Hmm, I seem to remember an OP-ED piece a day or so ago making this exact same complaint about the Dems' crazy "strategy". It doesn't get any more intelligent when you parrot it back to us like it was your own original thought (you might want to try that sometime, by the way). So far as I can tell, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrats are doing it as a backdoor way to get out of Iraq. Not that that stops the echo chamber crowd...
The point is: To those it really matters to - the people killed and their children - our actions mean absolutely nothing. Why? Because they're all dead!
Yes, I understand it keeps getting put off. I don't disagree that that sux. See below...
Ok, so now that we've recognized it, what great and fantastical things now happen?
The rest of the world goes, Wow! That USA, it took her a while, but wow, we love her so much now that they've recognized what the Armenians went through just a short 92 years ago... OK, not going to happen.
The millions of Armenians that were killed, and all their kids (who are also dead) who suffered without parents, are overjoyed and they give us the 5th Dragonball to defeat radical Islam? Ok, not going to happen.
We PO a regional ally in the WoT, add to the things we need to deal with, expend political capital with little gain (because when it comes down to it: Almost no one really cares what happened 92 years ago), Congress wastes time on this rather than solving the multitude of huge current issues on their plate, and Pelosi can get a soundbite for actually accomplishing - to hugely debatable degree - something during her brief reign. I think I'll take this last one...
Chuck
A little thing called the budget maybe?
There hasnt been a single appropriations bill, other than SCHIP reauthorization, that has passed the house and senate.
First, Chuck, fix your quotes.
You are confused and don't realize what you are saying. This is typical of the confusion of righties who think they are the moral ones as they are the evildoers.
You defended the use of torture by saying it works and that we therefore get information.
Now, let me help you at what you did not say but implied, and don't realize you implied; what's the alternative to what you said? That we torture, but it doesn't work, we get no information; in other words, that there is no reason at all to do it; in other words, it's 'just for fun', as another way of saying for no reason. So my statement was accurate, that your defense is that rather than our torturing being for no reason, it's 'justified' because 'it works' to get information.
That's the generous answer; the post from you could be interpreted as lacking the basic reading skills to notice I summarized your position as "saying [torture is] not just for fun", to which you devastatingly disproved my post by responding, "I never said torture is just for fun". Oh, wait, that's exactly the same thing I said.
The assumption throughout your post is that torture is peachy keen if you are doing it because you want information.
Others of us differ with you on the morality of that view.
And oh, by the way, since I object on moral grounds, I did not bother to point out that experts broadly say torture does NOT work, for the most part.
My comparison was in the way you think about things and view the issues in terms of demonizing your enemy, of rationalizing violence, not the specific actions.
Show me the man who intends to rob and kill a man but is prevented, the man who robs and kills a man, and the man who robs and kills 100 men, and I'll show you three men who are pretty similarly problematic in their thinking, whatever their actions. And you don't really want to get into actions anyway; for example, the US killed millions of Vietnamese for no good reason, often with methods far more horrific than beheading, e.g., Agent Orange; Middle Easterners today have done nothing of the sort. Closer to home, the US chose economic sanction policies which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children; this outdoes the acts you refer to. But as an apologist - you are projecting in using the word - you don't see the US wrongs. How convenient for the math.
Regardless, you also neglect to look at the context of WHY each side is doing what it's doing; how were the middle easterners provoked? Who interfered in whose region first? Who installed dictators over nations? Who is in whose territory now? How many Middle Easterners have Americans killed compared to how many Americans Middle Easterners have killed? Are they taking our natural resources, or are we taking theirs?
So, again, my point was that you are guilty of the same views that serve the terrorists well when people on their side question the violence - the rationalization of violence.
It's not about the specific acts that result, but again, you don't have a point there anyway.
Yes, at the core there are some bad forces there, who are a threat; and there are murderers and rapists and other bad forces in our own cities, for that matter. But you make the problem a lot worse, and commit a lot of unnecessary wrongs yourself because of your wrong views. We should be able to deal with the legitimate threat a lot better than you would have.
The US isn't 'finally driven' to do much of anything, going back to the days of our sending Commodore Perry into Tokyo Harbor to tell the Japanese who just wanted to be left alone, open up or we'll kill you; since we started a war with Mexico and took half their land; since we committed genocide on Native Americans to take their land for our own use; since the Monroe Doctrine, and so on. No, we rarely are 'driven' to do much (an exception being Hitler).
