|
|
|
|
jpearl
May 4, 2004, 2:14 AM
Post #101 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
AH BUSTED!!!!
AWWW, FOUND YO' ARSES ALL SLUNG UP IN COMMUNITY NOW, DID'JA? LET THE VULTURES DESCEND, LET THE JACKALS POUNCE!!!
First victim is Rescueman. I'll give him props 'cuz he's an East Coast climber, but he still needs to get his nads kicked around 'cuz he's a site noobie spewing liberal political BS!
So hey, Rescueman. You cited, in your expert knowledge, that we "violated" "international law" by defending ourselves against the Jihad waged against by countries like Iraq. Which laws exactlly are you talking about. Please cite the laws and what specific actions we took that violated them. Oh, by the way, what are your thoughts on the pre-war connections between Ba'athist Bhagdad and Ba'athist Damascus, and how they affected Bierut?
Personal to 10ftdrp: At this point, you should just take your church group to this thread rather than just climbing. They'll see that religion and climbing don't mix, or just on rock climbing websites at least.
You may all flame me now. To make the job easier, you can just cut and past the following phrase below:
"Jpearl wrote..."
Let the fun begin!
:twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
dynamic
May 4, 2004, 2:54 AM
Post #102 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 439
|
"Jpearl wrote..." In reply to: You may all flame me now.
rescueman wrote:In reply to: there's no point in carrying on a conversation with someone who either doesn't read what I post or deliberately distorts it. |
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 3:16 AM
Post #103 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: So hey, Rescueman. You cited, in your expert knowledge, that we "violated" "international law" by defending ourselves against the Jihad waged against by countries like Iraq. Which laws exactlly are you talking about. Please cite the laws and what specific actions we took that violated them.
First, there was no "Jihad" from Iraq which, under Saddam, was a secular nation which viciously opposed Islamic funamentalism (bin Laden called Saddam a devil - they were mortal enemies).
If you had read my post on the previous page, at least part of your question would have been answered:
In reply to: The two Iraq wars violated the US Constitution, The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg Principles, and every accepted standard of international relations.
The actions for which the first Bush administration was convicted (many of which were also committed by the second Bush administration) were:
1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
5. The United States intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
6. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi military personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized individual flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease fire.
7. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
8. The United States intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
9. President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings, and commercial structures.
10. President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.
12. The United States waged war on the environment.
13. President Bush encouraged and aided Shiite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
14. President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
15. The United States continued its assault on Iraq after the cease fire, invading and occupying areas at will.
16. The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
17. The United States, having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
18. President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
19. The United States has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 3:32 AM
Post #104 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
From dynamic:
In reply to: all i'm saying is that in affirming that what bush has done as wrong is affirming that you yourself are right. i don't think that you can do that unless you yourself are the "true believer" which you already condemned.
One doesn't have to be a "true believer" in order to understand that there are generally-accepted standards of right behavior; one needs only to have open eyes and a clear head. The accepted standards are codified in international and consitutional law and, by those standards, Bush is an outlaw.
This is not about me being right (these are the world's standards), but about Bush being wrong (by those standards).
If you had read my brief quotations about the "true believer", you would understand that such a person (or group, for it is a form of group-think) feels more justified in their position the more the rest of the world opposes them. And this is precisely how Bush behaved when the UN rejected his war plans, most of our allies refused to go along, and 60 million people went to the streets to protest on every continent on Earth (the largest protest movement in history and the first truly global protest).
In reply to: as you yourself say, certain things are objectively wrong and should be stopped (even with force).
I certainly didn't say that force should be used to prevent a wrong. Force can be justified in self-defense against an immediate mortal threat, but making war to keep the peace or executing people to stop criminals from killing is (as we used to say during the Vietnam anti-war movement) like f--king for viginity.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 4, 2004, 3:50 AM
Post #105 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: God is not a sport climber
Then why are sport climbers always saying things like:
God, this route sucks
God, it's too hot to send
God, this is hard
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jpearl
May 4, 2004, 4:07 AM
Post #106 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
Wow, rescuemam, do you almost know your stuff or what? Out of curiosity, what are your sources of information. You made mention to media manipulation, but we've seen far to much anti-american bias in media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, BBC, Village Voice, and Reuters. Also, much of the long empty-winded catchphrases that make up liberal anti-war inteligetsia come from communist groups such as International A.N.S.W.E.R., which by the way, is supported by Theresa Hienz-Kerry (have you heard of her?).
Oh, one more thing: the word "secular" means shite in an Arab country, and you're long wordy defence of Iraq means nothing, especially to a "Dhimmi". And the UN is nothing more than one big Arab oil lobby that is virulantlly anti-American and Anti-semetic. America does not have a friend in the UN. After all, those plans didn't hit the UN headquarters, they hit the our Twin Towers and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
dynamic
May 4, 2004, 4:11 AM
Post #107 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 439
|
rescueman said:In reply to: Force can be justified in self-defense against an immediate mortal threat, but making war to keep the peace or executing people to stop criminals from killing is (as we used to say during the Vietnam anti-war movement) like f--king for viginity.
just a few superficial things, though:In reply to: 1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
In reply to: 2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
In reply to: 3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
In reply to: 4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
In reply to: 12. The United States waged war on the environment.
In reply to: 18. President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
as for the rest of it, it seems like blind swings into air. i'm not sure how to respond.
anyway, i'm tired. g'night.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 5:18 AM
Post #108 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: what are your sources of information.
If you're asking about the charges against the Bush I administration, those are the articles of indictment from Ramsey Clark's international war crimes tribunal.
In reply to: we've seen far to much anti-american bias in media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, BBC, Village Voice, and Reuters.
In reply to: Also, much of the long empty-winded catchphrases that make up liberal anti-war inteligetsia come from communist groups such as International A.N.S.W.E.R., which by the way, is supported by Theresa Hienz-Kerry (have you heard of her?).
In reply to: Oh, one more thing: the word "secular" means s--- in an Arab country, and you're long wordy defence of Iraq means nothing, And the UN is nothing more than one big Arab oil lobby that is virulantlly anti-American and Anti-semetic. America does not have a friend in the UN. After all, those plans didn't hit the UN headquarters, they hit the our Twin Towers and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
Yeah, just like there's no difference in politics between secular and religious Israelis? You can't ignore the fact that Saddam and bin Laden were sworn enemies and hated each other with almost as much passion as bin Laden hated the US.
The major problem with the UN is that the Security Council, where all the power resides, is controlled by the US. I can give you the list of bribes which Bush I gave to buy agreement for the 1991 Gulf War amounting to many billions of dollars. The fact that we have no friends there now is that Bush II has thumbed his nose at the other nations and at the UN, thereby undermining the best hope for world stability that's ever existed.
And you've conveniently forgotten that those who died at the World Trade Center were from dozens of different nations and because of that we had the sympathy of almost the entire world after 9/11, sympathy which Bush squandered when he then turned around and told the other nations that their concerns don't matter to us - that the US will act unilaterally and in opposition to the world community simply because we can. In the schoolyard we would call that behavior bullying and shameful.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
May 4, 2004, 5:41 AM
Post #109 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
In response to rescueman's quote with the U.S. war on the environment: read up on "Gulf War Syndrome," most likely caused by our own depleted uranium sabot tank rounds. Read up on the environmental degradation that uranium has caused and is still causing in Iraq. It's not just liberal propaganda man. And yeah, the media was very, very sympathetic to "our" invasion of Iraq initially with their embedded correspondents and live coverage of the "shock and awe" in Baghdad. The media goes with what sells. It both shapes and mirrors public sentiment because the NYT wants to sell papers, and CNN wants more viewers. Get over it.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
May 4, 2004, 5:52 AM
Post #110 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
BY the way, what the hell does this have to do with climbing+religion? I was posting things about John Muir earlier in this thread, and now I'm arguing about Iraq again damnit. :shock: :shock: :shock:
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
May 4, 2004, 5:55 AM
Post #111 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
Rescueman is very pedantic....look it up; good word! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 5:57 AM
Post #112 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
ALL QUOTES FROM DYNAMIC'S LAST FLAME
In reply to: in sheer mathematical terms, "f--king for virginity" has very little similarity to stopping genocide by killing its leaders. if hundreds of thousands more can be saved by killing several thousands now, especially in light of the other inherent benefits (like a country with civil liberties), the right answer seems obvious.
My analogy was logically precise. Your's is incomprehensible. What genocide are you refering to? Saddam was ruthless towards anyone who opposed him and his Sunni clan suppressed the Shiites and the Kurds, but there has never been a charge of genocide directed toward the Iraqi regime.
