"Not quite. All you have to do to prove me wrong is state, clearly, why my argument is fallacious. Since you are incapable of doing that you continue to simply say it is, over and over, hoping to obscure the fact that you've never offered any proof whatsoever. Thus my argument stands."
Lol. Well, this is becoming truelly ridiculous. For starters, you could actually read my arguments which clearly demonstrates how ludicrous your claims are. But then again, just as with the analogies, you pretend it's not proof at all, but just an opinion. The dabate then, becomes futile: all the arguments and proof I have given is right in front of you, explained in the last half dozen posts or so. But, since you refute anything as such, and continue to claim I gave nothing but unsubstantiated claims, when it's cleary you who doesn't whish to engage in an intellectual honest discussion, then there is no common basis to agree on anything. You're so blind to any form of rationale and reason, you use nothing but fallacies and skewed analogies, and THEN claim it's me that fails to give any validation for the arguments given. thus your argument is complete and utter bullocks, but feel free to wallow in your own nonsense.
"No, thank you - for again refusing to back your position or find any way to critique my reasoning, and instead falling back on juvenile insults. Again your argument is clearly illustrated to be false."
Thanks. No, thanks you. No, thank *you*. Nono, thank you! (ad infinitum)
Dude, grow up.
"You mean the repeated sources I have cited don't qualify for you as 'valid argumentation'?"
No, I mean your continious use of fallacies, ad hominem attacks, skewed analogies and complete myopic reasoning, together with layers of sophistic constructs and demagogic blabberings which you try to substantiate by providing links to pages which do not only not support your position, but don't even have anything which *could* substantiate the claim you made.
"You mistyped 'fact upon fact'. And, again, your emotional BS does not conceal the fact that you have not rebutted a single source, statement, or argument I have made."
Your assertation I 'mistyped' is yet another example of how you are intellectual dishonest. Rest assured I did not mistype: I meant exactly what I wrote: fallacy after fallacy. In kind, I will respond thus: But, indeed, I understand you do not know the difference between facts and fallacies; this has become all to obvious during your postings.
"Not a refutation of the point made, this is a different matter entirely. My point stands."
It stands as you continue to hide between the "we were not alone doing it" curtains, indeed.
"Explicitly disproven by quoting Hans Blix and other members of the UN. My point stands."
Really? You mean one of your links, who did actually go into the matter of the claim, namely that the UN had strong doubts about the WMD, by the time the USA invaded Iraq? I don't think so. In fact, the funny part is, if I would take exactly your claim, namely that individual members of the UN constitute the UN itself, even for you, it becomes plain and obvious that the 'UN' had strong doubts, as is mentionned by France, Russia, etc. during the last summit where Powel tried to convince the rest of the world of his lies.
"Cites facts not in evidence at the time the war was declared. Thus, invalid. My point stands."
Minus the above point, of course. And the fact that time and again, inspectors found nothing at the 'hidden sites' the CIA told them there were WMD. Ofcourse, any longer, and even the USA couldn't pretend anymore that there were WMDs left, which would have hampered their warmongering efforts. Thus, they rather had the inspections discontinued, which were doubting the truth of the claims more and more, and went to war, as they always had planned. Believing anything else is nothing but misguided naivity or chauvinistic zealotry. But hey, I know facts don't count for you. Come to think of it, why don't you invade N.K
"Well it certainly is refreshing that you have dropped all pretense of arguing facts, reason, or logic, and decided to present your complete frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary doggerel without subterfuge."
Oh. You mean, like your insistant ad hominem attacks for the past 3 posts? Well, scuze me for replying in kind. Maybe if you hadn't started to use blatant fallacies and downright personal insults, you wouldn't have to feel so 'refreshed' that you get the same treatement.
"Perhaps you are not familiar with this concept, since you have no experience with logic or reasoning. However when one asserts that a position is false, it is up to that person to prove that the position is false. You never have. Thus any assertion by you that my argument is 'fallacious' immediately falls. Which is why the term does not apply."
The fact that you do not consider it demonstrated as fallacious, while for any reasonable, rational reader this would be more then clear when even glancing on the arguments I have given, rather demonstrates that I'm not the one lacking knowledge and experience in matter of logic or reasoning.
"For the problems you caused, you mean. An absolute statement, not one of 'shared responsibility' which is, on and off, your new position. The problem is you contradict yourself, shifting your position for each point you wish to make. For example, just above the statement I quoted, you wrote (emphasis mine):
Well, yes, you are, at least partially."
And your point being? You just gave proof of what I said, you moron! The "For the problems you caused, you mean." is exactly what I said I said. Ofcourse you are responsable for the things you do yourself! Only a waterhead would not comprehend, or someone willingly 'misunderstanding' me. You must be one of the two (or woth) since you kept saying I said you were solely responsable for everything Saddam did, which is why I made clear that you're only responsable for the things you have done, which isn't ALL that Saddam has ever done, and thus, you bear part of the responsability there, while still being responsabil for what you did, obviously.
Thanks for proving the case, smartass.
"Every time you respond to my posts you carefully excise each of my rebuttals of your idiotic 'excuse' position, then make the exact same statement again and imply that it was my argument. Obviously you are the one being obnoxious, and worse, dishonest."
Maybe that's due because you keep argumenting the same BS without giving any valid argumentation, nor showing any coherent reasoning on the matter? Actually, you are now doing exactly that, which you say I am doing, with the difference that you actually started doing it, and that already 3 or 4 posts ago. Your 'rebutals' are nothing more then fallacy upon fallacy, with some biased opinions mixed bextween them, and complete disregard of any logical thinking and rational reasoning. And even when I respond to them with rational arguments and consistency, you claim the oposite, and further negate everything I said, or create an illusionary position I've never taken to prove your point, or simply fall prey to ad hominem attacks.
Surely you will agree (or maybe you won't, seen your aparent lack for consistency and rationale) that this discussion is rather senseless, since we both claim the other is completely void of rational thought and reasoning, and we agree that the other side is just full of BS.:-)
"STOP THE PRESSES! 11 MILLION EUROS!!!! That buys... what, a cup of coffee? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars, personnel, and materiel are expected to be required to rebuild and stabilize Iraq, you complete and unredeemable idiot?"
LOL. Well, that explains why your war costs billions of dollars, then! Your coffee alone costs 11 million euro's!;-) Ninkenpoop.
So, basically, you agree that we did give help then, even when it's insignificant in your eyes? In that case, it unvalidates what you have sa
"It is hard to argue against the idea of too much economic liberty for individuals. "
I can argue quite easily: it would invite rampant unequality, causing the wellfare of the populace (as a whole) to fall. I don't think it has yet to be proven that, when economical 'liberty' is left unchecked and unbalanced, you do not get the most wellfare for the most people, but rather the a concentration of wellfare for the few.
Depending on what you consider a worthy goal for a society, you may or may not accept the latter as a welcome evolution. I do not, however.
"The same would be true of you mandated all companies to provide food, housing, vacation airplane tickets, and Chia Pets. Where does it stop?"
It stops where the company stops making enough profit for continuing their business. As long as they see a benefit (thus, enough profit) going their way, they will continue. Furthermore, airplane-tickets and chi-pets are hardly as important as healthcare. (That said, it's funny you would mention that, because I have a nephew who's working for an air-company, and he *does* get free tickets...so aparently, it's not out of the ordinary. the reason why they do that, I suppose, is that they can afford it. Thus, being able to afford a system of healthcare is paramount.) The current revisals of the system, is exatly because, in a worldmarket, the cost is getting to high to maintain it as it is, currently. But the system istelf is not in discussion.
" Why not instead mandate nothing. Just pay the workers for the value of their work, and let them spend what they want on health care, food, and other things as they need."
a noble thought, and one I can relate too, frankly, because I have libertarian principles also. alas, just like communism, raw capitalism is fine, nay, even great in theory, but sucks in reality. We already had such capitalism in the 19th century, at least in europe, and if history has shown us anything, it's that unbalanced (with social laws and provisions, thus) capitalism is NOT to the benefit of the populace at large.
A system where everyone decides what to do with his money, would quicly lead to devastating social inequalities, unless one presumes that everyone is not only born equal, but gets the same possibilities in life, can not be struck by sheer 'unluck', and has the rationality to keep a balance to his own health -and other expenses. I do not share that optimistic vision.
In practise, what will happen is, that the few will reap the most benefits, while the most don't. The 'social divide' between the poor and the rich is a well known problem, and is considerably higher where people adher (more) to your vision of capitalism (such as in the US) then in EU countries. And this is the prime reason for it.
"You are overlooking the obvious. There is a major player here that you are giving a minor role. It is the government itself. The companies in fact do not engage in "greed": it is not greed to work to create wealth. The "greed" realm is dominated by the government. The important balance is between the greed of the government, and the freedom of the governed."
I disagree with your assessement of companies: most companies are all to greedy, even if they use euphemisms for it to conceil it. I agree with your statement about the government: clearly, any institution or entity that has power, seeks more power. Needles to say, each such power needs to be kept in check and be balanced. this is true for companies, but, indeed, for governments as well. Yet, of all meddlings of the government, I look at those which are used to give more social justice to the populace at large, as being the most tolerable.
Yes, I know governments often abuse this (for instance, by taking away individual liberties, while strictly speaking they don't have to), of course, but still. I think citizens, companies and the government should be in a permanent dance of balancing eachother. I think in the USA, the companies are leading too much.
Ah, I see, thus, suddenly, the analogy becomes 'pointless minutiae', when one is analysing the actual terminology. I already stated why helping Saddam is more akin to giving weapons to a known murderer, instead of giving 'clothes' to a 'child'. Your persistence on that not being the case, and that your analogy is, in fact, much closer to the observable reality, borders on the ludicrous.
"You just thought it sounded cool and intellectually insulting, so you whipped it out."
I fear you are projecting your own behaviour on to others. Since your argument sounded plausable, but was fallacious, it is the correct term to use. clearly, you do not agree it is fallacious, but even if you would be right (which you aren't) that doesn't change much to the fact I was using the right term in the right context.
"If you say 'you are responsible for X', you are assigning unique and total responsibility. If you say 'you are partially responsible for X' you are - follow me closely - assigning partial responsibility. What you did was state the former, and insist you meant the latter. Which is patently false. Just admit you're wrong."
I said: the USA bears responsability for what it did. You're whole explanation and exercise in semantics comes crashing down as a result. And I suspect it's not mere misunderstanding neither: even if you were (truelly) of the opinion I meant the USA bears the only responsability for everything in Iraq, ever, then still you couldn't have missed my frequent assertions (as response to your insistant excuses of 'we were not alone in doing such things) that other countries who helped Saddam, were equally guilty, but that that did not absolve or excuses what the USa did and does. Just admit you're being obnoxious.
"And you continue to show your stupidity by harping on a point which nobody except you seems to be claiming."
Really? I didn't see you agree or confess to what your country has done and is doing, exept by stating 'that doesn't matter anymore, it's all in the past, let's move on'. Let alone that your government has acknowledged their unethical and illegal behaviour and apologised.
"However reasons/excuses cannot be hypocrital. One must consider the character of the person making the statement. A person hearing a reason/excuse can determine which of the two he believes the statement to be based upon possible contradiction, or perceived hypocritical behavior by the person making the statement. We then argue whether or not the person is being hypocritical, or telling lies. And, again, you have utterly failed on this point. You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country."
What kind of bullocks is that? Hypocrisy is defined by a contradiction of what you claim, and what you do with your actions. When the USA claims it's goal is to promote democracy, and yet it topples democratically elected leaders and places ruthless dictators in their place, then you have a contradiction and the USA is being hypocrite for making that claim.
It's that simple.
And once again, I find your counterargument mindboggling: I have uttelry failed in providing proof that the USA is being hypocrite, yet, only a few words further, you say "You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country.", thereby at least insinuating that you do not deny the USA IS hypocritical. (But no more then others - your claim probably is). You do not cease to be a hypocrite because there are other hypocrites, however.
"It are?"
Yes.
"You make a little progress here, basically admitting another point I have made: that the good of the US far outweighs the evil you imagine and/or build up. But then you lost most of it by falling back on the same tired 'excuse' argument, which nobody but you is making."
Learn to read, or stop putting words in my mouth. I said it's impossible to know whether the world would be better of with or without the USA. I said they we're
"I already have. But we're obviously not going to agree on the analogy, which is why we should focus on the actual situation."
Spoken as someone who doesn't want to get into the side of a losing argument. You did not give any explanation why your terms of your analogy would be more correct to the actual example. Mostly, you stated that 'it is not a matter if it's a murderer or not, because soldiers kill to' - which is an absurd statement, because soldiers are not supposed to kill civilians on purpose. Thus, the analogy with a murderer stands.
"Please stop using words you don't understand. My argument is not a 'sophism', it is a rebuttal of a position which you keep changing. First you stated that we were 'responsible' for Saddam, now you state that we are 'co-responsible'. I am glad you are gradually admitting you are wrong, but it is dishonest to do it in the method you choose."
Please stop asuming I don't understand words because you don't. You argument was a sophism: "A plausible but fallacious argument". Whether you used it as a rebutal does nothing to change that. And, regarding 'keep-changing-position', I'm afraid that's due to your very selective reading (which you accuse me of, btw): I have stated numerous times, in deiverse posts by now, that you (USA) bears responsability for what you have done. It does not mean you are the ONLY one bearing responsability. Saddam does too, as does a lot of other countries. I have said this over and over, but you merely ignore that. and equaly, I said that the fact that others have some responsability too, it does not absolve the guilt and responsability of the USA.
"Again that is a matter of perspective - the difference between an excuse and a reason is always subjective."
Unless it is clear that they are contradictory and hypocrite, such as when claiming to invade other countries to get rid of a mass-murderer, or WMDs, or to bring democracy, when one is perfectly happy to sustain and support mass-murderers, when no WMDs are present, or when one is also perfectly happy to topple democratically elected leaders to install dictators, as long as it's to the benefit of said country.
Then it *are* excuses.
"Which numerous member countries did, along with pocketing illicit cash in the Oil for Food Scandal."
Your refusal to address this point reveals a substantial weakness in your reasoning."
Well, you make the point for me, actually. You claimed the UN did it, and then try to prove it with examples of where individual members took illegal actions based on nationalistic politics. I doubt ANY of those countries did those things with the approval of the UN, thus, the UN did not sell weapons.
"It is, however, an oversimplification: the replacement of a complex statement with a deceptively simple one. I doubt you would be comfortable with my summing up the Iraq situation as an 'ongoing police action',"
You mean, like you did with the war on vietnam?
" as it has many more facets than that. Your political analysis lacks depth, so comments based upon it will be equally shallow. "
And yet, it boils down to exactly that. It certainly makes more sense, then claiming the USa did it for the WMD (which weren't there), or to bring democracy or topple a mass-murderer (when they've shown numerous times they are perfectlyt happy to crucnh democracy and support regimes and dictators, if it suits them).
"Are you seriously claiming that you didn't? Other than economic survival and the retention of your colonial holdings, what reasons can you give? Unless of course you're all just sick and did it for fun."
You completely baffle me. Are you honestly claiming that retaining colonial holdings is a matter of survival? Are you really THAT thick? It wasn't about survival, it was about getting wealthier. the two are not the same, though I have no doubt you seem to have the trouble of seeiçng the difference. If we hadn't exploited the blacks and what not, our 'economics' wouldn't have been so strong durin
I'm aware that the ISS is a joint project, not only including russians, but the EU as well.
Yet, the question remains if the exhorbitant expensive station was worth the money. You indicated that it's worth that prise because of engineering experiences; but the russians already had that for years: they already *knew* howto build modular spacestations.
Now, no doubt we've learned some new things, such as in communications...but you hardly need a multi-biljon spacestation for that, now do we?
As you are well aware, many, many scientists have severe reservations about the worth of the spacestation (compared to the cost). And, what's more, they have a valid point: almost all science done there, could as well have been done better and cheaper in other ways. The only expeption being, to see how humans thrive in space itself (which obviously needs humans), and what is required to keep them healthy. But, as I said, for that purpose, the Russians already had extensive data.
So, all by all, while I'm for space-exploration, and, indeed, even human space-exploration, I still think there is validity in doubting the wisdom of creating the ISS. Yes, we'll learn new things...but at a huge cost. Better would it have been, if all that money was used for creating a largely self-sustaining base or research-facility on the moon. The value of that, also in engineering, would be far, far greater - and with no precedent. Certainly in regard to a future with planetary settlements (such as on Mars), it would give us far more relevant data then yet another spacestation.
Well, anyway, it's too late now, so we'll have to make the best of it. But still, it wasn't the best option in regard to cost versus new scientific (or engineering) data.
"My analogy was apt. You simply disagree with the conclusion and thus are attacking the analogy. "
Lol. then please elaborate on the reasons why 'child', 'food and clothes' etc. in your analogy are more justified then 'adult' and 'weapons', etc.
"So obviously we did not create him."
Could you please stop with this kind of sophism. as you are well aware, I did not say you created him, I said you aided and supported him, well aware of what he was and what he did with the weapons you gave him. That makes you co-responsable.
All your other explanations are mere excuses...yes, yes, Iran was seen as the threat, at the time, as was communism and what not. your geoplotical reasons at the time do not excuse giving WMD to a mass-murderer where you know he also used them on his own people.
But that whole principle eludes you, doesn't it? You seems to have NO feeling for what is ethically wrong; instead, you use 3 paragraphs to explain the geoplotical reasons the USA had for doing what they did, and, you find that a good enough excuus for giving him weapons, even when the USA knew fully well he mass-used them against civilians. Your lack of ethical awareness is exactly that of your government. Mind you, even those geopolitical reasons sucked, but in any case it does not absolve you from the moral resposability you had. And even if it were, then you're double a hypocrite for using moral superiority to bolster this latest invasion.
"But the problem there is that you will find yourself equally guilty if you are a member of the United Nations. Note that I made this point in my last reply also, and you chose to avoid addressing it."
Not unless the UN sold WMD to Iran, and then invaded it with claims of moral superiority (or outright lies). As for those countries that sold weapons to saddam, knowing what he was going to use it for, I already told you: yes, they are guilty too. In no way does that absolve the USA from what they did.
"The fact of the matter is that survival sometimes requires 'unethical' behavior. As you admit in your next statement."
Hah! You sound like our government in the 60ies, denying and seeking excuses. Are you seriously claiming we exploited the black people there for our survival? Or that you invaded Iraq so that the USA could survive? Double hah! this is SO BS I can barely believe you use this as an excuse.
We both know it has nothing to do with *survival*, it has to do with gaining power, wealth, influence and other such geopolitical reasons. We certainly didn't colonise because our survival dependend on it, and you didn't invade Iraq so that the USA could escape oblivion. I spit on such demagogic 'reasons'.
And, btw, even if it were about survival, it still doesn't excuse aiding and supporting mass-murderers (and mind you, saddam is not the only case; the USA toppled many leaders, even democratic elected ones, to place a ruthless tyrants in their place - who mass-murdered civilians too, but where kept in place and supported as long as he did their bidding).
"Precisely my point: you are not actually concerned about the Iraqis, or the Middle East. You just want the United States to get its comeuppance. No matter what it costs."
Nomatter what it costs to you, yes. But you seem to be of the opinion one excludes the other. While, indeed (as I said numerous times by now) you oblige us to help get clear the mess you made, I still would very much see you slapped on the wrist too. Otherwise, you will never learn, and you will continue to think: 'what does it matter? We do as we please, and if we get in trouble, we're demand the rest of the world helps in cleaning up afterwards.' The arrogance and hypocrisy of that line of thought seems to completely elude you.
"Undoubtedly. But that's neither here nor there."
Exactly what you (=usa) say every time you meddle in other countries, or go on a rampage somewhere. You really seem to lack the ability to see how arrogant and hypocritcal that is. "Ah yes, we toppled a democrat
"The simple fact that you disagree with the conclusion reached by method of analogy does not mean the analogy is flawed."
I'm not only disputing the conclusion, I'm demonstrating that the analogy you used itself is unvalid.
And if you had a foot to stand on why your analogy is more correct then mine, I'm sure you would be explaining it to me.
"Because the argument is not whether or not the person uses weapons to kill people - as I said before, members of the armed services do that."
No, the argument is about being responsible for the actions you take. Do armed soldiers deliberatly target civilians? No. And if they do, they are condemned, just like other murderers. Thus, the analogy between Saddam with a murderer is far more correct then comparing him as a soldier, since he deliberatly targeted civilians - a thing which is universally (or at least claimed by the USA themselves) to be seen as morally wrong, illegal and dispicable.
"This same type of moronic argument is frequently used in advocacy of gun control, the theory being that the weapon is what causes the crime."
Again, a false analogy (you're quite good at it). You can not be blamed for selling a gun to somebody if you don't know he's a murderer or if he's goin to use it to kill someone. that why, in mostcivilised countries - and I think the USa made some law-effort in that regard too, if I'm not mistaken - to do at least a check on the buyer to see if he's not been convicted before. Likely, when you sell a gun to somebody, knowing he will use it to murder somebody, you *will* be found partially guilty, even by your own courts.
so, in both instances, your own judicial instances would condemn an ordinary citizen in analogue circumstances...yet you claim giving weapons to a mass-murderer like Saddam, knowing full well that he also used it against civilians (even his own people), is justified because the USa had other geo-political interests, at the time.
Fine ethics.
"The question is this: is the US to blame for Saddam's actions against its interests, simply because the US backed Saddam when he supported US interests? "
No, the question is, does the USA bare responsability for having actively supported a known mass-murderer, yet not caring one bit, simply because Saddam at the time supported the US interests?
The answer is, quite simply, yes.
"Just as many governments have backed allies which have eventually turned on them, we were simply caught in a position that developed from a very complex real-world problem."
Living in a complex world does not excuse anyone from being unethical. I find your argument of 'many other governments did the same' quite frankly of nonsensical worth. So? Then other governments bear responsability for their unethical behaviour too, or at least, they should. My country has some vile history during the colonisation-period of africa, and bears responsability for at least part the mess in some countries there. We *did* do illegal and ethical reprehensible things. The difference is, we acknowledge it as such, why you do not. You prefer to turn in hypocrisy, denying the responsability you have, and repeating it continiously.
"Despite all your protestations to the contrary, one cannot correctly state that the US is to blame for Saddam's actions against Kuwait or the world at large simply because, at some point, we allied with them."
Which, again, is a fallacy: you would have me argue a position I never took. I never stated, nor did I protest, that the usa is entirely, nor solely, to blame for saddams invasion of Kuwait. the degree on which they are to blame for that particular insatnce, would be determined in how much they know of his invasionplans, what they did to stimulate him in invading it, what they did provide him with if they did know he was going to use it for the invasion, etc. As you are well aware, the issue at question was about him giving weapons, when being well aware that he used them against his own civilian population. the
"Unfortunately the world is much more complicated than your grade-school reasoning skills."
In all honesty: YOU were the one who started with the grade-school reasoned analogy. An analogy who was almost laughingly absurd and incorrect.
Let's analyse, you said:
"Your argument is pointless - if you feed and clothe a child, who grows up to be a murderer, are you responsible for their actions? If you attempt to do something to correct their path or deal with them, are you being hypocritical?"
Now, Saddam, nor the USA president is a child; they are both mature enough to understand the world as it is, and thus, your analogy of a 'child' is bogus: let's make it an adult.
Secondly, it's about giving him weapons (and even chemicals for WMD), not clothing or food. The analogy, thus, should be adapted so that it reflects that it's not an inherently good thing (as clothing and giving food is). why, we can stay close to home and just say you gave him weapons.
Thirdly, since it's about an adult, and not a child, he didn't 'grew up' to become a murderer, he already was one. and, indeed, Saddam was a mass-murderer long before the USA decided he wasn't their friend anymore. And, what's more, they knew it all to well, when they were providing him with weapons.
So, your more correct anaolgy now is:
"If you give weapons to an adult, who you know to be a murderer and uses those weapons to kill people, are you responsible for their actions?"
Well, yes, you are, at least partially. Even your own courts would condemn you for doing such a thing. So don't pretend the USA has no blame and has no blood on its hands in this matter.
"It's time to start looking for solutions."
For the problems you caused, you mean.
You can keep all your halliburton contracts, as far as I care. By your (=the usa) warmongering and imperialistic actions, you force the world into a position of 'faits accomplies', where we have no choice then to help picking up the pieces you left, because otherwise the mess will be even bigger. And then you expect us to just swallow it and act as if nothing is the matter too. Pretty damn arrogant of you, just like your government.
Frankly, you deserve all the US-hating and flagburning that you get.
Let's say you have kids. I kill you. Then I provide your kids with good education and your wife with financial and other support and what not. When they criticise me for killing their father/husband, and I say: "Well, what I did is in the past, and it was bad, but what has that to do with the fact that my caring of you now, and you're better off?", wouldn't you think that that was utter bull, hypocritical and outright vile? EVEN if they would truelly be better off without you, it wouldn't excuse what I did, and it wouldn't justify my actions.
Well, that's what I think of your (similar)response about invading Iraq too.
About the 'killing terrorists': the parent poster was being ironic, in case you didn't got it. He was alluding to your fallacy of "why do you support Saddam?", when it's not about supporting Saddam at all. One can be perfectly against the hypocrisy and the foreign policies and warmongering and imperial dellusions of the USA, without that meaning one is "supportive of saddam".
And actually, no: people in the first place want to make sure they and their family survive. All things necessary (as in: essential, such as food) for that will be on their top list. Freedom is not on that top-list with the majority of the people. And apart from that, what they got now is not freedom, but the uncertainty of comming back, when they leave their house.
As for 'now living better', as seen in material terms, this is blatantly untrue, and only shoved up your brain by the typical one-sided USA media. The truth is, as another poster already explained, that Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East. They had far better working roads, electricity, water, etc. then they have today - at least *before* the war, the sanctions and this latest occupation occured.
But ofcourse, if you're the cause of the total destruction of the infrastructure, it's easy to say you ameliorated it, afterwards.
"Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars."
Or, you could have been cooperating more with the russians, whome have been building and maintaining (a) spacestation(s) for decades... and ask for their vast amounts of data.
The unvaluable engineering experience was already there. Ok, so not with the USA engineers, but nationalism is not the point, is it? Unless you plan on going to Mars just of your own - which, we both know, is very unlikely. It's almost a certitude that it will be an international endeavour, possibly even including china.
You do realise that encrypting your recipe goes against the spirit of the GPL, right?
Please decrypt it, so that all those mysterious 'gallons', 'tbsp', 'lbs' and other forms of encryption are translated in something the average person outside the field of anglo-saxon living can understand.;-)
"Now, does the post I called say "its definitely a european beer. That means it should be served just below room temp, not well chilled"? Yes it does. Does that imply that all European beers are all the same? Yes it does."
Umm...no, it doesn't. I'm baffled as to how you come to such a conclusion, frankly.
A statement about the typical temperatures at which beers are served in no way implies that they taste all the same.
In fact, reading his post, I rather come to the conclusion he argues that european beer has more flavour. In which he is correct, of course.
I think most people are well aware that the best beers come from europe in general (which doesn't mean they don't have crapbeer too), and belgium specifically. Of course, 'best' is subjective, but even then the variety and quality of the beers are unsurpassed in Belgium. At the end, beer is an aquired taste, and I once thought that one couldn't comment on what tastes 'better' in this regard. But then I tasted Heiniken, which was the crappiest beer I ever drunk...until I tried corona, that's to say.
Then I realised that, indeed, there is such thing as a quality beer and tasteless-crap-beer, regardless of personal tastes.
The strange thing is, we mainly export our crap-beer, and still get praised for it in foreign countries. No wonder people (tourists) actually trying out the local brews are swept from their feet (not only literally;-).
"The recipe in question as given on the website will produce a very interesting beer, but, its definitely a european beer."
Yeah, right: it will taste good, thus.
And, the mecca for good quality beer, even within europe, it must be said, is Belgium. The variety and quality of the beers there are truly unsurpassed.
Your anglo-saxon neo-liberal arguments are interesting, yet I think misguided.
I take it you're not from europe (at least the mainland)?
The whole discussion you had with the opther poster(s) revolve around what is 'best', in a way, but clearly you both have other subjects in mind. There is little doubt that cutting wages, not providing healthcare, etc. is best for walmart, as defined by profitmarges and stockvalue for the shareholders.
As it is equally clear that it's not the best thing for the 'lower' workers, nor for the people itself. Ofcourse, it's the same people that go there, wanting to buy cheap - a natural tendency for all people, including myself. People have mostly a short range vision, and when they can get something cheaper then elsewhere, they'll do it; that's what thrives the market, after all, and I agree with you that private firms care nothing for being a welfare-organisation.
Which is why, in most of europe, the state obliges them to be exactly that, at least to a certain point. The reason is, that the philospohy you stated is indeed those of the companies, and when left unchecked, it would lead to rampant ultra-capitalism, as it was in the 19th century. Therefor, a balance has to be made, between the greed (which it basically is) of companies, and the wellfare and health of the populace seen in the long term, which is where the government comes in (at least here).
Oblige every company to provide healthcare for their workers, for instance, and you level the playing field for all companies, because it counts for all (thus, not providing a way to false competition). Provide adequate minimum wages for all, and the buying power doesn't decrease under a certain point.
It's a difficult balance, especially in a world-economy. This system provides less of a 'flexible' economy (a term overused, IMHO), but it does provide more wellfare and better health for the populace at large. It's striking the balance between reasonable economic growth (thus, not 'maximal' per sé), while maintaining the level of wellfare for all people, which is difficult.
In the EU, some countries may have gone a bit too much one side (hence the reforms), but the USA certainly has gone way too much the other side.
And, you'll find that most ordinary people (thus, not CEO's and the lot) in the EU, actually prefer this system then the neo-liberal capitalistic system of the USA.
Soon, public works and services which are economical not profitable would collapse, to the detriment of those that are economical the weakest in society.
Which is the anglo-saxon way of capitalistic thinking, I know.
Those damn commie-europeans! This is against the free market! How dare that organisation offer something free to the public when the public has funded that organisation with taxes!
Someone posted the warning that we should be ever vigilant, because big corps and all the pro-swpat cronies will not rest untill they get what they want, and that they would try other means if this directive failed.
Well, gues what: the FIRST SIGNS are already there. Here is a comment I stumbled upon already:
"During the debate on Tuesday, Commissioner Joaquín ALMUNIA told MEPs: "Should you decide to reject the common position, the Commission will not submit a new proposal." Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability."
So, now, it's not the CII anymore, but something weasily called the 'community patent'. Let's be very watchful on these sudden outbursts of 'helpful' patentreforms, and deny anyone to amend something to the point that it becomes a second software patent directive.
"But if somebody uses logic to test the value of a faith, then they're using logic as a faith."
That would actually depend on the premises of that faith, and whether or not it values logic (and consistency) itself.
One can never logically test the premise of the value of a faith which refutes any logic, obviously. But, luckily, while the value in those cases remain outside the scope of logic, the way in which it is expressed often (has tenets which) can be subjected to logic.
But I've made the mistake to turn me into a feeble human without any godly powers or wisdom, who thinks he's God.
Please prove me wrong (or right).
In fact, can I not logical argue that, since I am a feeble human without any godly powers and wisdom, and I do think I'm god, that this is proof I am god?;-)
Well, I don't fully agree, but let's say you are right, for arguments' sake.
Even then, it might be premature to say logic only exists within the human mind. It is quite possible that other intelligent beings (aliens or AIs or something) could and would use logic too.
Slashdot Mirror
"Not quite. All you have to do to prove me wrong is state, clearly, why my argument is fallacious. Since you are incapable of doing that you continue to simply say it is, over and over, hoping to obscure the fact that you've never offered any proof whatsoever. Thus my argument stands."
Lol. Well, this is becoming truelly ridiculous. For starters, you could actually read my arguments which clearly demonstrates how ludicrous your claims are. But then again, just as with the analogies, you pretend it's not proof at all, but just an opinion. The dabate then, becomes futile: all the arguments and proof I have given is right in front of you, explained in the last half dozen posts or so. But, since you refute anything as such, and continue to claim I gave nothing but unsubstantiated claims, when it's cleary you who doesn't whish to engage in an intellectual honest discussion, then there is no common basis to agree on anything. You're so blind to any form of rationale and reason, you use nothing but fallacies and skewed analogies, and THEN claim it's me that fails to give any validation for the arguments given. thus your argument is complete and utter bullocks, but feel free to wallow in your own nonsense.
"No, thank you - for again refusing to back your position or find any way to critique my reasoning, and instead falling back on juvenile insults. Again your argument is clearly illustrated to be false."
Thanks. No, thanks you. No, thank *you*. Nono, thank you! (ad infinitum)
Dude, grow up.
"You mean the repeated sources I have cited don't qualify for you as 'valid argumentation'?"
No, I mean your continious use of fallacies, ad hominem attacks, skewed analogies and complete myopic reasoning, together with layers of sophistic constructs and demagogic blabberings which you try to substantiate by providing links to pages which do not only not support your position, but don't even have anything which *could* substantiate the claim you made.
"You mistyped 'fact upon fact'. And, again, your emotional BS does not conceal the fact that you have not rebutted a single source, statement, or argument I have made."
Your assertation I 'mistyped' is yet another example of how you are intellectual dishonest. Rest assured I did not mistype: I meant exactly what I wrote: fallacy after fallacy. In kind, I will respond thus: But, indeed, I understand you do not know the difference between facts and fallacies; this has become all to obvious during your postings.
"Not a refutation of the point made, this is a different matter entirely. My point stands."
It stands as you continue to hide between the "we were not alone doing it" curtains, indeed.
"Explicitly disproven by quoting Hans Blix and other members of the UN. My point stands."
Really? You mean one of your links, who did actually go into the matter of the claim, namely that the UN had strong doubts about the WMD, by the time the USA invaded Iraq? I don't think so. In fact, the funny part is, if I would take exactly your claim, namely that individual members of the UN constitute the UN itself, even for you, it becomes plain and obvious that the 'UN' had strong doubts, as is mentionned by France, Russia, etc. during the last summit where Powel tried to convince the rest of the world of his lies.
"Cites facts not in evidence at the time the war was declared. Thus, invalid. My point stands."
Minus the above point, of course. And the fact that time and again, inspectors found nothing at the 'hidden sites' the CIA told them there were WMD. Ofcourse, any longer, and even the USA couldn't pretend anymore that there were WMDs left, which would have hampered their warmongering efforts. Thus, they rather had the inspections discontinued, which were doubting the truth of the claims more and more, and went to war, as they always had planned. Believing anything else is nothing but misguided naivity or chauvinistic zealotry. But hey, I know facts don't count for you. Come to think of it, why don't you invade N.K
"Well it certainly is refreshing that you have dropped all pretense of arguing facts, reason, or logic, and decided to present your complete frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary doggerel without subterfuge."
:-)
... what, a cup of coffee? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars, personnel, and materiel are expected to be required to rebuild and stabilize Iraq, you complete and unredeemable idiot?"
;-) Ninkenpoop.
Oh. You mean, like your insistant ad hominem attacks for the past 3 posts? Well, scuze me for replying in kind. Maybe if you hadn't started to use blatant fallacies and downright personal insults, you wouldn't have to feel so 'refreshed' that you get the same treatement.
"Perhaps you are not familiar with this concept, since you have no experience with logic or reasoning. However when one asserts that a position is false, it is up to that person to prove that the position is false. You never have. Thus any assertion by you that my argument is 'fallacious' immediately falls. Which is why the term does not apply."
The fact that you do not consider it demonstrated as fallacious, while for any reasonable, rational reader this would be more then clear when even glancing on the arguments I have given, rather demonstrates that I'm not the one lacking knowledge and experience in matter of logic or reasoning.
"For the problems you caused, you mean.
An absolute statement, not one of 'shared responsibility' which is, on and off, your new position. The problem is you contradict yourself, shifting your position for each point you wish to make. For example, just above the statement I quoted, you wrote (emphasis mine):
Well, yes, you are, at least partially."
And your point being? You just gave proof of what I said, you moron! The "For the problems you caused, you mean." is exactly what I said I said. Ofcourse you are responsable for the things you do yourself! Only a waterhead would not comprehend, or someone willingly 'misunderstanding' me. You must be one of the two (or woth) since you kept saying I said you were solely responsable for everything Saddam did, which is why I made clear that you're only responsable for the things you have done, which isn't ALL that Saddam has ever done, and thus, you bear part of the responsability there, while still being responsabil for what you did, obviously.
Thanks for proving the case, smartass.
"Every time you respond to my posts you carefully excise each of my rebuttals of your idiotic 'excuse' position, then make the exact same statement again and imply that it was my argument. Obviously you are the one being obnoxious, and worse, dishonest."
Maybe that's due because you keep argumenting the same BS without giving any valid argumentation, nor showing any coherent reasoning on the matter? Actually, you are now doing exactly that, which you say I am doing, with the difference that you actually started doing it, and that already 3 or 4 posts ago. Your 'rebutals' are nothing more then fallacy upon fallacy, with some biased opinions mixed bextween them, and complete disregard of any logical thinking and rational reasoning. And even when I respond to them with rational arguments and consistency, you claim the oposite, and further negate everything I said, or create an illusionary position I've never taken to prove your point, or simply fall prey to ad hominem attacks.
Surely you will agree (or maybe you won't, seen your aparent lack for consistency and rationale) that this discussion is rather senseless, since we both claim the other is completely void of rational thought and reasoning, and we agree that the other side is just full of BS.
"STOP THE PRESSES! 11 MILLION EUROS!!!! That buys
LOL. Well, that explains why your war costs billions of dollars, then! Your coffee alone costs 11 million euro's!
So, basically, you agree that we did give help then, even when it's insignificant in your eyes? In that case, it unvalidates what you have sa
"It is hard to argue against the idea of too much economic liberty for individuals. "
I can argue quite easily: it would invite rampant unequality, causing the wellfare of the populace (as a whole) to fall. I don't think it has yet to be proven that, when economical 'liberty' is left unchecked and unbalanced, you do not get the most wellfare for the most people, but rather the a concentration of wellfare for the few.
Depending on what you consider a worthy goal for a society, you may or may not accept the latter as a welcome evolution. I do not, however.
"The same would be true of you mandated all companies to provide food, housing, vacation airplane tickets, and Chia Pets. Where does it stop?"
It stops where the company stops making enough profit for continuing their business. As long as they see a benefit (thus, enough profit) going their way, they will continue. Furthermore, airplane-tickets and chi-pets are hardly as important as healthcare. (That said, it's funny you would mention that, because I have a nephew who's working for an air-company, and he *does* get free tickets...so aparently, it's not out of the ordinary. the reason why they do that, I suppose, is that they can afford it. Thus, being able to afford a system of healthcare is paramount.) The current revisals of the system, is exatly because, in a worldmarket, the cost is getting to high to maintain it as it is, currently. But the system istelf is not in discussion.
" Why not instead mandate nothing. Just pay the workers for the value of their work, and let them spend what they want on health care, food, and other things as they need."
a noble thought, and one I can relate too, frankly, because I have libertarian principles also. alas, just like communism, raw capitalism is fine, nay, even great in theory, but sucks in reality. We already had such capitalism in the 19th century, at least in europe, and if history has shown us anything, it's that unbalanced (with social laws and provisions, thus) capitalism is NOT to the benefit of the populace at large.
A system where everyone decides what to do with his money, would quicly lead to devastating social inequalities, unless one presumes that everyone is not only born equal, but gets the same possibilities in life, can not be struck by sheer 'unluck', and has the rationality to keep a balance to his own health -and other expenses. I do not share that optimistic vision.
In practise, what will happen is, that the few will reap the most benefits, while the most don't. The 'social divide' between the poor and the rich is a well known problem, and is considerably higher where people adher (more) to your vision of capitalism (such as in the US) then in EU countries. And this is the prime reason for it.
"You are overlooking the obvious. There is a major player here that you are giving a minor role. It is the government itself. The companies in fact do not engage in "greed": it is not greed to work to create wealth. The "greed" realm is dominated by the government. The important balance is between the greed of the government, and the freedom of the governed."
I disagree with your assessement of companies: most companies are all to greedy, even if they use euphemisms for it to conceil it. I agree with your statement about the government: clearly, any institution or entity that has power, seeks more power. Needles to say, each such power needs to be kept in check and be balanced. this is true for companies, but, indeed, for governments as well. Yet, of all meddlings of the government, I look at those which are used to give more social justice to the populace at large, as being the most tolerable.
Yes, I know governments often abuse this (for instance, by taking away individual liberties, while strictly speaking they don't have to), of course, but still. I think citizens, companies and the government should be in a permanent dance of balancing eachother. I think in the USA, the companies are leading too much.
Ah, I see, thus, suddenly, the analogy becomes 'pointless minutiae', when one is analysing the actual terminology. I already stated why helping Saddam is more akin to giving weapons to a known murderer, instead of giving 'clothes' to a 'child'. Your persistence on that not being the case, and that your analogy is, in fact, much closer to the observable reality, borders on the ludicrous.
"You just thought it sounded cool and intellectually insulting, so you whipped it out."
I fear you are projecting your own behaviour on to others. Since your argument sounded plausable, but was fallacious, it is the correct term to use. clearly, you do not agree it is fallacious, but even if you would be right (which you aren't) that doesn't change much to the fact I was using the right term in the right context.
"If you say 'you are responsible for X', you are assigning unique and total responsibility. If you say 'you are partially responsible for X' you are - follow me closely - assigning partial responsibility. What you did was state the former, and insist you meant the latter. Which is patently false. Just admit you're wrong."
I said: the USA bears responsability for what it did. You're whole explanation and exercise in semantics comes crashing down as a result. And I suspect it's not mere misunderstanding neither: even if you were (truelly) of the opinion I meant the USA bears the only responsability for everything in Iraq, ever, then still you couldn't have missed my frequent assertions (as response to your insistant excuses of 'we were not alone in doing such things) that other countries who helped Saddam, were equally guilty, but that that did not absolve or excuses what the USa did and does. Just admit you're being obnoxious.
"And you continue to show your stupidity by harping on a point which nobody except you seems to be claiming."
Really? I didn't see you agree or confess to what your country has done and is doing, exept by stating 'that doesn't matter anymore, it's all in the past, let's move on'. Let alone that your government has acknowledged their unethical and illegal behaviour and apologised.
"However reasons/excuses cannot be hypocrital. One must consider the character of the person making the statement. A person hearing a reason/excuse can determine which of the two he believes the statement to be based upon possible contradiction, or perceived hypocritical behavior by the person making the statement. We then argue whether or not the person is being hypocritical, or telling lies. And, again, you have utterly failed on this point. You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country."
What kind of bullocks is that? Hypocrisy is defined by a contradiction of what you claim, and what you do with your actions. When the USA claims it's goal is to promote democracy, and yet it topples democratically elected leaders and places ruthless dictators in their place, then you have a contradiction and the USA is being hypocrite for making that claim.
It's that simple.
And once again, I find your counterargument mindboggling: I have uttelry failed in providing proof that the USA is being hypocrite, yet, only a few words further, you say "You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country.", thereby at least insinuating that you do not deny the USA IS hypocritical. (But no more then others - your claim probably is). You do not cease to be a hypocrite because there are other hypocrites, however.
"It are?"
Yes.
"You make a little progress here, basically admitting another point I have made: that the good of the US far outweighs the evil you imagine and/or build up. But then you lost most of it by falling back on the same tired 'excuse' argument, which nobody but you is making."
Learn to read, or stop putting words in my mouth. I said it's impossible to know whether the world would be better of with or without the USA. I said they we're
"I already have. But we're obviously not going to agree on the analogy, which is why we should focus on the actual situation."
Spoken as someone who doesn't want to get into the side of a losing argument. You did not give any explanation why your terms of your analogy would be more correct to the actual example. Mostly, you stated that 'it is not a matter if it's a murderer or not, because soldiers kill to' - which is an absurd statement, because soldiers are not supposed to kill civilians on purpose. Thus, the analogy with a murderer stands.
"Please stop using words you don't understand. My argument is not a 'sophism', it is a rebuttal of a position which you keep changing. First you stated that we were 'responsible' for Saddam, now you state that we are 'co-responsible'. I am glad you are gradually admitting you are wrong, but it is dishonest to do it in the method you choose."
Please stop asuming I don't understand words because you don't. You argument was a sophism: "A plausible but fallacious argument". Whether you used it as a rebutal does nothing to change that. And, regarding 'keep-changing-position', I'm afraid that's due to your very selective reading (which you accuse me of, btw): I have stated numerous times, in deiverse posts by now, that you (USA) bears responsability for what you have done. It does not mean you are the ONLY one bearing responsability. Saddam does too, as does a lot of other countries. I have said this over and over, but you merely ignore that. and equaly, I said that the fact that others have some responsability too, it does not absolve the guilt and responsability of the USA.
"Again that is a matter of perspective - the difference between an excuse and a reason is always subjective."
Unless it is clear that they are contradictory and hypocrite, such as when claiming to invade other countries to get rid of a mass-murderer, or WMDs, or to bring democracy, when one is perfectly happy to sustain and support mass-murderers, when no WMDs are present, or when one is also perfectly happy to topple democratically elected leaders to install dictators, as long as it's to the benefit of said country.
Then it *are* excuses.
"Which numerous member countries did, along with pocketing illicit cash in the Oil for Food Scandal."
Your refusal to address this point reveals a substantial weakness in your reasoning."
Well, you make the point for me, actually. You claimed the UN did it, and then try to prove it with examples of where individual members took illegal actions based on nationalistic politics. I doubt ANY of those countries did those things with the approval of the UN, thus, the UN did not sell weapons.
"It is, however, an oversimplification: the replacement of a complex statement with a deceptively simple one. I doubt you would be comfortable with my summing up the Iraq situation as an 'ongoing police action',"
You mean, like you did with the war on vietnam?
" as it has many more facets than that. Your political analysis lacks depth, so comments based upon it will be equally shallow. "
And yet, it boils down to exactly that. It certainly makes more sense, then claiming the USa did it for the WMD (which weren't there), or to bring democracy or topple a mass-murderer (when they've shown numerous times they are perfectlyt happy to crucnh democracy and support regimes and dictators, if it suits them).
"Are you seriously claiming that you didn't? Other than economic survival and the retention of your colonial holdings, what reasons can you give? Unless of course you're all just sick and did it for fun."
You completely baffle me. Are you honestly claiming that retaining colonial holdings is a matter of survival? Are you really THAT thick? It wasn't about survival, it was about getting wealthier. the two are not the same, though I have no doubt you seem to have the trouble of seeiçng the difference. If we hadn't exploited the blacks and what not, our 'economics' wouldn't have been so strong durin
I'm aware that the ISS is a joint project, not only including russians, but the EU as well.
Yet, the question remains if the exhorbitant expensive station was worth the money. You indicated that it's worth that prise because of engineering experiences; but the russians already had that for years: they already *knew* howto build modular spacestations.
Now, no doubt we've learned some new things, such as in communications...but you hardly need a multi-biljon spacestation for that, now do we?
As you are well aware, many, many scientists have severe reservations about the worth of the spacestation (compared to the cost). And, what's more, they have a valid point: almost all science done there, could as well have been done better and cheaper in other ways. The only expeption being, to see how humans thrive in space itself (which obviously needs humans), and what is required to keep them healthy. But, as I said, for that purpose, the Russians already had extensive data.
So, all by all, while I'm for space-exploration, and, indeed, even human space-exploration, I still think there is validity in doubting the wisdom of creating the ISS. Yes, we'll learn new things...but at a huge cost. Better would it have been, if all that money was used for creating a largely self-sustaining base or research-facility on the moon. The value of that, also in engineering, would be far, far greater - and with no precedent. Certainly in regard to a future with planetary settlements (such as on Mars), it would give us far more relevant data then yet another spacestation.
Well, anyway, it's too late now, so we'll have to make the best of it. But still, it wasn't the best option in regard to cost versus new scientific (or engineering) data.
"My analogy was apt. You simply disagree with the conclusion and thus are attacking the analogy. "
Lol. then please elaborate on the reasons why 'child', 'food and clothes' etc. in your analogy are more justified then 'adult' and 'weapons', etc.
"So obviously we did not create him."
Could you please stop with this kind of sophism. as you are well aware, I did not say you created him, I said you aided and supported him, well aware of what he was and what he did with the weapons you gave him. That makes you co-responsable.
All your other explanations are mere excuses...yes, yes, Iran was seen as the threat, at the time, as was communism and what not. your geoplotical reasons at the time do not excuse giving WMD to a mass-murderer where you know he also used them on his own people.
But that whole principle eludes you, doesn't it? You seems to have NO feeling for what is ethically wrong; instead, you use 3 paragraphs to explain the geoplotical reasons the USA had for doing what they did, and, you find that a good enough excuus for giving him weapons, even when the USA knew fully well he mass-used them against civilians. Your lack of ethical awareness is exactly that of your government. Mind you, even those geopolitical reasons sucked, but in any case it does not absolve you from the moral resposability you had. And even if it were, then you're double a hypocrite for using moral superiority to bolster this latest invasion.
"But the problem there is that you will find yourself equally guilty if you are a member of the United Nations. Note that I made this point in my last reply also, and you chose to avoid addressing it."
Not unless the UN sold WMD to Iran, and then invaded it with claims of moral superiority (or outright lies). As for those countries that sold weapons to saddam, knowing what he was going to use it for, I already told you: yes, they are guilty too. In no way does that absolve the USA from what they did.
"The fact of the matter is that survival sometimes requires 'unethical' behavior. As you admit in your next statement."
Hah! You sound like our government in the 60ies, denying and seeking excuses. Are you seriously claiming we exploited the black people there for our survival? Or that you invaded Iraq so that the USA could survive? Double hah! this is SO BS I can barely believe you use this as an excuse.
We both know it has nothing to do with *survival*, it has to do with gaining power, wealth, influence and other such geopolitical reasons. We certainly didn't colonise because our survival dependend on it, and you didn't invade Iraq so that the USA could escape oblivion. I spit on such demagogic 'reasons'.
And, btw, even if it were about survival, it still doesn't excuse aiding and supporting mass-murderers (and mind you, saddam is not the only case; the USA toppled many leaders, even democratic elected ones, to place a ruthless tyrants in their place - who mass-murdered civilians too, but where kept in place and supported as long as he did their bidding).
"Precisely my point: you are not actually concerned about the Iraqis, or the Middle East. You just want the United States to get its comeuppance. No matter what it costs."
Nomatter what it costs to you, yes. But you seem to be of the opinion one excludes the other. While, indeed (as I said numerous times by now) you oblige us to help get clear the mess you made, I still would very much see you slapped on the wrist too. Otherwise, you will never learn, and you will continue to think: 'what does it matter? We do as we please, and if we get in trouble, we're demand the rest of the world helps in cleaning up afterwards.' The arrogance and hypocrisy of that line of thought seems to completely elude you.
"Undoubtedly. But that's neither here nor there."
Exactly what you (=usa) say every time you meddle in other countries, or go on a rampage somewhere. You really seem to lack the ability to see how arrogant and hypocritcal that is. "Ah yes, we toppled a democrat
"The simple fact that you disagree with the conclusion reached by method of analogy does not mean the analogy is flawed."
I'm not only disputing the conclusion, I'm demonstrating that the analogy you used itself is unvalid.
And if you had a foot to stand on why your analogy is more correct then mine, I'm sure you would be explaining it to me.
"Because the argument is not whether or not the person uses weapons to kill people - as I said before, members of the armed services do that."
No, the argument is about being responsible for the actions you take. Do armed soldiers deliberatly target civilians? No. And if they do, they are condemned, just like other murderers. Thus, the analogy between Saddam with a murderer is far more correct then comparing him as a soldier, since he deliberatly targeted civilians - a thing which is universally (or at least claimed by the USA themselves) to be seen as morally wrong, illegal and dispicable.
"This same type of moronic argument is frequently used in advocacy of gun control, the theory being that the weapon is what causes the crime."
Again, a false analogy (you're quite good at it). You can not be blamed for selling a gun to somebody if you don't know he's a murderer or if he's goin to use it to kill someone. that why, in mostcivilised countries - and I think the USa made some law-effort in that regard too, if I'm not mistaken - to do at least a check on the buyer to see if he's not been convicted before. Likely, when you sell a gun to somebody, knowing he will use it to murder somebody, you *will* be found partially guilty, even by your own courts.
so, in both instances, your own judicial instances would condemn an ordinary citizen in analogue circumstances...yet you claim giving weapons to a mass-murderer like Saddam, knowing full well that he also used it against civilians (even his own people), is justified because the USa had other geo-political interests, at the time.
Fine ethics.
"The question is this: is the US to blame for Saddam's actions against its interests, simply because the US backed Saddam when he supported US interests? "
No, the question is, does the USA bare responsability for having actively supported a known mass-murderer, yet not caring one bit, simply because Saddam at the time supported the US interests?
The answer is, quite simply, yes.
"Just as many governments have backed allies which have eventually turned on them, we were simply caught in a position that developed from a very complex real-world problem."
Living in a complex world does not excuse anyone from being unethical. I find your argument of 'many other governments did the same' quite frankly of nonsensical worth. So? Then other governments bear responsability for their unethical behaviour too, or at least, they should. My country has some vile history during the colonisation-period of africa, and bears responsability for at least part the mess in some countries there. We *did* do illegal and ethical reprehensible things. The difference is, we acknowledge it as such, why you do not. You prefer to turn in hypocrisy, denying the responsability you have, and repeating it continiously.
"Despite all your protestations to the contrary, one cannot correctly state that the US is to blame for Saddam's actions against Kuwait or the world at large simply because, at some point, we allied with them."
Which, again, is a fallacy: you would have me argue a position I never took. I never stated, nor did I protest, that the usa is entirely, nor solely, to blame for saddams invasion of Kuwait. the degree on which they are to blame for that particular insatnce, would be determined in how much they know of his invasionplans, what they did to stimulate him in invading it, what they did provide him with if they did know he was going to use it for the invasion, etc. As you are well aware, the issue at question was about him giving weapons, when being well aware that he used them against his own civilian population. the
"Unfortunately the world is much more complicated than your grade-school reasoning skills."
In all honesty: YOU were the one who started with the grade-school reasoned analogy. An analogy who was almost laughingly absurd and incorrect.
Let's analyse, you said:
"Your argument is pointless - if you feed and clothe a child, who grows up to be a murderer, are you responsible for their actions? If you attempt to do something to correct their path or deal with them, are you being hypocritical?"
Now, Saddam, nor the USA president is a child; they are both mature enough to understand the world as it is, and thus, your analogy of a 'child' is bogus: let's make it an adult.
Secondly, it's about giving him weapons (and even chemicals for WMD), not clothing or food. The analogy, thus, should be adapted so that it reflects that it's not an inherently good thing (as clothing and giving food is). why, we can stay close to home and just say you gave him weapons.
Thirdly, since it's about an adult, and not a child, he didn't 'grew up' to become a murderer, he already was one. and, indeed, Saddam was a mass-murderer long before the USA decided he wasn't their friend anymore. And, what's more, they knew it all to well, when they were providing him with weapons.
So, your more correct anaolgy now is:
"If you give weapons to an adult, who you know to be a murderer and uses those weapons to kill people, are you responsible for their actions?"
Well, yes, you are, at least partially. Even your own courts would condemn you for doing such a thing. So don't pretend the USA has no blame and has no blood on its hands in this matter.
"It's time to start looking for solutions."
For the problems you caused, you mean.
You can keep all your halliburton contracts, as far as I care. By your (=the usa) warmongering and imperialistic actions, you force the world into a position of 'faits accomplies', where we have no choice then to help picking up the pieces you left, because otherwise the mess will be even bigger. And then you expect us to just swallow it and act as if nothing is the matter too. Pretty damn arrogant of you, just like your government.
Frankly, you deserve all the US-hating and flagburning that you get.
I think you are missing the point a bit.
Let's say you have kids. I kill you. Then I provide your kids with good education and your wife with financial and other support and what not. When they criticise me for killing their father/husband, and I say: "Well, what I did is in the past, and it was bad, but what has that to do with the fact that my caring of you now, and you're better off?", wouldn't you think that that was utter bull, hypocritical and outright vile? EVEN if they would truelly be better off without you, it wouldn't excuse what I did, and it wouldn't justify my actions.
Well, that's what I think of your (similar)response about invading Iraq too.
About the 'killing terrorists': the parent poster was being ironic, in case you didn't got it. He was alluding to your fallacy of "why do you support Saddam?", when it's not about supporting Saddam at all. One can be perfectly against the hypocrisy and the foreign policies and warmongering and imperial dellusions of the USA, without that meaning one is "supportive of saddam".
And actually, no: people in the first place want to make sure they and their family survive. All things necessary (as in: essential, such as food) for that will be on their top list. Freedom is not on that top-list with the majority of the people. And apart from that, what they got now is not freedom, but the uncertainty of comming back, when they leave their house.
As for 'now living better', as seen in material terms, this is blatantly untrue, and only shoved up your brain by the typical one-sided USA media. The truth is, as another poster already explained, that Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East. They had far better working roads, electricity, water, etc. then they have today - at least *before* the war, the sanctions and this latest occupation occured.
But ofcourse, if you're the cause of the total destruction of the infrastructure, it's easy to say you ameliorated it, afterwards.
"Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars."
Or, you could have been cooperating more with the russians, whome have been building and maintaining (a) spacestation(s) for decades... and ask for their vast amounts of data.
The unvaluable engineering experience was already there. Ok, so not with the USA engineers, but nationalism is not the point, is it? Unless you plan on going to Mars just of your own - which, we both know, is very unlikely. It's almost a certitude that it will be an international endeavour, possibly even including china.
You do realise that encrypting your recipe goes against the spirit of the GPL, right?
;-)
Please decrypt it, so that all those mysterious 'gallons', 'tbsp', 'lbs' and other forms of encryption are translated in something the average person outside the field of anglo-saxon living can understand.
"Cold beer is just part of the American culture."
:-)
;-)
Well, I won't dispute that.
But, if you actually want to enjoy the taste of the beer, the "European beer snobs" are right.
"Now, does the post I called say "its definitely a european beer. That means it should be served just below room temp, not well chilled"? Yes it does. Does that imply that all European beers are all the same? Yes it does."
;-).
Umm...no, it doesn't. I'm baffled as to how you come to such a conclusion, frankly.
A statement about the typical temperatures at which beers are served in no way implies that they taste all the same.
In fact, reading his post, I rather come to the conclusion he argues that european beer has more flavour. In which he is correct, of course.
I think most people are well aware that the best beers come from europe in general (which doesn't mean they don't have crapbeer too), and belgium specifically. Of course, 'best' is subjective, but even then the variety and quality of the beers are unsurpassed in Belgium. At the end, beer is an aquired taste, and I once thought that one couldn't comment on what tastes 'better' in this regard. But then I tasted Heiniken, which was the crappiest beer I ever drunk...until I tried corona, that's to say.
Then I realised that, indeed, there is such thing as a quality beer and tasteless-crap-beer, regardless of personal tastes.
The strange thing is, we mainly export our crap-beer, and still get praised for it in foreign countries. No wonder people (tourists) actually trying out the local brews are swept from their feet (not only literally
"The recipe in question as given on the website will produce a very interesting beer, but, its definitely a european beer."
Yeah, right: it will taste good, thus.
And, the mecca for good quality beer, even within europe, it must be said, is Belgium. The variety and quality of the beers there are truly unsurpassed.
Your anglo-saxon neo-liberal arguments are interesting, yet I think misguided.
I take it you're not from europe (at least the mainland)?
The whole discussion you had with the opther poster(s) revolve around what is 'best', in a way, but clearly you both have other subjects in mind. There is little doubt that cutting wages, not providing healthcare, etc. is best for walmart, as defined by profitmarges and stockvalue for the shareholders.
As it is equally clear that it's not the best thing for the 'lower' workers, nor for the people itself. Ofcourse, it's the same people that go there, wanting to buy cheap - a natural tendency for all people, including myself. People have mostly a short range vision, and when they can get something cheaper then elsewhere, they'll do it; that's what thrives the market, after all, and I agree with you that private firms care nothing for being a welfare-organisation.
Which is why, in most of europe, the state obliges them to be exactly that, at least to a certain point. The reason is, that the philospohy you stated is indeed those of the companies, and when left unchecked, it would lead to rampant ultra-capitalism, as it was in the 19th century. Therefor, a balance has to be made, between the greed (which it basically is) of companies, and the wellfare and health of the populace seen in the long term, which is where the government comes in (at least here).
Oblige every company to provide healthcare for their workers, for instance, and you level the playing field for all companies, because it counts for all (thus, not providing a way to false competition). Provide adequate minimum wages for all, and the buying power doesn't decrease under a certain point.
It's a difficult balance, especially in a world-economy. This system provides less of a 'flexible' economy (a term overused, IMHO), but it does provide more wellfare and better health for the populace at large. It's striking the balance between reasonable economic growth (thus, not 'maximal' per sé), while maintaining the level of wellfare for all people, which is difficult.
In the EU, some countries may have gone a bit too much one side (hence the reforms), but the USA certainly has gone way too much the other side.
And, you'll find that most ordinary people (thus, not CEO's and the lot) in the EU, actually prefer this system then the neo-liberal capitalistic system of the USA.
This could be said about all taxes.
Soon, public works and services which are economical not profitable would collapse, to the detriment of those that are economical the weakest in society.
Which is the anglo-saxon way of capitalistic thinking, I know.
Those damn commie-europeans! This is against the free market! How dare that organisation offer something free to the public when the public has funded that organisation with taxes!
O, wait...
"Even hypocrisy is a powerful safeguard."
Of all things you have said, I would dispute this the most.
If anything, hypocrisy is THE ONLY way of effectively determine what is correct and not, when premises differ.
Someone posted the warning that we should be ever vigilant, because big corps and all the pro-swpat cronies will not rest untill they get what they want, and that they would try other means if this directive failed.
Well, gues what: the FIRST SIGNS are already there. Here is a comment I stumbled upon already:
"During the debate on Tuesday, Commissioner Joaquín ALMUNIA told MEPs: "Should you decide to reject the common position, the Commission will not submit a new proposal." Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability."
So, now, it's not the CII anymore, but something weasily called the 'community patent'. Let's be very watchful on these sudden outbursts of 'helpful' patentreforms, and deny anyone to amend something to the point that it becomes a second software patent directive.
Darn! and I was just going to give a pedantic comment on that!
"But if somebody uses logic to test the value of a faith, then they're using logic as a faith."
That would actually depend on the premises of that faith, and whether or not it values logic (and consistency) itself.
One can never logically test the premise of the value of a faith which refutes any logic, obviously. But, luckily, while the value in those cases remain outside the scope of logic, the way in which it is expressed often (has tenets which) can be subjected to logic.
"I would recommend proving we exist first."
;-)
Indeed!
In fact, I am god.
No, really!
But I've made the mistake to turn me into a feeble human without any godly powers or wisdom, who thinks he's God.
Please prove me wrong (or right).
In fact, can I not logical argue that, since I am a feeble human without any godly powers and wisdom, and I do think I'm god, that this is proof I am god?
"The problem with logic is that you have to start with something that's not logical."
I don't think this is true. One could as well start from an experience or an observation, for instance.
Well, I don't fully agree, but let's say you are right, for arguments' sake.
;-)
Even then, it might be premature to say logic only exists within the human mind. It is quite possible that other intelligent beings (aliens or AIs or something) could and would use logic too.
In fact, logic would dictate they do.