You know who is driven to do something? One example is Iran, who actually did have their government put in place as a dictatorship for decades (by us), immediately followed by their being invaded (by our encouraging and eventually assisting Saddam) in a war with a milllion casualties, as Iranian schools were attack by gas weapons. And yet, *we're* blameless with Iran, only they are in the 'Axis of Evil' and a threat to us. Yes, their government has serious problems, but your ideology is, for lack of a better word, insane.
Your projecting aside, I do not feel responsibility to apologize to blacks for slavery. I do feel responsibility, as a human being, to recognize the history of wrongdoing; and that includes the wrongs that still exist today that are effects from the century of racism following slavery and the slavery for 200+ years before that, and to be interested in justice for the wrongs blacks experience today as a result of those historic wrongs.
When one group is denied money and education for decades and centuries, they are not any more ready for a 'color blind' race than a trained runner who has spent years preparing against someone who has been prevented from running for years before and is suddenly put on the track. I recognize that I benefit from my (white) race having had advantages from the immoral policies of racism in the past.
And I see the need to oppose that sort of injustice in the future, as I think everyone here does.
It's interesting that you show no concern about the wrongs but as a way to attack someone for showing such concern.
Nice elitist approach there....unless you're the reporter in question, or the reporter covered the ME, I don't care much what his/her views are. Ground war against a clear direct uniformed enemy that only occurs in other countries is a far cry different from combatants dressed and indistinguishable as civilians except for the acts they were caught committing. That some of these same high value combatants have a high degree of likelihood to possess information that will lead to the prevention of civilians being harmed just makes your argument even less realistic and more myopic...
Chuck[/quote]
Reading a book fits your definition of elitist, hm? I see.
War and human nature are broader than one specific region; your disinterest in any such inf o not specific to the Middle East is your problem, not mine.
You are so blindly following the road of war where you fail to have any grasp of the issues and demonize your enemy and care only about the 'effective methods' for committing violence that it's tragic, but not uncommon. There are many expressions for your immoral and amoral views, such as 'might makes right', but they are wasted on you, as lectures on the dangers of alcohol are on an alcoholic.
Whether it's you and the 'terrorists', or the US and Vietnam, or Russia and Chechnya, or Indonesia and East Timor, or the Taliban and the 'infidels', or countless other similar situations, it's largely the same fallacies leading to the rationalization of violence, where you justify the wrongs you do. I don't think we're going to communicate much on this, you are to ideologically drunk, IMO. It's like trying to convince the Germans of their errors in 1942, they were not ready to hear it. One day, you may see it differently.
You are confused and don't realize what you are saying. This is typical of the confusion of righties who think they are the moral ones as they are the evildoers.
You defended the use of torture by saying it works and that we therefore get information.
Now, let me help you at what you did not say but implied, and don't realize you implied; what's the alternative to what you said? That we torture, but it doesn't work, we get no information; in other words, that there is no reason at all to do it; in other words, it's 'just for fun', as another way of saying for no reason. So my statement was accurate, that your defense is that rather than our torturing being for no reason, it's 'justified' because 'it works' to get information.
That's the generous answer; the post from you could be interpreted as lacking the basic reading skills to notice I summarized your position as "saying [torture is] not just for fun", to which you devastatingly disproved my post by responding, "I never said torture is just for fun". Oh, wait, that's exactly the same thing I said.
The assumption throughout your post is that torture is peachy keen if you are doing it because you want information.
Others of us differ with you on the morality of that view.
And oh, by the way, since I object on moral grounds, I did not bother to point out that experts broadly say torture does NOT work, for the most part.
My comparison was in the way you think about things and view the issues in terms of demonizing your enemy, of rationalizing violence, not the specific actions.
Show me the man who intends to rob and kill a man but is prevented, the man who robs and kills a man, and the man who robs and kills 100 men, and I'll show you three men who are pretty similarly problematic in their thinking, whatever their actions. And you don't really want to get into actions anyway; for example, the US killed millions of Vietnamese for no good reason, often with methods far more horrific than beheading, e.g., Agent Orange; Middle Easterners today have done nothing of the sort. Closer to home, the US chose economic sanction policies which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children; this outdoes the acts you refer to. But as an apologist - you are projecting in using the word - you don't see the US wrongs. How convenient for the math.
Regardless, you also neglect to look at the context of WHY each side is doing what it's doing; how were the middle easterners provoked? Who interfered in whose region first? Who installed dictators over nations? Who is in whose territory now? How many Middle Easterners have Americans killed compared to how many Americans Middle Easterners have killed? Are they taking our natural resources, or are we taking theirs?
So, again, my point was that you are guilty of the same views that serve the terrorists well when people on their side question the violence - the rationalization of violence.
It's not about the specific acts that result, but again, you don't have a point there anyway.
Yes, at the core there are some bad forces there, who are a threat; and there are murderers and rapists and other bad forces in our own cities, for that matter. But you make the problem a lot worse, and commit a lot of unnecessary wrongs yourself because of your wrong views. We should be able to deal with the legitimate threat a lot better than you would have.
The US isn't 'finally driven' to do much of anything, going back to the days of our sending Commodore Perry into Tokyo Harbor to tell the Japanese who just wanted to be left alone, open up or we'll kill you; since we started a war with Mexico and took half their land; since we committed genocide on Native Americans to take their land for our own use; since the Monroe Doctrine, and so on. No, we rarely are 'driven' to do much (an exception being Hitler).
You know who is driven to do something? One example is Iran, who actually did have their government put in place as a dictatorship for decades (by us), immediately followed by their being invaded (by our encouraging and eventually assisting Saddam) in a war with a milllion casualties, as Iranian schools were attack by gas weapons. And yet, *we're* blameless with Iran, only they are in the 'Axis of Evil' and a threat to us. Yes, their government has serious problems, but your ideology is, for lack of a better word, insane.
What an apologist you are Craig...if you're white do you also feel responsibility to apologize to blacks because of slavery? I think the answer will be Yes from you...isgust;
Your projecting aside, I do not feel responsibility to apologize to blacks for slavery. I do feel responsibility, as a human being, to recognize the history of wrongdoing; and that includes the wrongs that still exist today that are effects from the century of racism following slavery and the slavery for 200+ years before that, and to be interested in justice for the wrongs blacks experience today as a result of those historic wrongs.
When one group is denied money and education for decades and centuries, they are not any more ready for a 'color blind' race than a trained runner who has spent years preparing against someone who has been prevented from running for years before and is suddenly put on the track. I recognize that I benefit from my (white) race having had advantages from the immoral policies of racism in the past.
And I see the need to oppose that sort of injustice in the future, as I think everyone here does.
It's interesting that you show no concern about the wrongs but as a way to attack someone for showing such concern.
Nice elitist approach there....unless you're the reporter in question, or the reporter covered the ME, I don't care much what his/her views are. Ground war against a clear direct uniformed enemy that only occurs in other countries is a far cry different from combatants dressed and indistinguishable as civilians except for the acts they were caught committing. That some of these same high value combatants have a high degree of likelihood to possess information that will lead to the prevention of civilians being harmed just makes your argument even less realistic and more myopic...
Chuck[/quote]
Reading a book fits your definition of elitist, hm? I see.
War and human nature are broader than one specific region; your disinterest in any such inf o not specific to the Middle East is your problem, not mine.
You are so blindly following the road of war where you fail to have any grasp of the issues and demonize your enemy and care only about the 'effective methods' for committing violence that it's tragic, but not uncommon. There are many expressions for your immoral and amoral views, such as 'might makes right', but they are wasted on you, as lectures on the dangers of alcohol are on an alcoholic.
Whether it's you and the 'terrorists', or the US and Vietnam, or Russia and Chechnya, or Indonesia and East Timor, or the Taliban and the 'infidels', or countless other similar situations, it's largely the same fallacies leading to the rationalization of violence, where you justify the wrongs you do. I don't think we're going to communicate much on this, you are to ideologically drunk, IMO. It's like trying to convince the Germans of their errors in 1942, they were not ready to hear it. One day, you may see it differently.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
and what other road option does she have with Republicans still in control of the vote count?
The GOP does NOT control the vote count in the House. Pelosi could do whatever she wants in the House. The House is majority rules and they can do whatever they want. Getting it past the Senate on the other hand would be a problem.
Funny you should mention that, Dave. Big Business Abandons GOP For Democrats
All 10 of the top-giving industries tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, are now donating more cash to Democrats than Republicans. A year ago, Republicans had the edge in six of the 10 sectors.
Looks like your heroes are knee deep in corporate shill funds, Dave.
Lobbyist always support the party that has a majority.
Lobbyists dont care about political ideology, they care about getting their own agenda passed.
People are too busy shouting up each other's asses to notice an intelligent remark like this. You have understand that what you are doing here is seeing into the dark. Nobody will notice such perspicacity because they are blind.
That's true, of course, but this just kind of reinforces the point. Dave seems to think that only the GOP is taking checks ... which is why the silence from him is deafening :laugh:
How can you insult the Turks this way at a time when they are helping us fight a war. You are a traitor. I don't think it's fair at all to call the Turks 'dum...just ineptly dumb' for getting so incredibly wound up for something that happened 92, a stupidly long time to remember something of such magnitude. Good grief, you don't seriously think the Turks give a sh!t whether they committed genocide that long ago do you. Crap, all the guilty Turks are long dead.
chuckles2 isn't the only one who likes to laugh. Not much funnier that a donkey who laughs at others using the same logic he laughs at.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
It's not from anyone being blind, Moonie and it's you who are in the dark right now. There was no irony because there is no parallel between the Holocaust deniers and this situation. The issue is not about denying the Armenian genocide and I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue that it didn't happen. The fact is that the genocide itself really has very little to do with why Pelosi introduced this bill.
And please give up all the metaphorical babbling. It's long past its tediously mind-numbing expiration date.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
But this applies to Holocaust victims too! Are you really going to tell me that just because the Holocaust happened 65 years ago that we shouldn't care as much?
You completely miss the point of the resolution. To put it simply, it's a morally-justified bill. To deem these types of bills a waste of time is to essentially root out any moral fiber from our legislature. Are you OK with that?
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,640
- 2,034
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
I find it interesting that you say this when you just called someone intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. Who here has denied the Armenian genocide again Moonbeam?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Nobody has. Moonie had some extra straw and no idea what to do with it.Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
I find it interesting that you say this when you just called someone intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. Who here has denied the Armenian genocide again Moonbeam?
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
I find it interesting that you say this when you just called someone intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. Who here has denied the Armenian genocide again Moonbeam?
I find nothing here to suggest you comprehended a thing I said and thus your question makes not the slightest sense to me. I did not call somebody intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. I called somebody intelligent for seeing that the same people who were all exercised about the madness of the Iranian president for denying the holocaust are the same blind fools demanding here that the Congress deny a similar holocaust. You two faced idiots are disgusting.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
See. Einstein was right. Light noticeably bends around a large enough gravitational force. Apparently it wriggles too.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
I find it interesting that you say this when you just called someone intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. Who here has denied the Armenian genocide again Moonbeam?
I find nothing here to suggest you comprehended a thing I said and thus your question makes not the slightest sense to me. I did not call somebody intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. I called somebody intelligent for seeing that the same people who were all exercised about the madness of the Iranian president for denying the holocaust are the same blind fools demanding here that the Congress deny a similar holocaust. You two faced idiots are disgusting.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,640
- 2,034
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
way to state the obvious!
I don't think so. Neither the remark you quote nor the one you added say a damn think that is either intelligent or persuasive. I think you just drooled on the table.
What makes Pelosi a POS in my opinion were, among other things, her remark 'we won't impeach Bush' and her support for the farm bill.
I find it interesting that you say this when you just called someone intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. Who here has denied the Armenian genocide again Moonbeam?
I find nothing here to suggest you comprehended a thing I said and thus your question makes not the slightest sense to me. I did not call somebody intelligent for comparing this to someone denying the holocaust. I called somebody intelligent for seeing that the same people who were all exercised about the madness of the Iranian president for denying the holocaust are the same blind fools demanding here that the Congress deny a similar holocaust. You two faced idiots are disgusting.
Really? Please show me where someone has suggested that Congress deny the Armenian genocide. I have not seen congress issue a non-binding resolution relating to gravity, I guess that means that congress is denying gravity....:roll:
Sweet. I'm glad we already had our secret convention where we made Hillary the nominee. I was getting sick of all that primary talk anyway
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter