Unfortunately for our nation, Bush, Cheney and their gang of criminals got it in the reverse order. :roll:
TLC utterly loses as usual.
Moonbeam's position was there there were a *combination* of motives. TLC disagreed.
It's predictable that TLC will fall back to trying to argue that the motive he claimed was the ONLY motive, was in fact a motive - which isn't the issue, since Moonbeam agreed.
He'll try to change the subject from his claim that there weren't any other motives.
See above. The normal bolded text is what TLC bolded to 'prove' his argument, and tell Moonbeam to "bother to read the crap [he posts]".
The italicized bolded text, he did not bold and it immediately follows what he bolded, but read it - it provdes that 'multiple motives' Moonbeam claimes.
In other words, it exactly supports Moonbeam's claim of multiple motives, and conradicts TLC's claim of only one.
TLC, then, for all his attack on Moonbeam, is shown to be the one to 'read the crap he responds to and selectively bolds'.
It is an 'either-or' dbate. Moonbeams' position is that there were multiple motives, and TLC disagreed. Either there were multiple motives, or only one as TLC claims.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Great Craig. Are you now going to agree that we invaded Iraq for love? Clearly you'd be a hypocrite if you don't claim that very thing.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Meanwhile, we must never again elect people to office who are willing to commit treason, murderer, torturer, war crimes and crimes against humanity elsewhere in the world because it means they are willing to commit those crimes here, against us.
We know this is true because we elected them, ... :Q
... and that's what they did.
And when, or if, Obama places further sanctions on Iran?
And before you answer, may I remind you that the sanctions placed on Iraq were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
I'm going to think long and hard about this one. :thumbsup:
In retrospect, the sanctions on Iraq were obviously appalling in their outcome, especially given that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were not soldiers or Baathist party members, and the fact that it is a very significant contributing factor in the US' (mostly justified) unpopularity in the ME.
That said, I'm not totally isolationist, and feel that at some point the US (and hopefully allies) may need to exert influence over Iran, and how exactly are we going to do that? We know what the outcome of sanctions will be (the poor suffer while the rich exploit it for personal gain), and we know what the outcome of a military conflict will be: thousands of US soldiers dead, our country bankrupted, millions of Iranian civilians dead, middle eastern politics set back another 50 years, etc. So wtf exactly is our moral imperative in that case?
Love of their own idealism in regard to liberty can be given as a reason
---------------
Thank you. Case closed. You tried to deny dahunan that very giving.
It's because you're a ham fisted butt-head that you have no manners or capacity to address people politely and factually. All you had to do was express your opinion with world something like this. 'Although love may have motivated some of the French, my reading of history tells me that it was hate of the British that was by far a larger factor. You catch more flies with honey.
---------------
Thank you. Case closed. You tried to deny dahunan that very giving.
It's because you're a ham fisted butt-head that you have no manners or capacity to address people politely and factually. All you had to do was express your opinion with world something like this. 'Although love may have motivated some of the French, my reading of history tells me that it was hate of the British that was by far a larger factor. You catch more flies with honey.
A cursory look at their argument reveals TLC was obviously responding in general terms to the whole love thing, and moonbeam -rather disingenuously- turned it into an "either-or" debate. Anyone with a brain knows there is not some simplistic monolithic reason France decided to help, and I didn't think that's what TLC was saying.
If you break it down the basic reason they helped was national self-interest, and if anything, I'd agree that their hatred for the British played a larger role in determining their self interest than anything else.
Disingenuously, my ass. My first post to him was to ask him politely if that was not exactly what he had meant. Your thesis that 'anyone with a brain' was my argument in response to his preposterous notion that my argument was somehow psychological but we see that it applies only to those with a brain that is larger than their asshole.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Exactly. Love may have been "a" reason but it wasn't "the" reason and in the broad view of things, love was inconsequential to France's decision.
It wouldn't be the first time Moonie and some of his sphincter diddling pals had to distort my position into black & white and build up their man of straw. Then again, maybe Moonie lives in a black & white world, one that he projects on others, assuming that what he sees is exactly what everyone else should see?
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Could not "national self interest" be love of one's country and not hate of the British?
I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it.
You lying fraud. My first post to you here specifically asked you if you intended a black and white interpretation or if you believed other factors existed. You, and nobody else then turned the issue black and white by failing to concur, post after post, that other factors were present, and you still want, now, to have it both ways, that the issue is really just black and white, by pretending that other issues were of such irrelevance as not to count when all you needed to do is say that in the first place.
