particularly his essay "On Non-Being" which i pointed out last time we came upon this subject, which give a good basis by which to understand how the technique is applied in more modern times.
Sabastian
18-Apr-2003, 02:57
kyleb, I didn't notice anyone attempting to be a sophist. There is no one here playing that game AFAIK. Russ was not playing sophist AFAICT. Clearly he believes that the girl(as do I.) was lacking in any sort of legitimate answer to the Iraqi mans question. BTW I don't sense a sophist in your postings either.
Your outright dismissal of the interpretation that Russ suggested is not any sort of defence/rebuttal of his position but rather a shameful attempt at changing the subject which is that the young lady was not able to give the Iraqi a legitimate solution to regime change in Iraq. What we have listened to is not an unusual event but rather common as well as an inditement of the poor logic the young lady clearly supports in her attempt to support the anti war protest.
The military action was indeed even in retrospect clearly the best/most expedient way to solve a variety of problems not only for the Iraqi people but for the sake of mid east stability not to mention substantial action against terrorism by the US. That my friend has become painfully clear to most any whom opposed the war and the removal of the Saddam regime in the most embarrassing sort of way, they were flat out wrong.
sophistry consists of things like semantic arguments such as the claim that "it doesn't" is an answer and not a lack of one as i positioned earlier, as well as acts of rhetoric such as constructing a set of guidelines by which a person is intitled to have an opinion in order to discredit it. also, claiming that a situation provides justification for the means by which it was reached over alternatives that were dismissed is another act of rhetoric, although i can see how one might find it more comforting to believe otherwise.
MrsSkywalker
18-Apr-2003, 05:09
kyleb, I love the irony of your last few posts! You made up a definition of sophistry that turned you into a sophist, according to your definitions of the term. You don't think that you use rhetoric in your posts? You don't see how this whole line of argument is rhetoric??
In actuality, you are incorrect in your comprehension of sophistry. In very basic terms, in order to be a sophist, one must have knowledge or forethought that they are being deceitful. They have to know that they are lying, and then presenting the info as bona fide fact despite their knowledge. Rhetoric isn't always an example of sophistry, and opinion is certainly not sophistry. I don't know where your definitions came from, but you seem to be trying to make a simple concept turn into a large, complicated, lost art form. It's really quite simple. As far as literature on the subject goes, it's probably the biggest form of sophistry there is. It's a basic concept which theorists and phillosophers and professors try to make complex. It's like all of those pretentious art majors who look for deeper meaning in a photo of a duck. Sometimes a duck really is just a duck. Sophistry is just presenting an argument which appears to be valid, while knowing it is not. The art form comes in the way you go about convincing people you are right, not in the actual definition.
Russ was not being a sophist, and you were not being a sophist. You made a poor attempt to change the subject by insulting someone when you had no valid response. You got busted. Let the sophistry crap go.
If you have a valid response to the question the Iraqi refugee asked, hell, if ANYONE does, I'd love to hear it. I haven't heard one yet. So here's the question again, as a refresher:
How could peace be obtained in Iraq without removing Saddam Hussein?
Most of the peace needed in Iraq couldve been had thru the forceful diplomacy used to gain control for the oil for food program as most of the deaths incured since post 91 are from the sanctions then the misshandling of the oil for food by Saddam.
Some could argue that Saddam might not have given in to that but him having almost completely given in to the last inspections regime because of forceful diplomacy say otherwise.
Dictators have their 'fanatical' phase which wanes over time... as they get older. They remain still dangerous and repressive no doubt but nowhere as bad as they used to be. Stalin was nowhere as bad in the late 40's as he was in the 20's and 30's.
But the question again doesnt deal with other issues at hand. I almost always answer back to the Iraqi that he is partially right BUT what would he do or say if such and such happens... if clash of civilizations happens... if a serious wmd attack happens and instead of a few thousand more iraqis to be oppressed that we see millions of Iraqis die in an enlarged conflict... Not to mention others in the area or in the west... how could we justify the Iraqi invasion then if something worse than Saddams -present- dictatorship happens as a consequence to the war... I say present as Saddams recent repression was a shadow of its former self. Still bad but nowhere what it was up till the uprising in 91...
Lezmaka
18-Apr-2003, 06:14
Here's a few definitions for you kyle
soph·is·try
n. pl. soph·is·tries
Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
sophistry
n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
MrsSkywalker
18-Apr-2003, 12:37
Dictators have their 'fanatical' phase which wanes over time... as they get older. They remain still dangerous and repressive no doubt but nowhere as bad as they used to be. Stalin was nowhere as bad in the late 40's as he was in the 20's and 30's.
While most of your post was at least coherent (still wrong, IMO, but coherent), which is more than most of the "peaceful negotiations" supporters, I cannot even believe you said this. "Yes, let's do nothing...they are just Iraqis, it's ok to let them suffer a few more decades until Saddam's too senile to realize he signed a peace accord." No offense, but that opinion quite literally turns my stomach. Have you not watched the news and seen for yourself the torture chambers? Did you not listen to the various MP3s people have posted containing discussions with Iraqi refugees? You you are telling me that you honestly feel that we should have waitied until Saddam mellowed in his old age???
He's not a dying relative everyone hovers around waiting for their inheiritence. He was a ruthless dictator, whose regime, in fact, was getting MORE brutal the older he got. It is more than a little puerile to assume that he'd calm down in his golden years. It was a chance I don't think any Iraqi is sorry we didn't take.
While most of your post was at least coherent (still wrong, IMO, but coherent), which is more than most of the "peaceful negotiations" supporters, I cannot even believe you said this. "Yes, let's do nothing...they are just Iraqis, it's ok to let them suffer a few more decades until Saddam's too senile to realize he signed a peace accord." No offense, but that opinion quite literally turns my stomach. Have you not watched the news and seen for yourself the torture chambers? Did you not listen to the various MP3s people have posted containing discussions with Iraqi refugees? You you are telling me that you honestly feel that we should have waitied until Saddam mellowed in his old age???
He's not a dying relative everyone hovers around waiting for their inheiritence. He was a ruthless dictator, whose regime, in fact, was getting MORE brutal the older he got. It is more than a little puerile to assume that he'd calm down in his golden years. It was a chance I don't think any Iraqi is sorry we didn't take.
We all understand how bad Saddam was. But the truth is in the last few years things had pretty mucvh quieted down. Saddam even made sure Udai the crazy one of his two sons wouldnt inherit power. Its not about justifying Saddams rule . Its putting it in perspective of the consequences that were put forward by many analysts and CIA ect...
The regimes brutality was much worse in the past than now... You have to look at the whole picture. Its like saying we should have gone to war versus Russia over Cuba... Was it so bad that some missiles were in Cuba that we should have invaded it with nuclear missiles read to launch?
To lose a small communist dictatorship in Cuba with its small number of missiles was a good enough reason to justify nuclear war? Or in the case of Iraq a biological attack (so far thankfully averted) as retaliation? Im sure many Iraqis are happy we took the the chance. Some exiles did come forward to say however that they thought the chances were too great and didnt want war on their country. But to objectively examine the chances taken is what Im asking for here...
As for doing nothing I never said anything of the sort. We could have continued forceful diplomacy. If we could open every door in the country with forceful diplomacy to inspectors we most likely could have taken over the oil for food program and maybe even the jails over human rights issues. The inspectors were walking into every building in the country for months before the war without any warning at any time they chose.
The fact the regime accepted the inspections regime last november tells me it was weak in the first place... the fact we knew it didnt even control much of the northern part of the country tells me that as well
forceful diplomacy used to gain control for the oil for food program
What do you think we just did? Forceful diplomacy to gain control of the oil for food program, indeed.
Saddam even made sure Udai the crazy one of his two sons wouldnt inherit power.
I beg to differ. Everything I've read on the subject says otherwise, that Cusay was the heir apparent. Uday was a loose cannon playboy with an uncontrollable temper, who was partially paralyzed in an assassination attempt in '96. Cusay is the cold, mean bastard who commands the Republican Guard and Hussein's special police, and who Hussein intends to succeed him. Here's the latest, straight from Uday's personal letters discovered in one of his palaces in Baghdad:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030421-443114,00.html
It was another force, his relationship with his father, that troubled
Uday. Saddam picked his younger, less hotheaded son Qusay to succeed
him.
The regimes brutality was much worse in the past than now... You have to look at the whole picture. Its like saying we should have gone to war versus Russia over Cuba... Was it so bad that some missiles were in Cuba that we should have invaded it with nuclear missiles read to launch?
The Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba that could hit Washington within 12 minutes of launch, and New York within 15 minutes. They could have wiped our capital and our largest city off the face of the earth practically instantaneously. Before that point in history, the USSR had no missiles whatsoever that could hit the US, only Western Europe. Those Cuban missiles threatened to alter the entire balance of power, against the US. So yes, Kennedy was exactly right to stand up to that threat.
We could have continued forceful diplomacy. ... The inspectors were walking into every building in the country for months before the war without any warning at any time they chose.
You haven't been reading any testaments on that issue from the inspectors themselves. Read these, then try to claim that the inspectors had full, anytime access to any site in Iraq they wanted:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html
(don't miss the part about the "Agriculture Ministry Incident")
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/butler.html
There is enough anecdotal evidence straight from the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC team members floating around the web to convince even the most hardened sceptic that Iraq has never ceased obstructing the weapons inspectors, even in the face of US invasion the past half year. If you want more, just Google Scott Ritter or David Albright, for starters.
While most of your post was at least coherent (still wrong, IMO, but coherent), which is more than most of the "peaceful negotiations" supporters,...
Going a little bit OT, and not only directed to you, but I've noticed this in several discussions here, especially from people who do not support aforementioned "peaceful negotiations". Is it really necessary to belittle most of the people who have a different opinion in such an arrogant way?
Here's a few definitions for you kyle
soph·is·try
n. pl. soph·is·tries
Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
sophistry
n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
ya, i know about the dictionary definitions, but you and MrsSkywalker might want to hit up the library and read up on the subject sometime if you are interested in seeing how it actually is more than a simple concept and most definitely a large, complicated, albeit far from lost and only debabtably an "artform." also, just because one does not understand the practice well enough to understand that they are engaging in it does not change the fact that they are doing so to serve a purpose; regardless of the fact that one can argue otherwise.
MrsSkywalker
19-Apr-2003, 03:22
Going a little bit OT, and not only directed to you, but I've noticed this in several discussions here, especially from people who do not support aforementioned "peaceful negotiations". Is it really necessary to belittle most of the people who have a different opinion in such an arrogant way?
When we debate on topics for which we are passionate, then sometimes arrogance does find it's way into our tone. But it isn't just us "warmongers" who do it...I think you will find that at some point EVERYONE takes on an arrogent tone, whether it's to get the point across, to illustrate our strong feelings, or, in some cases, as a last ditch attempt to win the argument.
You want to see arrogance and belittling? Start up a topic that just says, "I like the US".
FBG1 I tihnk its a pretty weak understanding of the actual nature of the arms race not to mention overstateent to say the missiles in Cuba couldve have altered the balance of power... The same threat was even worse a couple years later with nuke subs... and there was no such change in the balance. Nukes at 30 min or 12 doesnt make a strategic diff.
The invasion of Iraq was not forceful diplomacy. Forceful diplomacy couldve been had in stages and even involved military engagements tho not all or nothing invasion that was actually done. Ill let you read oup on it for yourself. The idea all out war can be called diplomacy makes no sense to me.
Did Iraq keep on playing games before the war? Yeah but outright obstruction wasnt the case... it was hide and seek and some sneeking around but nowhere what it was before the 98 halt to inspections. And the idea Bush has that diplomacy is "do this or else all out war" is not the kind of diplomacy Im interested in seeing much of on the international stage.
Snyder Im so used that kind of talk here and online that I basically indulge in it far too often myself hhe.. then again I dont think theres a newsgroup Ive ever been in that didnt have the debate degenerate to some degree by both sides of an issue... You grow an armor so thick after a while that such comments bounce off harmlessly... now if I could only believe that myself so I can stop doing the same damn thing :\ hhhe... Been online since march 94 and actually indulged in some bbs way back as early as 1983 on 300 baud modem (tho the phone charges to the local university back then were hell)... Still I can tell you talking down to someone is almost universal online...
MrsSkywalker
19-Apr-2003, 03:48
ya, i know about the dictionary definitions, but you and MrsSkywalker might want to hit up the library and read up on the subject sometime...
And what makes you think I haven't? Just because I don't go around quoting essays and authors as the basis for my opinion does not mean I'm uneducated.
You think sophistry is some huge, complicated subject. I personally find it to be an extremely simple concept, and no amount of reading on the subject has changed that opinion. Everyone has subjects that they just "get", and everyone has subjects which they struggle with...for me, that would be calculus. I'm not a math minded person :wink:
There are a thousand ways to bake an apple pie. Everyone has their own unique style, different spice, special way of slicing the apples...that doesn't change the basic concept that they are making an apple pie. There are a thousand ways to practice sophistry in debates, but that doesn't change the basic concept that they are trying to win an argument with deceit. I could read a million essays on the various methods of pie baking, but that would not change my opinion that a pie is a pie. I could read a million essays on sophistry, but that would not change my opinion that a lie is a lie.
Wow. How Dr. Suess was that? :)
MrsSkywalker
19-Apr-2003, 04:08
And the idea Bush has that diplomacy is "do this or else all out war" is not the kind of diplomacy Im interested in seeing much of on the international stage.
Brace yourself, pax...we are dangerously close to agreeing on something! :wink:
I think that if we have a lot of support from other nations, nations whose intelligence bureaes have given them info that indicates that rogue nations have something serious going on that needs to be stopped ASAP, then Bush being the mouthpiece that will actually say the "do this or else all out war" isn't bad. However, if the US were acting alone, with no one else's support, no outside sources saying there is substantial cause...well, then it's time to count Bush's marbles and see if he lost any. This applies to any nation and their leader. We had a lot of support in this one, and not just from countries no one has ever heard of :wink:
And, while I'm at it, I might as well agree with you on another point. Bush is a horrible diplomat in a lot of ways. However, on a person to person, mano a mano fashion, he's one of the best. Look how good his talks with Putin were when he took Putin on a tour around his ranch in his Chevy. Put him in a formal setting and he looks like a baffoon. Get it down to the "just a couple of guys hashing things out" level, and he's pretty damn good. You simply can't break down everything to that basic level, though. Wish Jimmy Carter were still in his prime. Oh, he made a horrible president, and sent our country into a massive recession, but he is one impressive diplomat. And a truly good and honest person.
Out of idle curiosity, how does the rest of the world view Colin Powell? Is he a good diplomat? Is there anyone from the US that the rest of the world views as a good diplomat? Not starting a fight, and I don't want a debate, I just don't know how the rest of the world feels about this.
Colin had a lot of people in the international scene impressed by his diplomatic skill. He's lost a bit of that however when turned from his opposition to an Iraq campaign to toeing the administration line. Many simply wonder why that happened. Id like to see him explain his turnaround... he still garners a lot of respect for a lot of what he says when speaking to an international audience. He seems to keenly want anything done on the international scene to have a genuine coalition and UN involvement.
We probably agree on a lot. I think most left wingers and right wingers are actually pretty close to a centrist position. But in newsgroups we can only expect to see pretty much what we disagree on to be argued.
and there was no such change in the balance.
You can't flippantly discount the Cuban Missile Crisis as not affecting the balance of power. For the first time ever, there were nuclear missiles that could hit the continental US. If there had been no change in the balance of power, the US would not have responded in such a freaked out manner.
The same threat was even worse a couple years later with nuke subs...
"a couple years later" is moot. The US had to deal with the nukes in Cuba now.
Forceful diplomacy couldve been had in stages and even involved military engagements tho not all or nothing invasion that was actually done.
You mean staged military engagements like Vietnam and Somalia? Yes, very effective indeed.
The idea all out war can be called diplomacy makes no sense to me.
It has made perfect sense to multitudes of political and military philosophers throughout the ages:
War is merely a continuation of politics by other means. - Karl von Clausewitz, On War (1833)
...
"All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means" - Chou En Lai Saturday Evening Post, March 27, 1954
Want more?
Did Iraq keep on playing games before the war? Yeah but outright obstruction wasnt the case...
I see you didn't read any of the links I posted above.
"do this or else all out war" is not the kind of diplomacy Im interested in seeing much of on the international stage.
We agree on that point. I hope we don't see it again for a long time too. I hope this once was enough to give UN non-proliferation the teeth it needs to effectively and thoroughly stop the spread of WMD. I hope it will prevent future wars from occuring, especially since my own first cousin is one of the Marines in Iraq right now.
Many simply wonder why that happened.
He's no fool, he's just more patient than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle. But he probably finally became fed up with Saddam's manipulations and deceits, which led to him changing his position. He also probably became fed up with the French, who believe the US "hyperpower" is more of a threat to the world than a psychotic tyrant with nukes. They say you should pick your battles, and I'm not sure the French picked the right one in this case. Surely there are better opportunities to cut the US down to size than when we try to stop WMD proliferation.
I did read the links... You however cant make the diff between a 5 min nuke from a sub 200 miles east off shore to one 100 miles to the south. And in any case its all moot as nukes on ballistic missiles make little strategic diff at 30 min or 5... Unless you subscribe to the absurd notion tha first strike means no retaliation which was never the case... Technologically impossible to do. And it still is. Not to mention the insanity of such an all out nuclear assault...
Forceful diplomacy is more than staged military engagements. There was littel diplomacy involved in Vietnam except near the end. That issue was approached virtually all militarily from the start. Not an apt comparison for so many reasons... neither was somalia.
I could quote others who could counter the reasoning behind the madness of all out war especially when these people you quote never had to deal with wmds. Diplomacy is war of a sort however. Too bad it was misshandled this time. Thank God we got lucky. Do you know how many generals in and out of uniform had missgivings about this war?...
The only teeth the UN has is the one given to it by its member nations. When its not given such means it cant wield them thus shouldnt be blamed for not having teeth in the first place...
Ive read a lot of French editorials and none said the US was more of menace than tin pots with wmds. The issue is not the US was dangerous. It was that the US would provoque a dangerous response from a dangerous tyrant... The French didnt want to cut down anyone in size. That crap was never said by any french columnist Ive read. Only opinion pieces in US media gave us that tripe... They simply didnt want ww3 to again step on the front door. Europe borders the muslim world not to mention very large muslim minorities inhabit almost all of Europe now...
Out of idle curiosity, how does the rest of the world view Colin Powell?
Can only speak for me and a couple of people I have talked to here in Germany of course, but he's probably one of the most well respected members of the current Bush administration over here at the moment. I jokingly said to a friend last week that Powell should join the Democrats and become their Presidential candidate for 2004, they can't seem to find a decent one within their own ranks and with the differences between the two parties becomiong ever less noticable... ;)
I did read the links...
Then you must have read this:
Even as Iraq was agreeing, under the terms of Resolution 687, to disclose its nuclear program and bring it to an end, it was developing a broad strategy for hiding evidence of the program and misleading U.N. inspectors about it.
Immediately after the Gulf War ended in April 1991, Iraq began salvaging equipment from damaged buildings and returning hidden items to the facilities where they had been before the war. But soon it was hiding equipment again. Materials that might reveal the extent of the nuclear program were boxed up and concealed underground and at military sites—even in private homes. One group of key documents was transferred to an ordinary railway freight car, its doors welded shut. The car was sent off to travel continuously between Mosul in northern Iraq and Basra in the south. The car traveled unguarded; few knew of its existence.
In 1998, many believe that Iraq’s nuclear program has been dismantled and most if not all of the materials and equipment that were used in that program have been found and destroyed. But in a seven-year-plus effort, U.N. inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team have had to work through so many layers of deception, and have received so many different “full, final, and complete declarations” from the Iraqis, that they have no doubt Iraq is still hiding important information. Inspectors believe they may never know the full story.
And theirs is not idle curiosity. The stakes are high. Inspectors believe that Iraq could reconstitute its nuclear weapons program quickly, once sanctions are lifted. Although Iraq might need several years to recreate its enriched-uranium or plutonium programs, it might be able to acquire fissile material on the black market. In that case, it has already learned enough to be able to build a nuclear weapon in less than a year. As a result, Iraq’s nuclear potential must be carefully scrutinized by international inspectors for some time to come.
and this:
Finally, the summer of 1992 comes around, and we happen to get some very quality intelligence information about the location of an archive of documentation that the Iraqis are using to build the foundation for reconstitution of their weapons programs. Millions of pages of documents. It turns out, the intelligence was absolutely correct. These documents, some were later found at the ... chicken farm when Hussein Kamel defected.
But, at the time, we had a good idea [they] were there, but we didn't know for sure, but it was really quality intelligence. So we ginned up another one of these inspections, got the Americans in, did the intelligence planning, brought in the British, built a team, and sent it in. And the first target we hit, agricultural ministry. Surround it, and the Iraqis say, 'You can't come in.' And we say, Well, you've got to let us in. I mean, we're the United Nations. We've been through this already. There was Resolution, 707--you remember, you tried this with the IEA, there was international crises? We don't want to go down that path again. Now, we want in, let us in. Oh, no. This is a ministry, this is a symbol of our national sovereignty.
And we said,' All right, you want to play that game? We're parking. We're surrounding it. Nobody's going in and out unless they run through our inspectors. 'The Iraqis went,' All right, we'll play that.'
And we said--'OK. Security Council, they're not letting us in.' Nothing. Day goes by--'Excuse me, gentlemen, we're parked out in front of the agriculture ministry. They're not letting us in. We want to do an inspection.' Silence. Nothing.
Now the situation starts to deteriorate, because the Iraqis are looking around and nothing's happening. All right. Let's jack up the pressure. Demonstrations started occurring. First, small demonstrations. Then, as each day goes by, the demonstrations get bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until we literally have thousands of Iraqis storming the agricultural ministry, egging our cars, stoning us, not stoning but throwing rotten vegetables at us, shaking the cars. And the Security Council's doing nothing. Zero.
And, ultimately, we got to a situation where the Iraqi security service brought in somebody who tried to stab an inspector, through a window, and at that point the lives of the inspectors were at risk and we had no other choice than to withdraw the team. The Security Council did nothing. It was fascinating.
And, of course, once we were through with the team the Iraqis were through with the archive. So, weeks later, when Rolf Ekeus, the security council and everybody came up with a compromise solution, and a team reappeared at the agriculture ministry, and were let in; of course they found nothing. They did find some rooms where nothing was there, but we found no documents. A very embarrassing situation, and a frustrating one.
There is a plethora of evidence in the public domain that shows Hussein's regime was obstructing UN inspections. Arguing against that fact is senseless.
You however cant make the diff between a 5 min nuke from a sub 200 miles east off shore to one 100 miles to the south. And in any case its all moot as nukes on ballistic missiles make little strategic diff at 30 min or 5...
Nuclear missile subs were in their naissance during that period and were not considered the threat that land-based missiles were. Further, the US was able to easily track the nosiy, clumsy Soviet Golf subs at that time. The fact is, land-based nuclear missiles in Cuba were a major threat and a significant event in the Cold War. You can criticize Kennedy's response, but you can't criticize the fact that it worked - it scared Kruschev into never putting nuclear missiles in the US's hemisphere again. (and yes, I know about Kennedy's deal to remove the US missiles in Turkey).
The only teeth the UN has is the one given to it by its member nations. When its not given such means it cant wield them thus shouldnt be blamed for not having teeth in the first place...
Yes, and the US just gave the UN teeth over the objections of France, Russia, and China. Now, when the UN tells regimes to disarm, perhaps they'll comply instead of playing "hide-and-seek" games.
Ive read a lot of French editorials and none said the US was more of menace than tin pots with wmds. ... Only opinion pieces in US media gave us that tripe...
True, one reason for France's resistance was the growing Muslim population in Europe. But France's distrust of US power played a large part. Google "France Hyperpower" and see what you come up with. France's political and intellectual elite believe that the US is a "hyperpower", (eg, an unopposed superpower) and represents a greater threat to the world than dictators such as Saddam.
France+Hyperpower (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=France+Hyperpower&btnG=Google+Search)
You might consider expanding your reading sources.
Ive read plenty on the French position and never did any French gov official say because its a 'hyper power' the US is a threat. What you have popping up on google are the very opinion pieces I told you about. You cant take those seriously. Most of them are foreign...
Trying to make an opinion piece out of a policy doesnt always identify the motivations behind it. The french motivations werent what so many claimed they were: That they wanted to obstruct the US to showcase France's 'importance' or save trade with Iraq (puny next to trade with the US) or want to lead the EU (absurd notion when you consider the structure of the EU wont allow anyone country to lead it and in fact one loses a lot of sovereignty in joining the EU).
If you want to see France like the 'freedom fries' crowd through the opaque glasses of opinion piece writers. Go ahead. But when it comes to policy I get it from the horses mouth whether US or France or anyone else. The US admin and its supporters in the media did all they could to cloud the issue by trying to isolate France from the rest of the world that also opposed the war (in fact Russia theatened the veto FIRST) and simply chose an easy target for domestic consumption by showcasing one of the smaller countries in opposition to the conflict at the security council. The whole thing was quite a carnival.
Ive seen a few interviews some short but some quite in depth with de Villepin (best one was a 40 min with no commercials one on CBC) and they are quite the breath of fresh air from reading some of the local and US media at the time...
MrsSkywalker
19-Apr-2003, 19:02
Colin had a lot of people in the international scene impressed by his diplomatic skill. He's lost a bit of that however when turned from his opposition to an Iraq campaign to toeing the administration line. Many simply wonder why that happened.
Yeah, same feelings here. He used to seem like a force to be reckoned with, that he was there to do business, yet with both parties best interest in mind. To me, he kind of seems like he's flapping in the breeze, kind of wishy washy.
We probably agree on a lot.
:D True.
Ive read plenty on the French position and never did any French gov official say because its a 'hyper power' the US is a threat. What you have popping up on google are the very opinion pieces I told you about. You cant take those seriously.
What I have popping up on Google is France's former Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine publicly characterizing the US as a "hyperpower", and that the US's military, economic, technological, and cultural dominance must be countered by the world.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/99us6.htm
For my part, I believe that since 1992 the word 'superpower' is no longer sufficient to describe the United States," Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine told the same audience on Wednesday. "that's why I use the term 'hyperpower,'
Here's an actual book, authored by Vedrine, explaining in detail what a "Hyperpower" is and why it applies to the US:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815700075/104-5359870-5997517?vi=glance
Even Le Monde uses the term "Hyperpuissance" to describe the US:
http://www.lemonde.fr/recherche_resumedoc/1,9687,191120,00.html?query=Vedrine+hyper+puissanc e&query2=&booleen=et&num_page=1&dans=dansarticle&periode=1987&ordre=pertinence&G_NBARCHIVES=771+412
Hyperpower is nothing less than a French meme originated by M. Vedrine to describe the US. How you've missed it in all your so-called reading from the horses mouths is beyond me. In fact, every major claim you've made is disproved by mountains of public information quickly turned up by a simple web search. Are you sure you're not just making everything up as you go? Perhaps some links to these "horses mouths" you've referred to would restore some credibility. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue arguing.
I didnt miss the term hyper power. Calling the US a hyper power isnt denigrating. Its just an observation of fact. Especially when put into context of 20-30 year ago of the superpower conflict and the technological advances since then. Villepain in fact mentionned the term hyper power in his CBC interview. I said France didnt object to the Iraq war for the reasons US media and gov say they did.
Again an opinion piece which is no more insulting than the one by ex cia director on ABC's Nightline who said if we waited till fall to get the UN onboard an invasion it was likely Saddam would get more wmds to attack us with... Thus insulting not only Tennets earlier statements and the crew behind the intelligence report filed to congress last fall but also the intelligence of the audience imho.
Your missing the context of what is meant. Countering US power is only meant in the context of risky military adventures or agressive economic policy in trade.... It isnt an assumption that US military and economic power is bad simply by its mere existence and sheer size only that it is dangerous in the consequences when such things as the Iraq campaign are proposed.
Again as well opinion pieces cant be assumed as being official gov policy.
Wish Jimmy Carter were still in his prime. Oh, he made a horrible president, and sent our country into a massive recession, but he is one impressive diplomat. And a truly good and honest person.
We need more honest people in politics.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.