And who are the hundreds of thousands who could be saved? The consensus of Iraq's Arab neighbors and the UN and the weapons inspectors was that Iraq was not a threat to anyone since the invasion of Kuwait. But the UN thoroughly documented that US inspired sanctions killed more than a million innocent Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children. That comes close to genocide! Two UN Iraq Oil-for-Food Program chiefs resigned in protest over the effect that sanctions were having on the Iraqi people.
In reply to: pacifism just doesn't seem to accomplish much good (funny how that works).
If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of parts of Eastern Europe, to the fall of Apartheid and the first non-racial democratic government in South Africa as well as most of what we take for granted in this country: the 8-hour day, civil rights, women's rights.
In reply to: permanent military domination? why wouldn't we just have left our military there the first time?
Excuse me, but we did. We showed doctored intelligence to the Saudi royal family to convince them that the Iraqi army was massing on their border and posing an "immanent threat" (sound familiar?) and to convince them to allow a US military presence for the first time in an Arab nation. Those bases were never dismantled and have been occupied ever since. And US presence in the holy land of Mecca was a major incitement to the radical Islamists and one of the delcared reasons for Al Qaeda attacking us. That is why most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
In reply to: 2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily. 3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq. 4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices. wasn't it a war?
It was, as I amply indicated, an illegal war. But even in war there are international standards (the Geneva Conventions) which make it a war crime and a crime against humanity to deliberately target civilians or civilian insfrastructure. That was the strategy in 1991 and it was repeated through "Shock and Awe" in 2003.
In reply to: wha? sounds like you've been reading too much (mindless) liberal propoganda. i'd imagine that you mean that the U.S. misused the environment in an attempt to accomplish their goals.
No, I didn't mean anything. Those weren't my words, but the language of the international war crimes tribunal.
In reply to: liberals love to demoralize troops as much as they can as an underhanded way to win their political debates.
And shall I generalize from your words to say that conservatives attack the motives of their opponents when they can't answer their arguments? That would be equally infair, though it is exactly what you're doing.
I was an organizer and non-violence trainer for hundreds of anti-war demonstrators and I know many more peace activists. There is not one among them who doesn't have a deep and abiding concern for the US troops. And that is why we want them home now, out of harms way and away from the trauma that war against civilians creates. There is an unusually high suicide rate among the US military in Iraq because of what we are forcing our troops to do without either clear justification or any hope of success.
If the Bush adminstration cared about our troops, he woudn't have slashed VA benefits and medical care at the same time he was sending them into harm's way. Troops from the 1991 Gulf war are still waiting for adequate medical care and many thousands have suffered and died since returning home from Gulf War Syndrome caused in part by the depleted Uranium munitions which we exposed them to (and which is a weapon of mass destruction which continues to sicken and kill civilians for thousands of years).
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
tempestwind
May 4, 2004, 6:29 AM
Post #113 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2004
Posts: 133
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I agree with tgreene , but Iwill answer anyway. I don't believe in god or any reigion and honestly I can't really place God or any spiritual thing in climbing. (but I can't place it ANYWHERE) Now, what I can place in climbing is what (most) religions try to tell people, i.e., the way people should behave. You can tell your church grroup things like climbing gives you TRUST on people (your life is on the hands of the belayer). Or that it shows you that you shouldn't quit when things get too hard. And so on. Anyway, relate it the same way you would relate any group activity. but again religion and politics should not be discussed here. Poor YOU, how empty your experiences must be. actually tempest you were pointing fingers here and it does come off as very self righteous. In no way shape or form am I acting self rightous. I am merely expressing how I feel. Oh I see how it works in your book.People can thrash and discredit all they want.But when someone says anything to counter that..OH NO I am a finger pointer. PULEASE :boring: if telling someone they're life is empty because they do not share your religious beliefs is not being self rightous then your correct otherwise your wrong.
So there I REALLY HOPE that brings some clarity to IT> If NOT, and if you or anyone doesn't like what I write. "MELLA-PELLA" :angel: :deadhorse: :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
tempestwind
May 4, 2004, 6:36 AM
Post #114 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2004
Posts: 133
|
In reply to: :D good call! |
|
|
|
|
tradman
May 4, 2004, 8:33 AM
Post #115 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: the UN is nothing more than one big Arab oil lobby that is virulantlly anti-American and Anti-semetic. America does not have a friend in the UN. After all, those plans didn't hit the UN headquarters, they hit the our Twin Towers and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
Incredible logic, zipperhead. Could you be a little more persecuted and paranoid please? The following countries are actively assisting the US in Iraq by sending 22,000 troops to date:
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
It's nice to see how grateful you are for the help your country is receiving from its friends, you spineless pig.
|
|
|
|
|
dynamic
May 4, 2004, 2:16 PM
Post #116 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: My analogy was logically precise. Your's is incomprehensible. What genocide are you refering to? Saddam was ruthless towards anyone who opposed him and his Sunni clan suppressed the Shiites and the Kurds, but there has never been a charge of genocide directed toward the Iraqi regime.
In reply to: If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of parts of Eastern Europe, to the fall of Apartheid and the first non-racial democratic government in South Africa as well as most of what we take for granted in this country: the 8-hour day, civil rights, women's rights.
In reply to: And shall I generalize from your words to say that conservatives attack the motives of their opponents when they can't answer their arguments? That would be equally infair, though it is exactly what you're doing.
In reply to: If the Bush adminstration cared about our troops, he woudn't have slashed VA benefits and medical care at the same time he was sending them into harm's way.
anyway, don't consider my posts mere flames. i've never gotten a good impression from the protestors. it has always been "we hate bush, down with bush, bush is the devil, america is evil, save our troops," etc. never anything constructive, just a bunch of ignorant people who find vague identification with wanting peace, ignoring the evil that is going on elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 4:15 PM
Post #117 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
ALL QUOTES FROM DYNAMIC:
In reply to: i'm using 'genocide' as an illustration to show a point, not to say that saddam has been charged with it.
So what IS your point?
In reply to: how on earth would a bunch of american protestors stop saddam from being a mass-murderer?
A tactic of those with no supportable argument is to distort the arguments of their opponents. I never suggested that American protesters could stop Saddam, but we almost stopped our own government from going to war and that is our responsiblity as citizens: My country right or wrong - when right to be kept right, when wrong to be made right.
Widespread resistance from the Iraqi people, however, could have stopped Saddam (though not without casualties). And with US encouragement following the 1991 Gulf War tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds rose up against Saddam but were then decimated when we turned our backs on them and cleared the airspace for Iraqi helicopter gunships to mow them down. They haven't forgotten that, so it's no wonder that they don't trust American motives or promises.
In reply to: i'm not about to argue that i'm an expert qualified to tell the bush administration can and can't do
The only qualification needed to criticize our president is being a patriotic citizen. It is not only our right but our duty. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
In reply to: on the other hand, what i see all the time is abc and other stations, as well as really liberal friends, bringing up as much as they can to condemn the efforts of soldiers in iraq. what they need is the support of this country, which the protestors are not doing. i've never gotten a good impression from the protestors. it has always been "we hate bush, down with bush, bush is the devil, america is evil, save our troops," etc. never anything constructive, just a bunch of ignorant people who find vague identification with wanting peace, ignoring the evil that is going on elsewhere.
Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberatly distorting the message of the peace movement which has been based on a much more informed and well-reasoned position than what you're offering. The majority of both people and national governments of the world agree with the peace movement's critique of Bush policies. They are illegal, immoral, and highly counterproductive to stability both here and in the world. Do you either know or care that the majority of government officials within the Pentagon and the intelligence community (CIA et al) have an utter contempt for Secty of Defense Rumsfeld and the policies he is foisting on them?
There is one and only one way to support our troops - and that's to get them out of harm's way. Anything else is allowing them to risk death or disfigurement or lifelong illness for a war which is guaranteed to make the US less safe. The disillusionment that our troops are experiencing has more to do with the extensions of service and redeployment schedules required because Rumsfeld and Bush failed to anticipate the real costs of this war.
In reply to: furthermore, it makes no sense to stop the activity there now. that would ruin iraq. so show some support for troops and quit saying that bush is trying to monopolize oil.
You're saying that to support our troops I should stop telling the truth and just blindly accept the lies which sent them into danger. The truth sets us free, not lies or false comfort.
Iraq is already as ruined as we can possibly make it. What is causing the insurgency and preventing a return to stability is continued US occupation. The ONLY way to stop the insurgency is for the US troops to evacuate Iraq. Even tiny Vietnam (but you're probably too young to remember that) would never stop fighting to expell the US occupiers no matter how much force we brought to bear. Afghanis fought the Soviet Union until they were forced to leave.
The UN, and likely the Arab League, are more than willing to offer what they can to help Iraq make a transition to self-rule, but only when the US agrees to relinquish control. The sooner that is done, the safer the entire world will be, and our citizen soldiers will be able to return to their families.
In reply to: my impression has always been that liberals are generally opposed to defense spending (which I guess might include va benefits). anyway, don't consider my posts mere flames.
Your impressions are clearly wrong. Bush, who got elected as a conservative who would reduce the size of government only reduced the important stuff, and then enlarged the beaurocracy more than any Democrat since Roosevelt (who did it only to get us out of the depression) and create some safety nets for which we are all grateful.
I consider your posts flames because they attack the messengers rather than the message, are not based on an informed awareness, and suffer a dearth of logic and reason. You seem more interested in arguing than in an honest debate.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 4, 2004, 5:31 PM
Post #118 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: pacifism just doesn't seem to accomplish much good (funny how that works). If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of parts of Eastern Europe
This is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What are they teaching you kids these days? What's your understanding of Ronald Reagan's presidency?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
May 4, 2004, 5:44 PM
Post #119 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
One of the great applied methods of psychology is the technique of separating the "process" from the justification attached to the process. This is very difficult, because our minds naturally go straight to the "reason" we are doing something, to avoid the thorny and equivocal feelings we have about what we are actually doing (in the simplest terms), minus any rationalizations.
In Iraq we are conducting a war and tragically, many people have been killed on both sides. Consider that fact in it's entirety, without any of the justifications, and understand that we humans are killers, plain and simple. The Iraqis did not "make" us that way. Mankind and killing reach back to the dawn of creation. Once we accept that plain fact, perhaps we can go about trying to contain the impulse, much as we contain other impulses throughout our every waking day. Till we accept out aggression in it's bald and naked form, we will spin endlessly in rationalizations as the body count piles up.
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
May 4, 2004, 6:04 PM
Post #121 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: pacifism just doesn't seem to accomplish much good (funny how that works). If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of parts of Eastern Europe This is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What are they teaching you kids these days? What's your understanding of Ronald Reagan's presidency?
Read: Lech Walesa. Ronnie wasn't the only reason communism fell. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 7:07 PM
Post #122 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: This is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What are they teaching you kids these days? What's your understanding of Ronald Reagan's presidency?
Aren't you condescending? Us "kids"? I'm 52 years old and I've been a non-violent peace and social justice activist since I refused to participate in the Vietnam debacle and burned my draft card.
As for Ronald Reagon, his was the first of the neo-conservative administrations which began to dismantle the social safety net and at the same time drive us into deficit spending. He was almost as uncaring about protecting the environment for future generations as the current administration, but he was more cautious and conservative and diplomatic than the current administration, which is far more extreme in its agenda than any that preceded it. Bush Sr., as conservative as he was, was far more sensible and moderate than his son, and understood the importance of working with allies on the international scene. Bush Sr. publicly rebuked his son prior to the Iraq war for moving ahead without international support. I think Reagon would have done the same.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 4, 2004, 7:44 PM
Post #123 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Nice bit on Reagan. I particularly liked how you segued Reagan's presidency into the current administration, while ignoring the context of my previous "Reagan" post.
For someone who seems particularly long-winded and tedious in your posts, seemingly to clarify your stands, you did a skillful job of ducking the "Pacifists didn't end the Cold War - Reagan did" issue.
Sorry about the "you kids" slight. So much of what you post (as fact) is merely extremist proganda. I figured anyone over the age of 25 would have enough real world experience would know BS when they smell it.
Then again Age does not necessarily equal wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
May 4, 2004, 8:06 PM
Post #124 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: pacifism just doesn't seem to accomplish much good (funny how that works). If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of parts of Eastern Europe This is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What are they teaching you kids these days? What's your understanding of Ronald Reagan's presidency?
This was your last and only post in this thread about Reagan. Your question was most general and so I answered it generally. I didn't "duck" anything. And, unlike you, I'm not afraid of arguing my positions and substantiating them with solid facts and history.
Calling positions you don't like "extremist propaganda" and "BS" only exposes the weakness of your own beliefs. If you want to debate the facts, I'm always willing. But let's not get into namecalling, it only announces your own immaturity.
- Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
May 4, 2004, 8:14 PM
Post #125 of 164
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: pacifism just doesn't seem to accomplish much good (funny how that works). If you're refering to nonviolent activism, the post Ghandian form of pacifism, then it's led to the fall of the Soviet Union
Please state your source, confirming that pacifism led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