No, the only problem here is that you are a shameless little pig-headed prick, well known as such, by the way, and I don't mind making a fool of myself wasting my time allowing more folks to see your act for what it is.
No, I wouldn't. Saying what the motives were in one situation does not mean you are saying they were the same in another.
For what it's worth, though, I *do* say that somewhere deep in the core of Neocon evil - as in pretty much any evil ideology - there is some good intent, some perversion of good.
I think the Neocon's do have some idea that their policies are for 'good' and 'freedom' and that in that sense, yes, their motives did 'include' 'love' for Iraqis insofar as wanting to free them from the tyranny of Saddam - but as a secondary iciing on the cake, *as proven by the same group's embrace of Saddam even as he was 'gassing his own people'*.
Their agenda is more about the US gaining power, and the Iraqi people were pawns - nice to see them out of tyranny, but not the main agenda, which was oil and power for the US.
(And the plans going badly that prevented some our plan for puppet Chalabi and Milton Friedman economic programs that would greatly harm Iraqis doesn't change their intent).
You're progressing right along the weasel logic path.
When the argument of the weasel is destroyed, argue that because the argument doesn't make sense, that because the weasel wouldn't argue something that doesn't make sense, he didn't mean what he said and actually mean what makes sense. Neat trick, huh? Can't possibly be that he was wrong.
But you are wrong. He was very clear in saying just what I said. Need me to pull up the quotes from earlier in the thread? You go look them up.
On the other hand, you can see him weaselling himself later in the thread - trying to split the hair between the 'multiple motives' you want to say he really meant and Moonbeam claimed, andhis position that Moonbeam was wrong about that and the only one was hate of the British. Now he's trying to make a middle ground that lets him off the hook for saying Moonbeam was wrong, now that he's shown wrong, while still saying that the other motive was 'inconsequential', so he was right all along - of course again without evidence.
The only topic here going on is how long you and he try to defend his wrong post without admitting it's wrong.
You and he can't even agree - you trying to say 'of course there wasn't one reason' while TLC is still aguing there was only one that wasn't 'inconsequential'.
This debate is not going to be resolved about something so subjective other than to show the French interest in the Americans for things other than hate of Britain was larger than TLC said. All that's going to come out of it is the answer to how long TLC will weasel, which we also know from history is a limit not yet found. So as usual, reasonable people will finally say what he's doing and move on, without his admitting anything. Tastes like weasel, IMO.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Your name contradicts your post.
What does aquatic life have to do with this?
Oh by the way:
TLC: Exactly. Love may have been "a" reason but it wasn't "the" reason and in the broad view of things, love was inconsequential to France's decision.
So inconsequential in fact that the French love of the American Revolution and the idealism it represented is never discussed and mentioned as one of the factors bring the French to the American side in history. Oh wait, it gets mentioned all the time and all over the place, which, I suppose just shows, that history deals with matters of little consequence, or else, for TLC inconsequential means things the size of his ass.
TLC: Exactly. Love may have been "a" reason but it wasn't "the" reason and in the broad view of things, love was inconsequential to France's decision.
So inconsequential in fact that the French love of the American Revolution and the idealism it represented is never discussed and mentioned as one of the factors bring the French to the American side in history. Oh wait, it gets mentioned all the time and all over the place, which, I suppose just shows, that history deals with matters of little consequence, or else, for TLC inconsequential means things the size of his ass.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?
Anyone asked that question would answer WMDs to the exclusion of all other reasons. In fact, that very subject has been hashed over numerous times in this forum with the anti-war crowd claiming that not only were any other reasons inconsequential, they were of no consequence. Without WMDs we never would have gone into Iraq. None of the other reasons provided motivation for doing so. While they can be cited as factors they were not motivating factors which is precisely why nobody ever bothers to mention them as "the reason." The same applies to France helping the US.
The reason, THE reason, that France helped the US was out of hatred for Britain. It was the primary motivator for their actions and a gamut of emotions that involved nationalism (actually a mild case of xenophobia disguised as nationalism), pride, ego, and a desire for revenge. Boiled down to their essence, all of those emotions were fueled by their hatred. Without that hatred none of the other reasons would have prompted them to do what they did. Love nor idealism would not have prompted it; nothing prompted it until France saw what they was an opening to crush the British. Only then did they decide to join the fray.
Of course, you actually have to know a little something about that period in history to understand why hatred was the motivating factor and it doesn't appear that either you or Moonie are that informed. Instead you have to pathetically and weakly argue by telling ME what my own intent was when the problem actually resides in both of your lack of knowledge of the time period and failure to comprehend why my statement was true in the first place.
Give it up. Moonie got owned and you're getting dirty by association.
This is wrong.
The first thing to do is to separate the justifications *given* for the war by Bush, with the motives he *actually* had, in the opinion of whoever is speaking.
We didn't make that distinction in the case of France and our revolutionary war, because we didn't go looking in history for differences between France's stated and 'real' reasons.
I don't think anyone on the left has said that WMD really were the only reason for the way. You are distorting their position for your purposes.
The issue with France was 'motives', where the left issue with Iraq was 'justification'.
What the left is saying is that *Bush's position* was that WMD were the only justification for the war. I can show you quotes from Bush where he said that if the issue of WMD was addressed, *we would not invade*. That actually did prove that all the other 'side benefits' of the war Bush mentioned *were not claimed to rise to the level of justification*, or else he wouldn't have said we would not invade if WMD were addressed.
The issue with France is simply the motives; the relevant issue for the left with Iraq s whether the war was illegal.
Because the US has signed the UN charter outlawing us for going to war for the other 'reasons' or 'benefits' Bush has mentioned, that's why WMD are central, because those are how the US claimed the UN charter exception for war based on an 'imminent threat' from another nation. WMD were that 'imminent threat', without them, we were in clear violation of the UN charter we signed.
So those are all very different issues between Iraq and France in the 18th century.
You need to learn to use evidence, not jsut make assertions.
No one said that 'French hatred for Britain' wasn't one of the reasons for their allying with the US, though I think I made a point about your misuse of emotion as opposed to their national interests against Britain. Moonbeam didn't even say it wasn't the 'primary' reason for their allying. He said there was a combination of reasons. You have said over and over 'huh uh' but he's the only one citing historical evidence for his position.
You can read the history, the papers, of the time and see how powerful the idealism about the emancipation of man from the millenia of the middle ages was.
You underestimate the role of that in the decisions on foreign affairs.
It's ironic, but predictably ironic, for you to attack him for his ignorance of history, when you are displaying an ignorance of the importance of the idealism of the period in the emancipation of man following the millenia of the middle ages under the corrupt rule of an elite, and of the role of diplomacy.
I'm going to cite now from a PBS source two points, one supporting the claim of the importance of what you call the 'only' important reason, the other showing it wasn't.
So, their national interests against the British were an important reason for their allying, as everyone has agreed. Now let's look at the role Benjamin Franklin played:
Franklin responsible for obtaining that aid. Not simply a cold calculation by the French about their interest, not simply their leaping at the chance out of hatred for Britain.
They loved Franklin. And he was 'almost entirely responsible' for their decision. That doesn't mean instead of the national interest and hate of Britain - he used those things.
But if you don't understad that wasn't all there was to it, the ongoing relationship where the idealism of America fed the idealism in France leading to the French Revolution - which Jefferson prasised strongly early on - you are not accurate. Moonbeam's the one who pointed out the 'combination' of reasons, andyou said he was wrong.
This isn't the first "TLC can't admit his mistake" thread, and you are predictably trying to defend with offense. It has long since been a futile effort to expect to acknowledge wrong.
For what it's worth, I think this is more of a 'you wrote poorly not meaning what you said' issue more than a 'you really think what you said is right' issue.
As for your 'sphincter' language, you need to elevate your discourse if you want any continued responses. I.e., don't be an ass.
This is a fairly minor issue, the main thing is your aggressive attacks and defense of those attacks that are wrong.
At this point it's just not letting you get away with trying to win by saying the wrong thing enough times. I don't expect you to admit wrong, but the other readers can see it.
I question whether it's worth additional bother, but when I see you continuing the aggressive approach, it demands response.
TLC: What was the reason we invaded Iraq?
Anyone asked that question would answer WMDs to the exclusion of all other reasons. In fact, that very subject has been hashed over numerous times in this forum with the anti-war crowd claiming that not only were any other reasons inconsequential, they were of no consequence. Without WMDs we never would have gone into Iraq. None of the other reasons provided motivation for doing so. While they can be cited as factors they were not motivating factors which is precisely why nobody ever bothers to mention them as "the reason." The same applies to France helping the US.
The reason, THE reason, that France helped the US was out of hatred for Britain. It was the primary motivator for their actions and a gamut of emotions that involved nationalism (actually a mild case of xenophobia disguised as nationalism), pride, ego, and a desire for revenge. Boiled down to their essence, all of those emotions were fueled by their hatred. Without that hatred none of the other reasons would have prompted them to do what they did. Love nor idealism would not have prompted it; nothing prompted it until France saw what they was an opening to crush the British. Only then did they decide to join the fray.
Of course, you actually have to know a little something about that period in history to understand why hatred was the motivating factor and it doesn't appear that either you or Moonie are that informed. Instead you have to pathetically and weakly argue by telling ME what my own intent was when the problem actually resides in both of your lack of knowledge of the time period and failure to comprehend why my statement was true in the first place.
Give it up. Moonie got owned and you're getting dirty by association.
============
This is all complete and total rubbish. You wanna know why we invaded Iraq, OK, I'll tell you. It's because we hate Iraqis.
That's right, we hate them. We defeated them in the Gulf War and what did they do but shoot at our plains in the no fly zone and tweak our nose. And Saddam Husein was going Na na ne na na making money on the black market. Now you just don't go Na na ne na na to an American and not walk away with a black eye. We had to kill those mother-f2ackers cause they pissed us off. And then there was 9-11 and the Al Quaeda Iraq bases and contacts and the brilliant among us know right away there's not a dimes worth of difference between an Iraqi and a Saudi because they both got shoes full of sand. So we bombed the shit our of those worthless bastards because we can. We showed um when you piss off an American you get shock and awe. Yup, we had to dream up some phony excused to pacify the cowards in our midst, and the wimps in Europe, but baby, hate won the day and Saddam and his spawn are pushing up daisies. All the reasons we gave don't amount to a hill of beans. We went there to deliver some good old fashioned American hate.
Anyone asked that question would answer WMDs to the exclusion of all other reasons. In fact, that very subject has been hashed over numerous times in this forum with the anti-war crowd claiming that not only were any other reasons inconsequential, they were of no consequence. Without WMDs we never would have gone into Iraq. None of the other reasons provided motivation for doing so. While they can be cited as factors they were not motivating factors which is precisely why nobody ever bothers to mention them as "the reason." The same applies to France helping the US.
The reason, THE reason, that France helped the US was out of hatred for Britain. It was the primary motivator for their actions and a gamut of emotions that involved nationalism (actually a mild case of xenophobia disguised as nationalism), pride, ego, and a desire for revenge. Boiled down to their essence, all of those emotions were fueled by their hatred. Without that hatred none of the other reasons would have prompted them to do what they did. Love nor idealism would not have prompted it; nothing prompted it until France saw what they was an opening to crush the British. Only then did they decide to join the fray.
Of course, you actually have to know a little something about that period in history to understand why hatred was the motivating factor and it doesn't appear that either you or Moonie are that informed. Instead you have to pathetically and weakly argue by telling ME what my own intent was when the problem actually resides in both of your lack of knowledge of the time period and failure to comprehend why my statement was true in the first place.
Give it up. Moonie got owned and you're getting dirty by association.
============
This is all complete and total rubbish. You wanna know why we invaded Iraq, OK, I'll tell you. It's because we hate Iraqis.
That's right, we hate them. We defeated them in the Gulf War and what did they do but shoot at our plains in the no fly zone and tweak our nose. And Saddam Husein was going Na na ne na na making money on the black market. Now you just don't go Na na ne na na to an American and not walk away with a black eye. We had to kill those mother-f2ackers cause they pissed us off. And then there was 9-11 and the Al Quaeda Iraq bases and contacts and the brilliant among us know right away there's not a dimes worth of difference between an Iraqi and a Saudi because they both got shoes full of sand. So we bombed the shit our of those worthless bastards because we can. We showed um when you piss off an American you get shock and awe. Yup, we had to dream up some phony excused to pacify the cowards in our midst, and the wimps in Europe, but baby, hate won the day and Saddam and his spawn are pushing up daisies. All the reasons we gave don't amount to a hill of beans. We went there to deliver some good old fashioned American hate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter