I only ignore users who are themselves ignorant and uncivil, and rarely, if ever, contribute anything worthwhile to the discussions. Fortunately having most of the people use their own names cuts down on the rudeness part, but there's still one person who I have on ignore in the new software.I've some sympathy with that view. The problem is that someone may contribute nothing to some discussions (or indeed less than nothing, sucking the life out of the topic or sidetracking it) while still being able to make a valuable contribution to others, perhaps by posting interesting images. So I've never set anyone to "ignore". It's easy enough simply not to read an individual's posts.
...So I can leave it up to the moderators...
Sure! the new software came with a very fine pair of black hob-nailed boots...Ah, yes... sarcasm as a debate-avoidance tool... brilliant! For the record, I said "coinciding with the new software" not caused by it.
Now... about moderators... am I the only one noticing a much more active policing by the moderators, coinciding with the new software? More posts are deleted, more threads locked and more threads completely removed than ever before (as far as I can tell). Two recent cases in point: about role of gear and about animal cruelty. I took part in both and did not see anything worth banning, yet they were not only quickly locked, but completely removed.
... Shutting down a thread doesn't bug me. It helps define the line of appropriate conversation for the board...Fair enough. And if the majority of the board feels the same, fine. As for me personally, I am afraid that "appropriate" often means dry and boring. And I know that the "appropriate line" is too appropriate when I start missing Mr. Schewe style (there, I said it).
Sometimes even people we don't like or who don't behave like we accept have a point.
To reply to the original question/remark, I do not ignore anyone, as a matter of principle, for reasons already mentioned by others.
Now... about moderators... am I the only one noticing a much more active policing by the moderators, coinciding with the new software? More posts are deleted, more threads locked and more threads completely removed than ever before (as far as I can tell). Two recent cases in point: about role of gear and about animal cruelty. I took part in both and did not see anything worth banning, yet they were not only quickly locked, but completely removed. In my opinion, that sucks all the fun out of the debate. I am generally inclined to take part in controversial subjects, for that is where the debate gets really interesting. As the old adage goes "when everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks".
I must admit that I find the new software much less user friendly (visually) and that I reduced the number of my visits to the site as a result. Perhaps that is why I have not noticed Mr. Schewe participation recently... was he banned under the "new world order" :) (sorry, Rob)?. Not that I am in favor of him being banned, I take him as he is (i.e., as colorful as his shirts), and actually enjoy sparring with him from time to time.
The question of whether or not to lock a topic, delete a single post or delete the whole post can be huge problem from time to time. I have said exactly what Michael has said once or twice, "Fuck him" & remove the whole blasted thread.
Fair enough. And if the majority of the board feels the same, fine. As for me personally, I am afraid that "appropriate" often means dry and boring. And I know that the "appropriate line" is too appropriate when I start missing Mr. Schewe style (there, I said it).
...
Jack
I preferred your deleted post. It was more manly.
Agreed. I likewise preferred your previous avatar for the same reason.
Perhaps this one suits you better.
A mature individual doesn't mind having his belief systems challeged. Having one's belief system challenged is the only way to test said belief system. If a person asks questions of your belief system, for which you have no answer, then the strong possibility exists that your own belief system is flawed and weak. Instead of responding honestly, if you prove ill-equipped to counter with facts, and instead you either respond emotionally---or just automatically withdraw unto yourself and clam-up, this is the polar opposite of growth. To be willing to have your own belief system shattered, if there aren't enough facts to support it, is the only way in which to clear-out the necessary room to grow and build a better belief system. Unfortunately, this is too painful for most, so they withdraw and "refuse to respond" anymore.
I believe this lack of an open mind, this unwillingness to get deep into the heart of passionate issues and beliefs, this default to shut-out other people and other views (if they directly challenge our own), is the very "ignorance" implied in the word "ignore" to which Bernard was referring on his original post ...
At any rate, each topic of discussion brought up brings with it new potential. A person with whom we butted heads on the last go-'round may shed some light for us on the next one. I guess some people feel more comfortable being surrounded by yes-men, who "agree" with them on every instance. It may makes things easier and less painful, but it quickly becomes dreadfully dull, and really doesn't afford the opportunity for growth ...
All that makes a lot of sense I would think.
"Yesmanship" is one of the worst deseases of our societies, and a very common one for that matter. The more you go up within corporations the more obvious the phenomena becomes. It is easy to establish a connection between most collective failures and this sheepish desire not to oppose the dominant line of thoughts.
I hope this example will not be taken for what it is not, but the way the US society handled the war with Irak is the a telling example of this disease, even if it was triggered and supported by organized mass manipulations of unseen scale. There wil be more of the same since I have not seen much individual introspection being made besides the recognition at gov level of some mistakes conveniently swept aside in the transition from one administration to another. Why am I talking about this although I am not a US citizen. This isn't my problem, right? Well nowadays we are global enough that it is my problem also.
Talking about Belgium, my own country, I could deep into the awful example of the Rwanda genocide where most citizens in the country decided not to move a cm to react against the lack of actions of our government when tens of thousands of people were being murdered. It was all too easy to yesman the agreed on attitude which was not to raise the point in daily discussions.
We keep watching these movies full of heroes, yet many of us (I am part of that all too often myself also) struggle to apply the same attitude in our daily lifes. Fear of risk is the main cause and it is often easier to attack/ignore the carrier of a message (France during the war with Irak) instead of considering the idea being proposed.
Politeness and respect matter because Nomanship required tact and smarts to be efficient. It is so much easier amidst our busy and stressful daily lifes to just let go.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I think you are expecting too much and also presuming too much power exists within the various structures you mentioned.
For what it’s worth, I believe that the situation is really quite different: I believe that power and control are largely figments of the imagination and that nobody really has that much decisive input on their own. Certainly armies can be mobilised; no doubt that nuclear arms are currently under a sea near you and in the skies above us all. The question, though, is who, if anyone, controls it?
Bernard, the world is a dunghill.
... Why ever not take that pastor and put him under observation in a place with men in white coats?...
Unfortunately the pastor is going to get a lot of other people killed too.
All that makes a lot of sense I would think.
"Yesmanship" is one of the worst deseases of our societies, and a very common one for that matter. The more you go up within corporations the more obvious the phenomena becomes. It is easy to establish a connection between most collective failures and this sheepish desire not to oppose the dominant line of thoughts.
I hope this example will not be taken for what it is not, but the way the US society handled the war with Irak is the a telling example of this disease, even if it was triggered and supported by organized mass manipulations of unseen scale. There wil be more of the same since I have not seen much individual introspection being made besides the recognition at gov level of some mistakes conveniently swept aside in the transition from one administration to another. Why am I talking about this although I am not a US citizen. This isn't my problem, right? Well nowadays we are global enough that it is my problem also.
Talking about Belgium, my own country, I could deep into the awful example of the Rwanda genocide where most citizens in the country decided not to move a cm to react against the lack of actions of our government when tens of thousands of people were being murdered. It was all too easy to yesman the agreed on attitude which was not to raise the point in daily discussions.
We keep watching these movies full of heroes, yet many of us (I am part of that all too often myself also) struggle to apply the same attitude in our daily lifes. Fear of risk is the main cause and it is often easier to attack/ignore the carrier of a message (France during the war with Irak) instead of considering the idea being proposed.
Politeness and respect matter because Nomanship required tact and smarts to be efficient. It is so much easier amidst our busy and stressful daily lifes to just let go.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm going to print and burn this thread ..... its my freedom.
:P
Then I will stack up a pile of religious books, scientific books, stupid books, intelligent books and burn it ..... its my freedom.
:P
I have some printed photographs - I'll burn these too ....
:P
And some rolls of film ...
:P
And then I will burn my toilet paper ..... its my freedom.
:P/me bangs head on the table
..... And if someone decides to go kill people because you're burning your toilet paper, I'd say the problem is with them and not you...../me sighs in relief ....
Now, we are going to blame a person who is exercising his freedom.. or say he "caused deaths".. committed by others he doesn't know without his knowledge or consent? We are saying the problem is with the person harming no one, who is merely exercising his freedoms, and not with the person(s) would would kill because of this?
Steve, Let's face it, we all understand that this "pastor" is doing what he's doing in order to get his fifteen minutes of fame (or in this case notoriety). And, wow, is he getting it!!, starting with a personal phone call from the Sec. Def. To suggest that the "pastor" is doing this without knowledge of what the result will be or without consenting to the result is, well, to avoid impoliteness I'll call it a stretch. As far as exercising freedoms is concerned, it's not a legitimate exercise of your freedom to incite murderers to murder people. Hitler was exercising his freedom too when he incited his people to murder the jews among them.I'd agree with you about his motives.. but I'm guessing just as you are. But his motives shouldn't matter and they don't matter. And there are limits to free speech and the SCOTUS has already ruled what they are.. things like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire isn't protected. Burning flags and Bibles and the Quran clearly is or better minds than ours would have already filed an injunction to stop this guy.
I'd agree with you about his motives.. but I'm guessing just as you are.
As far as "inciting murderers" and comparing the guy to Hitler.. (why is it everyone thinks comparing someone to Hitler makes their point? Kinda weak if you ask me..) [[[I didn't and I don't intend to.]]] No. The same extremists who would murder innocent people simply because some nut job burns a Quran already want to kill those innocent people. Stop fooling yourself that they need any more reason than someone being an infidel or is involved with their country or any of the other reasons Islamic extremists have been killing and bombing for, for well.. in modern times that would be decades.
... It won't do to "pacify" them. The only way the war is going to end is for us to wipe them out...
Suddenly, the book-burning pastor looks as extreme as Mother Theresa ;)
Suddenly, the book-burning pastor looks as extreme as Mother Theresa ;)
What do you think, Slobodan? Are we at war or not?
Russ even in their "maddest" moments the leaders of Iran must realise that they will die if they launch a nuclear weapon. I don't - I can't prove it just as you can't - believe they want to die.
If your statement is true then the nuclear deterrent that Israel has is worthless because it doesn't deter!
That goes for America as well because they would also launch their missiles because Israel is a servant of America.
Nobody can ever prove that Iran is a threat especially if you annihilate the country.
I hope Bernard is properly punished for starting the thread that lead to the the destruction of, well, I kinda lost tack, who are we killing?
At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?
Quote
If Israel's missiles are launched in advance to destroy Iran's nuclear capability then they're an absolute deterrent. A much better deterrent would be for Israel or the U.S. to destroy, or at least inhibit Iran's nuclear capability using conventional munitions before the window of opportunity closes so far that a nuclear strike is necessary.
Unquote
Russ have you learnt anything from history? Vietnam....a disaster. Afghanistan..... nine years ongoing and nowhere near winning. Iraq.... an expensive folly. I saw the soldier on TV waving his arms from a truck who was glad he was leaving shouting .... we won. Who won out of that illegal war? Which nations are going to join America in an invasion of Iran? Tony Blair the hubris friend of Bush is no longer in charge of the UK. America will be alone in this folly and if just like Iraq they don't find any weapons of mass destruction, what then? America is bankrupt and your thinking is the same. As to Israel it wouldn't exist without America. 100 million dollars in aid since the end of WW2. How can a small country without natural resources afford a nuclear weapon? They should be stripped of it and the middle east would be a more peaceful place. Iran isn't the threat to world peace it is America who just as Rob C pointed out used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself. That war was effectively over but it meant that the Japanese soldiers fought on in the islands for years after because they thought the mainland had been obliterated. Nuff said.
With the incessant conflict in the Middle East, none of those countries is looking to "benefit" the other, nor are any of our antagonists over there ultimately looking to "benefit" us ...
Fifty eight thousand American's dead fighting in Vietnam. Same number again committed suicide afterwards and many more maimed for life. I don't think they were chickenshit? I think you do your fellow countrymen a disservice?
Does the American people really have control over the decision making in regards to going to war? If they elect a Republican government then the hawks will take it as read that they have right to do what they want in the name of the people...
I wasn't speaking of the actual men-at-arms, genius, but rather of the tacticians who decided to initiate war ... and then who planned a less-than-full-scale strategy for victory.
I do understand the reluctance to use nuclear weaponry, but what I don't understand is a half-scale war.
Thus it is our own government who did our countrymen a disservice.
Jack
The problem about planning a war and developing tactics is that the enemy doesn't always play ball. General Custer planned a full scale war and ended up being out manoeuvred by opponents whom he thought to be savages at best. It is easy to underestimate your opponents. Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers. Have you read Jonathan Neale's book ..... The American War? That is what the Vietnamese called the conflict. It is impossible - imo - to plan a war and carry it out precisely to the end. The enemy always has ways to scupper your planning.
.
Stamper, Perhaps it's a quibble but it's clear you don't know much about U.S. history. If you'll take the trouble to check you'll find that the Bushes are about the only Republican presidents who took us to war. Check Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson for the big ones. Reagan took us into a small one, but in that one a bunch of U.S. citizens were being threatened. I was going to say that it's always wise to check your sources, but it's pretty obvious your sources are suspect. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, all but a tiny fraction of the U.S. citizenry was with Bush all the way on that one. We've already argued the Iraq thing, so I won't open that again.
The problem about planning a war and developing tactics is that the enemy doesn't always play ball. General Custer planned a full scale war and ended up being out manoeuvred by opponents whom he thought to be savages at best. It is easy to underestimate your opponents. Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers. Have you read Jonathan Neale's book ..... The American War? That is what the Vietnamese called the conflict. It is impossible - imo - to plan a war and carry it out precisely to the end. The enemy always has ways to scupper your planning.
"The fact that both America and the Uk went to the UN and asked advice on this matter. The UN states that it is illegal to invade a
sovereign nation with regards to regime change. In this respect Saddam was left in charge in 1992 to "keep the lid on things" and
ten years later they decided that he must go. A clue. OIL"
Okay.. so a war is only "legal" if the UN gives its stamp of approval? Can you give me an example of when this has happened?
As far as I know they haven't given permission because no country has ever provided an overwhelming case for war against another one?
And please, try to leave out the loon talking points. It doesn't help.
Lowering your self to to making personal attacks doesn't help your questions?
In 1992 Iraq signed an agreement of surrender. They broke 23 different UN resolutions concerning their surrender. Any one of which was legal grounds to rescind the surrender and complete what was started. If I find fault, it's with the UN for allowing the number to grow past one. Without the will to enforce, the UN becomes an ineffective body. No one listens to them.
"The UN have repeatedly stated that they illegally occupy land that is the Palestines. This is beyond doubt. "
And this is related to their nuclear capability exactly how? And how will it bring the peace you say their disarming will bring? Please, try to answer the question without diverting to a new topic. When you do this it's obvious to everyone.
Having a nuclear weapon makes them a bully. They depend on it to get their own way. Without it the Arab countries would combine and Palestine would revert to what it was a hundred years ago. United, peaceful and free.
"How else can we make judgements? Everything is in the past."
Judgments should be fair yes? Actions taken 50 years ago should not be judged with values 50 years into the future, which of course are unknowns at the time. This isn't obvious to you at the most basic level?
That is an opinion that you seem to think valid. Comparisons are made all the time about the past. When things change for the better then it is valid to look back and comment?
"Contradictory?"
Okay, now you have me wondering if English is your first language. I ask this with all politeness because I can change my writing level if necessary. It's more important in a discussion to make sure we are understood, than to make a point only we understand no?
Please change your writing level, preferably for the better and try to leave out the personal stuff. It doesn't help your point of view.
"At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?"
Again, you skipped right over my questions without answering. Here's a clue: All during ALL wars peace is being discussed. How many "peace talks" did we have during the Korean conflict and/or Vietnam? Hundreds. This is not an indication if a war is almost over. Plus, I think what you 'read' is very loosely interpreted and not at all accurate.
In your opinion. Are you sure that you are correct in everything you state? If you were then nobody would even think of contradicting you. Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion without you denigrating them.
And that you would ask the last part of your question demonstrates a dearth of knowledge about such matters.. on an extreme level. Which makes me wonder why you participate other than to throw out your political talking points. But okay, I'll explain it to you.
Again a denigrating manner.
1. Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan. But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb. Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.
2. The world was in an entirely different place towards the end of WWII than it ever was since. All countries were weak from years of war and more vulnerable to complete takeover than they've ever been since. Japan had wrecked havoc over a large swath of the globe and committed atrocities that made Hitler seem tame by comparison. Their goal was to take over the entire Pacific including the invasion of America and they'd demonstrated the ability to do so. A quick end to the war in the way that was done stopped ALL countries in their tracks.. and ensured stability since. It's not be done again (using the bomb) because it's never been 'as' necessary since.
I haven't read the book, no, but I do understand not everything goes as planned.
But I also understand not using all the available weaponry and not being 100% committed to finish a fight. Lack of 100% commitment to finish any fight is, in essence, prolonging it---and maybe this is why our own servicemen mutinied.
They mutinied because they thought that they were being asked to fight and die in a war that couldn't be won. A war that despite the overwhelming fire power they weren't succeeding. Apparently an estimated 11 million tons of Agent Orange was dropped but because most of the Vietnamese were living underground they survived. Unfortunately after the war most of the babies that were born were malformed from the chemicals some of which are still in the ground to this day.
That being said, there are also environmental and long-term-consequense considerations to be had before the deployment of more serious nuclear weaponry, but I personally believe that if you're going to commit to a war, then it needs to be a full-scale war and over with as soon as possible. Half-measures are never acceptable in any form of life-and-death combat, because that in-and-of itself is an underestimation of the opponent.
Still, in the end, I suppose there are no easy answers and there is a tendency we all have to over-simplify things for discussion. And all the discussion in the world won't change what happened, and what did not happen.
Jack
.
They mutinied because they thought that they were being asked to fight and die in a war that couldn't be won. A war that despite the overwhelming fire power they weren't succeeding. Apparently an estimated 11 million tons of Agent Orange was dropped but because most of the Vietnamese were living underground they survived. Unfortunately after the war most of the babies that were born were malformed from the chemicals some of which are still in the ground to this day.
1. Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan. But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb. Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.
2. The world was in an entirely different place towards the end of WWII than it ever was since. All countries were weak from years of war and more vulnerable to complete takeover than they've ever been since. Japan had wrecked havoc over a large swath of the globe and committed atrocities that made Hitler seem tame by comparison. Their goal was to take over the entire Pacific including the invasion of America and they'd demonstrated the ability to do so. A quick end to the war in the way that was done stopped ALL countries in their tracks.. and ensured stability since. It's not be done again (using the bomb) because it's never been 'as' necessary since.
Russ you are correct in saying that I don't have a great grasp of America's history. You didn't mention Vietnam. Which President took the decision to involve America? Was it Eisenhower or Kennedy?
My point was a more general one about leaders making up their minds and involving their countries in something - which you admit - they don't support.
At the end of the day the ordinary people who make up the population of different countries don't decide to make war with each other. It is their leaders that bounce them into it and they pay a heavy price for allowing it to happen.
Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers.
1. Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan. But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb. Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.
... the possibility that the same leaders might have lied also about Al Qaida having triggered 9/11...
Oh, no, you didn't!!!
... open another can of worms, that is :)
As the saying goes: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"... I know you meant the best when starting the thread, but what if it ends with a complete obliteration of the mankind? :)
Stamper, I'm afraid whatever you're using as reference material is even more flaky than I thought it was.
1. What do you think Agent Orange is?
2. Where and when did all these troops mutiny and murder their officers?
Please give references for your answers to both these questions.
This re-defines the whole problem. The war "couldn't be won" precisely because we did not wage it at 100% deadly capacity. That is the whole point you continue missing ...
John 100% effort in anything doesn't always guarantee success. If the enemy is pursuing it 100% as well then who is going to be the winner?
BTW John your second and third quotes in Reply76 weren't made by me but by other posters which you have wrongly attributed to me ???
>>> "Eisenhower warned the nation against a land war in Asia. He sent some very limited materiel assistance to the French when they were bogged down at Dien Bien Phu, but he refused to commit American troops."
The French actually requested a nuclear strike on the Viet Minh forces surrounding Dien Bien Phu and Eisenhower politely refused ... Churchill also went ballistic and refused to support such a move.
My favorite part of this discussion so far was where it was asserted that the natural state of the Arab Near East "100 years ago" was "united, peaceful and free" ... I'd like to know from what fairy tale that was taken! I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.
In 1915 Palestine was under British control. The Palestinians and Jews led a peaceful existence together. It wasn't till the arrival of the Zionists from Europe that tensions in Palestine were raised. Ultimately the British in Palestine left in 1947 after hundreds were murdered by the Zionists, mainly by the Stern gang. BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace. It is the right wing fanatics who want to conquer Palestine. For further reading buy a copy of
A History of Modern Palestine: by
Ilan Pappe
Publishers Cambridge University Press
The author is a senior lecturer in Political Science at Haifa University in ISRAEL.
You can now pick yourself up from the floor. If you read the book and and re educate yourself it will probably be best read from your chair!
I'd like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.Coffee corner: "A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."
John 100% effort in anything doesn't always guarantee success. If the enemy is pursuing it 100% as well then who is going to be the winner?
In 1915 Palestine was under British control. The Palestinians and Jews led a peaceful existence together. It wasn't till the arrival of the Zionists from Europe that tensions in Palestine were raised. Ultimately the British in Palestine left in 1947 after hundreds were murdered by the Zionists, mainly by the Stern gang. BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace. It is the right wing fanatics who want to conquer Palestine.
Stamper, you are getting dangerously close to being very offensive with a statement like "not all Jews are Zionists...some of them want to live peacefully"
Get a grip and lose your racist, offensive views...you'll help make this world a better place.
My first statement was in defence of the majority of Jews who want a peaceful existence. You have chosen to twist what I stated.
Stamper, Like Jeremy, I'm out as of now. Evidently your information sources are even flakier than at first I surmised.
Jonathan Neale is a left-wing novelist and college professor. His knowledge of the subject he's writing about in this work of fiction is nil. I spent two years in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. Do you really believe I don't know what the term "fragging" means? Fragging incidents were, to say the least, extremely rare. To call that history "mutiny" is more than simply over-the-top; it's sadistic prostitution of the English language.
As far as Agent Orange is concerned, what you suggest in your post is that it's an antipersonnel agent. In fact, it was a defoliant -- formulated in a way very similar to some defoliants people had been using on their lawns and in their gardens for decades. The Wikipedia article you reference actually admits that it takes most of its inflammatory photographs and information from the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in other words, from the Vietnamese propaganda agency. I know several pilots who spent most of their Vietnam tours flying Ranch Hand missions. They practically swam in Agent Orange during those flights. They're still healthy. Their kids are healthy. Their grandkids are healthy. Evidently it's true that in a lab, dioxin can cause problems for rats, but the possible effects on humans have been blown all out of proportion by mob hysteria. That Wikipedia article is full of more s--t than a 20 pound canary.
If Jonathan Neale is your favorite kind of author I'd suggest you stick to photography and avoid reading.
I know.OK, Christoph, here are my photographic responses to this thread (they are all part of the newest gallery called "Consequences" on my website, which you can see here: http://myrvaagnes.com/signs/index.php?1 (http://myrvaagnes.com/signs/index.php?1)
I can actually read.
I'd still like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.
There you go, bringing in art. Now we'll all get a complex and not publish anything!
Rob C
"In arts god set foot on earth"
My art teacher from school
This was my quote and your response didn't show it to be false.. more or less it reinforced what I said.
This is a very crude and limited strategy.. one well past its prime. We're much smarter and better educated concerning 'strategy' these days. I'm not saying your wrong about wanting to lose less life on your side.. but its far from being the only variable or factor in a strategy of war.
Well.. it is deadly. This is why we mustn't be 'half hearted' in our strategy or thought or our capacity to value human life.
I believe Nazism has been the epitome of ignorance and destructivity here in Germany.
[....]I don't think of nazis as particularly ignorant though. [......] but I've never encountered one whom I thought could be convinced to abandon their belief system if presented with new facts and evidence. [....]
I remember my father telling me, when he was young and the Nazis came to power in Germany, the first people to follow them and run through the village with the arm raised in the fascist greeting manner were the village idiots, the most unable of the locals.
That is the defining issue and one that you choose to ignore because it blows your whole argument out of the water. Saddam didn't have them and both the US and the UK knew that. They told lies about that issue and convinced gullible people like yourself that the war was legal. Note how many people are now saying that they were duped unlike yourself who still has the blinkered view that they were correct. Admitting you were wrong isn't a big deal? Again your choice of language doesn't help make your points any more worthwhile than they are. I note from other posts made by you it is the norm so I guess it it part of your nature to use it to ram home your point of view. :(
Saddam didn't have them and both the US and the UK knew that.
Ignorance is evil.
That statement is entirely unsupportable. Just about everybody thought Hussein had WMDs. That was the official assessment of every major intelligence organization in the US, the UK, France, Russia; every government in NATO; the US and UK press; nearly all US legislators who made public statements concerning the matter. I was working in the US intelligence community at the time. Although I had nothing to do with middle east accounts, I did read the assessments coming from those folks, and there was unnanimity that Iraq had at least some chemical and biological weapons. This idea that the administration made up facts to support their argument, or manipulated the intelligence in some way, is a complete fantasy.
Regarding fighting at 100% this doesn't sit easy with me. I am not a pacifist but the Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Falklands crisis and the wars in Palestine were unnecessary imo. The first three were imperialist in origin as most wars are. Probably the second world war was the last one worth fighting.
IMO the USA go looking for wars to fight so your idea of 100% isn't valid because it isn't in defence of the homeland which to me is the only ones that are worth fighting. The USA hasn't had to defend it's self - apart from 9/11 which wasn't a war - so the brutality of your thinking doesn't sit easy.
I would have left Saddam alone, not because I was a fan of his but the aftermath of what happened wasn't worth it. In the first one the USA were itching for a fight because imo at times it helps their economy. The second world war was economically a boom time for them but a tragedy for American lives. The second Gulf War was for oil and left over 100,000 dead and the country doesn't have democracy which we are led to believe. With regards to Vietnam then the question I would pose is: What did the Vietnamese people deserve that merited America invading and nearly destroying it? Hopefully the answer isn't because it was going communist? I don't believe America or any other country should decide what philosophy another country adopts. As to Iran then I simply think that they are chugging the West's chain to upset them. An invasion of them, which America can't afford unless they use it as an excuse to kick start the economy, would likely start World war three as China and Russia has an interest there.
Finally your 100% thinking is possibly a reflection of your mentality. That isn't meant to be offensive but possibly reflects your mindset rather than a good idea of how to approach things.
I am not a pacifist but the Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Falklands crisis and the wars in Palestine were unnecessary imo.
Stamper,
You might not consider this important but it is.
There were no wars fought in Palestine...only Israel
Israel was declared a nation state on May 14, 1948 after a 33-13 vote of approval by the UN.
Comments such as yours only promote a distortion of reality and history. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least get the facts straight.
Joe,
I have read - I have a few books on the subject - that at the time the Jews made up about 6% of the population but they got to live on about 50% of the land which angered the Palestinians. I repeat I have nothing against Jews, my father was Jewish but I am not, and my take on the situation obviously differs from yours. Source Ilan Pappe's book. A history of Modern Palestine. Note the title.
... The only way to... get it over with is to go all-out as quickly as possible and eliminate the enemy's ability or willingness to continue the fight.
Stamper, I will agree that you provided references for your views; I also agree others simply didn't like your references.
I will further agree that your original statement, "BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace," was twisted into the much more disparaging, "some of them want to live peacefully." So I do believe you are being unfairly criticized in some respects.
...
Russ, with all due respect, your military experience is quite obviously completely shaping your view of the world. Which, in itself, is kind of normal and not surprising. As they say, "when a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox, every problem seems like a nail". In other words, if the only tools you have are military, every problem seems worth bombing the living hell out of it. There is a reason civilians command the military, and not vice versa (at least in democracies).
It is surprising, yet highly commendable, when someone on this board (or any Internet board) cedes certain points in a debate, even when it is "in some respects". So, my hat off to you, Sir.
... if you're going to go to war you need to go all the way. Far better to avoid war in the first place. But how do you do that? Not by negotiating from a position of weakness. You avoid war by demonstrating that you're willing to go to war if need be and that if you do go to war you'll annihilate your enemy. It's exactly what the Arabs mean when they say they'll side with the "strong horse."
Russ,
first up I am not here to fall out with you. We obviously disagree as politically we are poles apart. None of this is personal. Am I correct in asserting that the US were hampered in Vietnam because China stated that if America went into Cambodia in pursuit of enemy bases then they would have to deal with them as well? You obviously felt the war was worth waging but equally a lot of your fellow countrymen disagreed with you. It was a very divisive war that polarised America and the rest of the world. Strong opinions on both sides? At the end of the day this is primarily a photographic site and possibly Michael should ban the politics and we can fall out over photographic matters?
There is a reason civilians command the military, and not vice versa (at least in democracies).
Your last four words sum up the fact that there wasn't even a damp firework in the country. How could they have got it so wrong? George Tennant paid the penalty with his job. He became the fall guy for Bush. In Britain Tony Blair didn't dare blame John Scarlett because he would have then told the world it was Blair's lies. How can you possibly defend the intelligence operations considering there weren't anything to be found? If someone says that there is evidence of something and it turns out there isn't a shred then they are incompetent or lying. There isn't anything in between. The simple answer is that once they invaded Iraq then they expected to find evidence that would have backed up their thinking and the world would have agreed with them. I find it astonishing that there are still some like yourself that are still clinging to the idea that there was evidence of WMD'S. Events has totally proved you wrong.
...Now, regarding 100% vs. 100%, let's see if we can agree this point as well: if one country has more men, more sophisticated weapons, as well as more total weapons than another country ... then, if both countries operate at 100% capacity, the country with the most manpower and firepower should theoretically win.
When in a hole, stop digging (unless you are looking for a shortcut to China). Any attempt to defend the WMD theory today is just making its proponents even more a laughing stock of the rest of the world. So, admit you got it wrong (blame the political pressure) and move on.We will never agree on any of that. Oil was never my motivation, nor that of any of the people I ever served with. Access to oil probably does play a part in strategic considerations at the international political level, but it had, and has, nothing whatsoever to do with technical intelligence matters, where one is, for example, counting trucks from overhead imagery.
Especially because the war had nothing to do with WMD, ugly regime, liberating Iraqi people, etc. That was just marketing (where is a truth-in-advertising commission when you need one? ;)).
It is about oil, of course. It is a simple question: who do you want to control the most important single resource the mankind has today (for better or worse)? If you are American, you would't like to leave it to the backward, despotic regimes of the Middle East. If you are American, you would not want Russia or China, or, for that matter, even France to have control over it. If you are American, you would not want to undermine your superiority by allowing anyone else to control your access to oil. So, if you are American, you go in and secure control. If you are not American... tough luck ;)
Slobodan,... I agree with everything you said, but there are some flies in the soothing ointment we'd like to compound with books, computers, teachers and doctors.
Have you ever read the Koran... But it's also a call to war. Mohammad was a warrior, not a peacemaker. According to the Koran, Islam's "final solution" will be to institute a worldwide Caliphate, forcibly convert, or as an alternative, kill unbelievers, and institute sharia law. It contains no "new testament" that teaches turning the other cheek...
...Nah ... not tough luck ... hop a plane, stay out of trouble and within a few years someone will offer blanket immigration amnesty and you can be American, too....
... counting trucks from overhead imagery...
... If oil were really so central to all this, then why didn't we just take it? Obviously, we didn't. The US only has, I think, two driling contracts with the Iraqis right now. The rest were all let to companies from other countries...
You are incorrect on so many levels. After the invasion, numerous chemical weapons were discharged. In most cases, they were artillery shells that were used in the assembling of IEDs. The people who did that probably didn't even know what they had. It's unlikey that those devices all came form a single large stockpile of weapons ready for use before the invasion, but there were nevertheless dangerous WMDs in Iraq, and there probably still are. For some reason, that never seems to be acknowledged by the "there were no WMDs" crowd. So I am not "proved wrong." Feel free to continue your astonishment if you prefer.
How could we have gotten it wrong? We had an oponent who had already used chemical and biological weapons on civilians, and who had the means and the determination to keep the world believing he could still do that at any time. It's that simple.
After Gulf War I, Hussein was required to turn over all documents related to his manufacture of WMDs. Included in that, among other nasty surprises, was detailed documentation of the manufacture of many tons of chemical weapons. Enough to kill everyone in a number of large cities. Hussein never subsequently provided any documentation of the destruction of any of that. Zero.
When the inspectors would arrive at one of his suspected sites, there sually a flury of large moving vehicles and so forth, which indicated to all those watching that he had something to hide. Why did Hussein do that? He said in the weeks before he was executed that he wanted Iran, and to a lesser extent the US, to believe he still had WMDs. He thought, stupidly, that would be the best way for him to ensure that he would not be deposed by outside forces.
Without his cooperation with the inspectors, we would never have been able to prove that he didn't maintain the damn things any longer. Go back to the papers and look at what was going on with the inspecton regime in the summer of 2001. You'll see that Hussein refused to grant the access that might have shown he wasn't maintaining large stockpiles. Why is it so difficut for you to understand that the natural conclusion prior to the invasion was that Hussein had WMDs?
Intelligence work is about making one's best judgement based on the facts one has to work with. The facts suggested Hussein had not destroyed his WMDs. We still don't have any evidence that he did. If you wish to say that all the intelligence services in the western world were therefore "incompetent," well, that's your prerogative. For all anyone knows, those Iraqi WMDs were in the huge train of trucks we saw headed into Syria right before the invasion. We just don't know.
Yes, I heard that widespread claim that Islam is violent, and Christianity peaceful, turn-the-other-cheek religion. Now, I am definitely not a fan of Islam, and, truth to be told, I am not a fan of any organized religion, but let me offer some food for thought (for some reason I find that metaphor more appetizing than "flies..." :)).
That turn-the-other-cheek religion (and I am, by family tradition, if not practice, a part of it) is, throughout history, responsible for an incredible amount of deaths. From Inquisition, witch hunt, forced conversion (especially in Latin America), Crusaders, Conquistadors, Templars, etc., millions are killed in the name of the "peaceful" religion.
As for Islam, I am sure it had its fair share of forced conversion, but take a look at their method of spreading their influence: they mostly left conquered countries retain their language, culture and religion. How I know? My home country (Serbia) was 500 years under Turks, yet we managed to retain our identity. Similar thing in Spain.
Just a thought.
... would certainly not qualify you to assess the geopolitical impact of the war... simply beyond your pay grade, as they say. Ever heard of "not being able to see the forest from the trees"? And for the record, I do not mean any disrespect for you or the "truckers". Nor I mean to say there is no sense in counting trucks.
If you read my previous post, on why it is wise not to go into a 100% annihilation of the enemy, you would understand that not taking oil outright is simply a smart strategy of avoiding antagonizing other players in the game (Europe, Russia, China) and forcing them to collude and form alliances against you. Controlling the access to oil is quite enough.
Your version of the facts appears to be highly one-sided and is mostly built on the same old argument that WMD were there because they had to be there. Regarding the proposition that all the countries agreed with the claims of the US, this is simply totally false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War
The scale of the gap between the claims of Colin Powell and the reality on the field is such that it is beyond any possible doubt a lie. Whether General Powell knew he was lying or not is not the point. He had been cornered into a position where he had no choice but to follow the intelligence presented to him that had been manipulated to convey the message defined by the Bush administration. Military does follow civilian order.
Cheers,
Bernard
...or more precisely evidence that there were no WMDs. You need something of that nature if you're going to make the claim that the US administration lied...
... I just think you are arguing from a semi-Marxist materialist point of view...
I like that you relativized your own statement with words like "should" and "theoretically". Economist would typically add to such assumptions the "ceteris paribus" phrase, i.e., "all other things being equal".
So, in your example, if there are only two countries in the world, and they are at war, the superior country would win if they use "every means at [their] disposal to do so". In game theory, that model would be described as a two-player, single-stage game.
In reality, however, "other things" are rarely being equal, so games are much more likely to be multiple-player, multiple-stage ones. So, while in your single stage of the game in your model you might win, the reality is that you would most likely face further resistance, maybe even years down the road, from children that grew up to hate your guts, and the game would turn into a multiple-stage one (as the history of human conflict is so readily showing us through "hundred year wars", Northern Ireland, Middle East, etc.).
Your only solution to prevent it, to bring your model to its logical conclusion, is to be 100% resolved to completely, utterly, obliterate and annihilate the entire population of the enemy... and not only its army and male population, but specifically fertile women and every and any child. Human history is littered with such attempts, known as "scorched earth", "take no prisoners", "final solution", etc.
And here is when the game becomes rally interesting (pardon the rhetorical coldness): it stops being a two-payer game at that point. Other players, seeing the destruction of one side, would go into alliances to protect themselves from the same fate or to further their interest. The West went into the "unholy" alliance with communists, for instance.
Fortunately (for the world), most leaders are aware of the complexities of the 100% wars, and are justifiably right to avoid them (and I guess their bathrooms are kept cleaner, so they do not build their view of the world on urinal "philosophy" ;) (cheap shot, I admit... just could not resist :))
Nobody is saying war is a game in that sense ... You are using a definition of a "game" that is different that Slobodan ...
and you can't win the argument by re-defining the the words used by your opponent ...
or maybe you just don't know what Game Theory is ...
Game Theory is a specialized field of economics that IS a good intellectual framework for analyzing complex strategic entanglements with competing, independent actors.
... My point was that the intel said there were WMDs, therfeore the politicians had every reason to believe there were...
Yes, I heard that widespread claim that Islam is violent, and Christianity peaceful, turn-the-other-cheek religion. Now, I am definitely not a fan of Islam, and, truth to be told, I am not a fan of any organized religion, but let me offer some food for thought (for some reason I find that metaphor more appetizing than "flies..." :)).
That turn-the-other-cheek religion (and I am, by family tradition, if not practice, a part of it) is, throughout history, responsible for an incredible amount of deaths. From Inquisition, witch hunt, forced conversion (especially in Latin America), Crusaders, Conquistadors, Templars, etc., millions are killed in the name of the "peaceful" religion.
As for Islam, I am sure it had its fair share of forced conversion, but take a look at their method of spreading their influence: they mostly left conquered countries retain their language, culture and religion. How I know? My home country (Serbia) was 500 years under Turks, yet we managed to retain our identity. Similar thing in Spain.
Just a thought.
...I admit to my ignorance of game theory, and (unless demonstrated otherwise) I don't think it has anything to do with war...
I admit to my ignorance of game theory, and (unless demonstrated otherwise) I don't think it has anything to do with war.
Jack,
I think you need to retract that statement. We've been having a mostly civil discussion and debate so far and I, for one, do not want to see a moderator shut it down because of a personal attack on someone.
Game Theory was the foundation of American nuclear policy from the get go ... John von Neumann ... look him up.
"As rivalry with the Soviet Union heated up, Von Neumann became a strategic adviser on defense policy. He was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Atomic Energy Commission, which oversaw the postwar buildup of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Von Neumann's game theory became a tool to analyze the unthinkable--global nuclear war--and led to the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction," which would shape U.S. strategy for the next two decades. Von Neumann also became an icon of the cold war. Disabled with pancreatic cancer, he stoically continued to attend AEC meetings until his death in 1957. The wheelchair-bound scientist with the Hungarian accent who mathematically analyzed doomsday is said to have been a model for Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,21839,00.html#ixzz0zdqNjK3E
How about this for demonstration:
"... A study by RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) shows how military planners can use game theory to understand the effects of U.S. strategy and capabilities on the enemy in TCT operations. Game theory uses mathematics to model human decisionmaking in competitive situations. It is ideally suited for analyzing military situations because it depicts the realistic situation in which both sides are free to choose their best “moves” and to adjust their strategy over time. Military planners can apply these principles to TCT operations through game theoretic analysis...
...This research brief describes work done for RAND Project AIR FORCE and documented in A Simple Game-Theoretic Approach to Suppression of Enemy Defenses and Other Time Critical Target Analyses by Thomas Hamilton and Richard Mesic, DB-385-AF, 2004, 55 pages, ISBN: 0-8330-3259-3. (Full Document). Copies of this research brief and the complete report on which it is based are available by clicking above or through RAND Distribution Services (phone: 1-310-451-7002; toll free in the U.S.: 1-877-584-8642)."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB108/index1.html
Lighten up, it was a joke.
Accepted as such... no problem.
... one of the main advantages of applying Game Theory to war was stated thus: "If both sides correctly ascertain the situation, then the losing side may decide not to participate."...
Not everyone shares the same sense of humour.
Accepted as such... no problem.
Damn, if only someone told Vietnamese about the game theory at the time :)
... I feel validated... In the end, I don't think your familiarity with game theory changes the fact you completely misunderstood my point, nor do I think my lack of prior exposure to Game Theory minimizes my own. It merely reinforces it.
Come to think of it, maybe Cheney never really wanted to skew intelligence reports, maybe he was just another helpless victim of the confirmation bias? ;)
Whether I misunderstood, misunderestimated (to quote President Bush), twisted, etc., your points, or simply took your theory to its logical end, I will let others to decide. The "logical end" being the Beach Boys song, in the musical interpretation of the John McCain group: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran "(or Vietnam, or...). Though Senator McCain did not mention nuclear bomb, which you appear to favor in your 100% theories.
As for being validated and reinforced... there is an app for that too :) Actually, there is a name for that in the decision-making theory: confirmation bias. We usually cherry-pick arguments in whatever information comes our way to suit (reinforce, validate) our already formed opinion.
Of course I'm arguing from one side, because I was involved. I'm not going to take up Sadam Hussein's point of view, or entertain discussions where anyone else tries to tell me what I said, thought, or did. I don't mind hearing what others might think, but I will again state that, from my point of view, having been there, the assertion that you were lied to is not correct.
Essentially, according to that article, some countres felt the evidence was not strong enough to justify a war. It does not say that other countries felt that there was no evidence of WMDs, or more precisely evidence that there were no WMDs. You need something of that nature if you're going to make the claim that the US administration lied.
If the evidence had been completely solid one way or the other, things would have been different, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it wasn't, so we can.
... attack with 100% full capacity until the enemy submits or is obliterated. It's either one or the other.
"The enemy," however, is not necessarily every man, woman, and child in that country ... "the enemy" encompasses those persons in power... and their active armies, which constitute a much more finite sub-set of persons living in said country...
If these monsters you believe are in charge here in the US are in fact capable and responsible for treasonous lies and mass murder, why didn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq or lie about finding them after they controlled the territory with their military? Doesn't make sense that the grandest conspiracy of all time couldn't close the loop with a few planted chemical bombs, some anthrax and some nuclear material ... Does it?
Bernard,
If these monsters you believe are in charge here in the US are in fact capable and responsible for treasonous lies and mass murder, why didn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq or lie about finding them after they controlled the territory with their military? Doesn't make sense that the grandest conspiracy of all time couldn't close the loop with a few planted chemical bombs, some anthrax and some nuclear material ... Does it?
Dagnabbit, I still feel that the only post in this entire thread that contained perfect, unmitigated Truth was my own photographic post of the Truth Wagon. ::)
Eric
This is not about Jews at this point its about getting the facts right.
At the time of the Balfour declaration and in the subesquent years following, the Jewish population that was to be in Israel was far greater than was realized in 1948, mostly due to one thing....The slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. Do you think that if there were 3 million Jews in the region instead of the 500,000 you would be happier? I know I would.
Stamper, I'm not happy about the idea of falling out with you either. I've seen your photography and it's good work. I agree it would be better to get back to that.
I didn't feel the Vietnam war was worth getting into in the first place, but I felt that once we were in it we needed to get on with it and finish it. That's the way you minimize casualties on both sides. The idea of pursuing forces operating out of Cambodia came along late in the war. I don't know what China threatened, neither does anyone else who wasn't involved in communications with them, but they'd have had a hell of a time bringing effective forces into the fight. We had absolute air supremacy and absolute supremacy at sea. It wasn't like Korea where we'd pushed the North Koreans back to the Yalu river, next to the Chinese border, before the Chinese attacked on land.
My countrymen weren't against the Vietnam war at first. They turned against it when it became obvious to everyone that we weren't willing to fight it effectively. "Body counts" aren't exactly the kind of thing that makes a war sound worth fighting, especially if you're subject to the draft.
Stamper,
I'm done with YOU. Sorry you hate your dad so much ...
Have a nice life!
"This project began a number of years ago when I started taking snapshots of signs that seemed to convey either ambiguous information or no information at all.
They all seem eager to convey their messsages, but sometimes there is just a failure to communicate."
Why don't you post some images?
I'd suggest for every 1000 words in this thread one should post one image.
/me starts searching for more images in his fundus ...
Joe,
the crux of the problem is the amount of refugees that entered Palestine and settled on land that didn't belong to them. The UN vote meant that a large amount of people were forcibly removed from property that they legally owned. How would you feel if someone voted to force you out of your house and land and removed you in some instances to Syria? Was that democracy?
Somehow I saw it coming ....
Its the nature of ignorance, hatred, war and all this disgusting stuff:
It infects, it spreads and it touches even the innocent.
Though I'm not at all against discussion I feel obliged to say, even discussing it can be contagious.
/me starts searching for more images in his fundus ...
Why don't you post some images?
/me starts searching for more images in his fundus ...
I get it. And I already got it in my post #134, where I said you are right under the assumption that it is a dual-player, single-stage game.
But isn't it exactly what happened in Iraq: you did obliterate their army in a very short time, using "shock & awe", as close to your beloved 100% theory as it gets. So, who are you fighting there today? Not the army, but "insurgents" as you call them, or "freedom fighters" as they see it. That is already a multi-stage game (the first stage being fighting the army, the second stage being fighting the insurgency). And if you want to win that stage, you would have to further obliterate an additional male population... and say you succeed... in a few years, the children of fathers you killed will grow up and pick up where their fathers left... that is the third (and fourth, and fifth...) stage, something we already see in the Middle East, Northern Ireland... etc.)
Isn't that what happened to Soviets in Afghanistan: a relatively quick military victory (stage one), only to be bogged for years in a querilla-stile fighting (stage two). And now it is your turn.
Isn't that what happened to Austro-Hungarian empire in WWI against Serbia? They drove the complete Serbian army out of the country (to Greece) relatively quickly, killing in the process 40% of the male population at the time (stage one)... only to see the remaining Serbian army (and the Allies) drive them out a few years later (stage two).
Isn't that what happened to Germans in Yugoslavia in WWII? The then-Yugoslav army was swiftly defeated in only 12 days (stage one)... only to see a guerilla (partisan) stile uprising several months later, which over the four years of war grew into a new Yugoslav army, comprising women and teenagers as well, who almost single-handedly drove Germans out of the country (stage two). And before you complain, yes, it did help tremendously that the Allies weakened Germans on other fronts, but it does not change the fact that Germans had to face a stage two fight with Yugoslavs.
And I can go on and on and on with examples. So how do you apply your 100% theory in stage two? Without further obliterating population, that is. And that is exactly what you did in WWII in Germany and Japan: further obliterating civilian population, not just "persons in power and their active armies". And if they did not surrender, you would continue obliterating until they do. And some nations are more stubborn and resilient than others. And some terrain is more suitable for guerilla fighting. So do not tell me that your 100% theory does not lead to the logical end: a complete annihilation. Can you please explain what your 100% commitment would mean today in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you already won stage one? Who do you suggest to obliterate now, which subset of the population? And how? Nuke them?
And on that note... sweet dreams.
In other words, it's impossible to roll around in the (ahem) dirt and not get muddy. If you're afraid of getting your hands dirty, there are other places you can play.Yup. Thats the problem. I'm a physician and psychotherapist. And I can tell you, I am used to get muddy and more for a certain purpose. But I don't usually play with mud. Just sometimes - to realize it is was dirt, is dirt and will remain dirt after all.
This is insane. Why don't you go to a thread where "images" are the main subject? Speaking of ignorance, that would seem to be a more mentally-aware choice of topics to visit for someone looking to enjoy images.You can believe me - I know really a lot about insanity. Do you remember the world famous picture of that soldier falling with the gun in his hand? Please don't tell me photography is irrelevant! Its a valid means of discussion, examination, explication, symbolism, relevation and many other things more. You are not seeing or ignoring the purpose!
Why do you refer to youself in the third person? This is possibly one of the most annoying habits people sometimes pick-up for themselves ...Its that "/ me" option in the forum which is somewhat adopted from IRC. You may see it as a sickness of online communications. Should I have annoyed you with that I herewith want to apologize.
Yup. Thats the problem. I'm a physician and psychotherapist. And I can tell you, I am used to get muddy and more for a certain purpose. But I don't usually play with mud. Just sometimes - to realize it is was dirt, is dirt and will remain dirt after all.
You can believe me - I know really a lot about insanity. Do you remember the world famous picture of that soldier falling with the gun in his hand? Please don't tell me photography is irrelevant! Its a valid means of discussion, examination, explication, symbolism, relevation and many other things more. You are not seeing or ignoring the purpose!
Its that "/ me" option in the forum which is somewhat adopted from IRC. You may see it as a sickness of online communications. Should I have annoyed you with that I herewith want to apologize.
Cheers
~C.
Which position would you like to commit to: (1) that you are used to getting muddy or (2) that you usually don't play with mud?
They seem to be diametrically-opposed, mutually-exclusive positions ;)
Within this context, I do agree that seeing photographs could enhance the discussion, so your clarified point is well-taken :)
Well, from a phsychological perspective, I see the pathology of referring to oneself in the third person as either (1) a bit narcissistic and/or (2) implying a kind of dissociative identity disorder ... for in order for "one part" of you to step out of yourself and refer to that "other self" in the third person, there must exist another, separate perceived entity within you to form this outside perspective (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Statement one: I am used to get muddy.
Statement two: I usually don't play with mud.
There is no contradiction, because I usually get muddy not by playing with mud, but by practising my profession.
Thank you. I feel relieved.
"Stepping out of myself" is another word for what I would call "taking another perspective". This is actually a very human ability which can help a lot, especially in heated and complicated discussions. In this special case You may also call it "self irony" which could be interpreted on a scale from humourous to narcisisstic, depending on the background and assumptions of the interpreter.
Best wishes
~C.
Nice try at evasion. Your attempt to avoid the most basic of contradictions, by making a distinction between real, physical mud and "psychological mud" is blatant pettifoggery. It's ingenuine.
We both know the use of the word "mud" was never intended to suggest actual dirt-and-water; it was implying psychological mud all along.
Thus you did contradict yourself at the most basic level. You should have merely said you are used to dealing with psychological mud, through practicing your profession, and left it at that.
The fact that you admit to the use of self-irony, and further admit to the very real potential of its implied narcissism, only goes to underscore the first part of why I have a problem with those who refer to themselves in the third person: narcissism. You simply fail to acknowledge the second potential factor, regarding a possible dissociative personality disorder.
I hereby re-affirm this possibility. The fact is you are you. Thus you are not in a position to "take another perspective," as again you are you. This is why people with a normal sense of identity refer to themselves in the first-person "I" more than 99% of the time in regular discussion. Your being a member of the less-than-1%-club is therefore abnormal.
Since I qualified my point in an either/or context, identifying the possible cause of your disorder as narrowing-down to two factors, either narcissim or a dissociative personality disorder, meaning one or the other (though possibly both), I think I have pegged the potential reasons for referring to yourself in the third person correctly.
However, I don't believe it is a matter of my background which would bring to light the truth or falsity of which of the two possibilities best fits, but rather a familiarity with your background ...
In all cases I was referring to psychological/existential "mud", not physical mud or dirt. There still is no contradiction. Please re-read.
Honestly - I am not sure if you are either just joking and enjoying yourself by doing so, trying to tensly win something in this discussion by some sophistic tactics or are simply misguided.
Self irony or taking another perspective and leaving the normal day to day identity for a moment generally is not a sign for any sort of personality disorder, but a basic means of communication.
If mothers couldn't take the perspective of the baby to supply it properly we all would be much more disturbed than we usually are.
There are also tons of other and maybe even better suited examples where taking another perspective is helpful.
Of course we can never 100% take over another persons identity and thus perspective, but using that strict interpretation in this discussion would just lead towards sophism and not help the cause of the discussion at all.
As a full blown professional in the matter I can just suggest concerning your psychodiagnostic skills, you inform yourself about the proper context and situation of psychodiagnostics and get some basic training before trying to do so.
Cheers
~C.
I strongly suggest that you do the re-reading.
Statement one: I am used to get (psychologically) muddy.Now, that the meaning of "mud" is clarified there still is no contradiction. There is no statement "A" and a statement "Not A" which I claim both to be true, thus there is no contradiction.
Statement two: I usually don't play with (psychological) mud.
There is no contradiction, because I usually get muddy not by playing with mud, but by practising my profession.
Self-examination, for the purpose of attempting to acertain one's own behavior, and how it might look from "another's" perspective, can indeed be a good thing. However, this is typically done in silence, and for the purposes of introspection.
Talking publicly about oneself, from the perspective of being "another self," however, in some habitual manner is something else entirely, and is neither normal nor a basic means of communication.
Your example here completely misses the point. A mother taking the perspective of a baby is called "empathy." Empathy (or even sympathy) for another being, when used to try to understand its needs properly, is not the same thing as referring to oneself as another being separate from oneself.
A mother acting and speaking as if she's the child would be pathological, and so too is referring to oneself as if you're something other than yourself.
Yes there are better examples. I gave one, in fact, where I suggested self-examination can be a good thing.This is a blunt and transparent attempt to forbid me what I was doing. Nothing more.
I never suggested you were trying to take another's identity. I suggested that your speaking of yourself, as if you were separate from yourself, which is both annoying and abnormal.
What fails to help this discussion, at all, is you confounding the pathos of trying to take another person's identity with the pathos of speaking of yourself as if you were another entity from yourself. Both practices are abnormal, but they are not the same.
Referring to others as others is what is normal. Referring to oneself as oneself is likewise normal.
I do believe you are the one who failed to use proper context and relevant examples, so as a self-blown professional, you should be quicker to see and admit to having a mild case of narcissism, when this disorder was correctly pointed out (and admitted-to by you) in the first place.To name me a "self-blown" professional is a flat attempt of insulting. And again you are far over the line stating me a "case of mild narcisissm". This is repetitive overbearing.
... story of 9/11...
Can you name a single Jew in the government of any Arab state?
You allege that the official story of 9/11 was a fiction invented by the US government and hint that this was a cover-up for an act of treasonous murder perpetrated by our own government.
So to answer your question about "risking planting WMDs" ... Of course such a government as the one yiu allege we HAD would try that ... According to you, they murdered 3,000 US citizens. If what you allege is true, Obama must be in on it, too. As are legions of permanent civil servants in the "real" goverment. It would be the greatest conspiracy of all time, with no leaks. Amazing story ... Would make a great book.
I was not in the US that day ... I was in London. But I was there on the 16th or 17th. I smelled that smell. I know people that died.
Tell the truth ... What do you actually know about what happened that day? It was only 10 years ago and we don't really joke about it ... I doubt we ever will.
Joe ... I think there was a Mossad agent who infiltrated the Syria government once ... ;D
All I am saying is that I don't understand the lack of questioning of the official story. The 9/11 commision was a joke run by people who had personnal interest in making sure that the official conspiration theory would not be looked into too carefully. The story is riddled with in-coherences.
I don't know who did it, but it seems very unlikely that a group of arabs did.
... For such a smart guy, Bernard, you are acting real dumb.
... and Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin incident...
... You allege that the official story of 9/11 was a fiction invented by the US government and hint that this was a cover-up for an act of treasonous murder perpetrated by our own government...
A) We have an all-volunteer army ... none of those people on those planes on 9/11 volunteered.
B) Deciding to shoot down a plane that is on a crash course with the white house when you are certain all the individuals on-board are doomed is quite a bit different than deciding to murder 3,000 innocent individuals.
For such a smart guy, Bernard, you are acting real dumb.
Yes Bernard, and Roosevelt knew the japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, the guy who shot Kennedy was standing on the grassy knoll, and Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin incident. You're right. It seems more likely that Martians carried out 9/11 than that Arabs did it -- even though we know exactly which Arabs did it.
It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap. This is gullibility on steroids.
Russ, care to elaborate? As per my prior general knowledge, the Tonkin incident WAS engineered to enable broader US involvement.
... You know (god told you) that a country has the means and intend to hurt you. You know you have the power to anihilate that risk. All you need is a good excuse to strike first ...
I find it pretty telling that the only less likely explanation you could find is Martians. :)
Wow! Turn your head for a few minutes ... Bernard, Bush was/is what we here in the UK might call a prat. Actually, we might call him a few things worse than that, but this is maybe not the place for expanding on that. Bush was surrounded by some unpleasant characters, but the US intelligence community are not wholly made up of those bad people. Such a conspiracy would be pretty difficult to conceal, but let's assume some tight-knit cabal, acting beyond any oversight; do you really think they'd have conspired to pin it on a bunch of Saudi Arabian Wahabbi extremists (excuse the tautology) when they actually wanted to implicate Saddam Hussein? Surely, not even Bush is that stupid. OK, maybe he is, but it wouldn't have just been Bush, would it?
I think that in respect of the invasion of Iraq, 911 is a red herring.
I find it pretty telling that the only less likely explanation you could find is Martians. :)
By the way, how do we know that the arabs did it? Is that thanks to the passports that were found untouched at the base of a 400m tall building that just collapse in flames?
It's hard to understand how anyone actually can believe this kind of crap.
Cheers,
Bernard
It is dumb to make the comparisons Bernard made between plainly different circumstances.
I don't think he's dumb, as I said ... And since he isn't dumb, but he is saying dumb things leads me to believe he is being facetious ... So i noted the apparent contradiction.
That was not a personal attack.
No, Bill, it's a Porsche.
Rob C
... I can also remember the money I gave to assorted charities over the years, and particiapating in several wars fought to protect muslims from others...
... didn't bin-lad actually claim responsibility for the events of 9/11?...
I may be imagining this, but didn't bin-lad actually claim responsibility for the events of 9/11? I can't, either, understand why Arabs are thought incapable of learning to fly - they have several airlines already, airforces (huge)...
On the flying part, if you know any pilot, please ask them what they think about the possibility that a beginner manages to hit a tower the way the 737 did (flight trajectory,...). I happen to know a few pilots who are not into conspiration theories and they all tell me that even an experienced pilot wouln't be sure to succeed every time.
Bernard, I was a military pilot for a long time. I'd sure hate to ride with any of the incompetent pilots you asked for an opinion. Flying any airplane into a target the size of the World Trade Center would be what we used to call "a piece of cake." Can your buddies even land an airplane? That's a lot harder than hitting the World Trade Center.
One debunked detail amongst many other debunked details.
Allright - I'll try to be humble and re-read:
I'm citing myself:Now, that the meaning of "mud" is clarified there still is no contradiction. There is no statement "A" and a statement "Not A" which I claim both to be true, thus there is no contradiction.
"Typically done in silence" is an assumption that may be true within the context of your experience, but that is not generally true. You also attempt to use the "talking publicly" as a weapon to stigmatise my argument as being abnornal which is grossly over the line and one of the classic dirty tricks to win a discussion. Schopenhauer wrote a great paper about these dirty tricks and you make very free use of these. I also can not see where from you conclude this behavior as "habitually" which raises the thought of it being simply another attempt to use dirty tricks.
Actually it does not. Speaking of oneself in third person is taking the perspective of a fantasized third person, which is simply creative and a valid means in a discussion. Again you take judgements concerning whats pathological or not here which again is not only a grossly unfair attempt to dominate the discussion, but also simply bad behavior.
This is a blunt and transparent attempt to forbid me what I was doing. Nothing more.
As stated above I was taking the perspective of a fantasized third watching person. Using the term "abnormal" in this context again is an attempt to apply an "Argument ad Hominem".
To name me a "self-blown" professional is a flat attempt of insulting. And again you are far over the line stating me a "case of mild narcisissm". This is repetitive overbearing.
To sum up my experience with the last exchange of posts I unfortunately have to say you are behaving increasingly overbearing, logically wrong and leaving the path of a civilized discussion. If I'd be mild I'd see this as a attempt of provocation to see more of what I meant and pull my reserves. Usually this kind of behavior is acceptable between good friends, but not in a first time discussion with someone you don't know.
You have shown to be a fighter in a discussion and you have some intellectual muscles. So what?
Therefore, and as a means of de-escalation (which the whole thread was lacking a lot) I see this discussion as closed and not meaningful anymore and I will only react if I see it as necessary.
Cheers
~C.
Source (That Schopenhauer thing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
... I don't know the answer. Sometimes you have to throw in a bit of chum and see what surfaces..."[/i] Great Granddaddy was a wise man. Everyone fits in somewhere, why would I try to pin a label on anyone when they've demonstrated such skill in doing it themselves?...
Synchronisation a problem? Come on, anyone setting up a shoot to another country, using models from different places, can synchronise three flights pretty easily; who knows how many flights were actually manned with mad people capable of striking within the time framework that constituted the minutes of open season? Once the airforce was active, too late. Hold until the next available space. Trouble with that is they don't make shoes like they used to.
John, you know what? This is the first post of yours that I like 100%! I would have liked it even more had you quoted one of your own posts, instead of Christoph's.
Keep expressing yourself visually, refrain from using words, and you will soon become my favorite poster! :) :) :)
On the other hand, if you have a problem with anything I said (and apparently you do, since you quoted my post), please feel free to dispute it directly, without labels (direct or implied).
Or how about when you're discussing Point A and someone responds with Point Z66 which is so far off the original point all you can assume is a lack of confidence in their position on Point A and they're trying to insult your intelligence by seeing if you'll jump to Point Z66 and forget Point A.. or perhaps they just have trouble following the conversation? Either way, is that person worth debating with?
... see if you can follow the meaning of this one:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/pissonya.gif)...
...you wouldn't take offense or assume I was targeting you directly...
... Either way would you take this person seriously in debate?... Either way, is that person worth debating with?...
Hum... would replying only to a secondary part of a long quote while avoiding replying to the main point being presented be a variant of such low tactics? :)Only if you think every point in a post needs to be addressed every time. I apologize for not being that anal..
Cheers,
Bernard
So, it was not all about me, me? :( Phew... Come to think of it, why wasting money on shrinks when Steve is around? ;)Of course it wasn't all about you. You don't think 'that' much of yourself do you? ;D
But seriously, apart from a slightly patronizing and lecturing tone of your posts, in points 1-3 you generalized enough to make it difficult not to agree with you.
As for provocative language, I actually find it funnier and more stimulating than a dry debate. Again, if one is capable of separating underlying issues from their provocative surface.I'd much rather stimulate your intellect than your anger. "Dry" is when someone uses tactics to prevent progression of the discussion.
The same goes for the Point Z66... it just might be worth (or fun) addressing, regardless of its poster's intentions. Many threads start about something quite different than what they end up with.True, but we both know that wasn't the point I was making. Regardless, I know the point was made and understood and I hope it helps promote the discussion.
Quote Steve
Oh my, I just spit my Pepsi-max through my nose all over my new monitors. Thank you for the laugh, it was very much needed this morning.
Unquote
More stains on your monitors? ::)
Only if you think every point in a post needs to be addressed every time. I apologize for not being that anal..
Geez, how long to you want my replies to be.. ::)
As for "teapartiers", I find that term much more insulting*
* to the beverage, that is
They can be short if they focus on the important part.Of course they can.. and that's exactly what I did. I focused on the important part(s).. to me.. and left the outdated/extraneous/completed stuff behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
As does my daughter ... she's often hosting Tea Parties at our home for her dolls and imaginary friends. The conversations they have are quite informed and rational about the issues of the day.I'm going to take a wild guess and say you really haven't taken a good look at the teaparty and its goals and motivation.
These teabaggers masquerading as teapartiers need to respect the true history of teapartying.
Maybe John Stewart can address this point at the March To Restore Sanity.
... I find the mainstream media hype about that which the fear.. and lately greatly fear.. embarrassing for them...
... the party...
...The Tea Party is very strong and getting stronger...
... And every time someone invokes John Stewart or Stephen Colbert as a journalist...
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you really haven't taken a good look at the teaparty and its goals and motivation.Your wild guess is off-the-mark. I'm a avid student of modern American politics and have been paying close attention since about 1976.
I find the mainstream media hype about that which the fear.. and lately greatly fear.. embarrassing for them. It's even more embarrassing when private citizens carry their talking points with little or no comprehension of its purpose or goals.Verbally attacking "the mainstream media" is a talking point carried around by private citizens with little or no comprehension of the issues at hand.
Of course I'm sure you could show some examples of the fringe loons and try to convince us they actually represent the party. This is a very commons strategy. Those political analyst finally waking up and showing a willing to understand vs. fear.. are quite shocked by what they find. And even more scared assuming they disagree with their agendaThe teabaggers will be just like the reform party. Anger is not a governing strategy.
25 political pics, 16 successes.. most of them very long shots. The Tea Party is very strong and getting stronger. And every time someone invokes John Stewart or Stephen Colbert as a journalist.. the tea party grows stronger. Like any other political party, they count on the ignorance of those who oppose them.Winning a Republican primary is awesome … that and a token gets you a subway ride.
... tea bags holding not tea, but the dust they couldn't sell as loose-leaf, high-grade product...
Don't you live in Bangkok? When was the last time you lived in the US, Steve?Oh My, please don't report me to immigration.. ;o) (did the Avatar to your left give me away?)
English is not my first language, so I would appreciate if you would enlighten me with the meaning of this almost Shakespearean phrase, especially the "about that which the fear" part?A mere slip of the key my friend. Allow me to rephrase: "about that which they fear.." (left out the 'y', an accident I assure you.
.
Sigh.. this kind of mindset might have been forgiven a year ago when the media was unfairly targeting these folks and most of the news about them was heavily biased and slanted. But today there really is no excuse. I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I"m going to forget you said this and not hold it again you.. which will give you a chance to do a bit of research and reevaluate your take on this group.
The party!? What party? You call a collection of loonies a party? A bunch of closet racists, white supremacists, KKKs, and just plain backward weirdos and wackos, who woke up one day in shock to find their country has a black, "foreign-born", "marxists/fascist" president, with a "deep-seated hatred for white people"? Who realized it is much more politically correct and mass-appealing to portray their rabid anger as "against big government", than to get out of their closets and show their true face (though they are, luckily, not very successful in hiding it). They were nowhere to be heard when gazillions of dollars went for wars of choice and nation building abroad, but start foaming at the mouth when some of that money goes to provide health care for underprivileged in their own country?
Your wild guess is off-the-mark. I'm a avid student of modern American politics and have been paying close attention since about 1976.Alas, avid I'll give you, but astute I will not. In a single post you have shown more abject ignorance and used more extremist talking points than in this entire thread. Congratulations! I'm sure it made you feel warm, kinda like peeing in your pants I'm sure.
Now I understand what teabaggers means! Iced tea from Alaska!Keep trying Rob.. It was interesting to note that when the term first started flying across the major networks (mainstream media) it was the extreme left who were familiar with the term which left the tea party folks running for their urban dictionaries. Appropriate for the bedroom, far from appropriate for "distinguished news anchors" to use on the nightly news.
However, having spent a holiday as a kid on a friend's father's tea plantation in Southern India, I can vouch for tea bags holding not tea, but the dust they couldn't sell as loose-leaf, high-grade product.
Plus ça change...
Rob C
Of course they can.. and that's exactly what I did. I focused on the important part(s).. to me.. and left the outdated/extraneous/completed stuff behind.
Yes, which makes for the kind of boring conversations you just criticized a few posts above... ;DI must apologize for not being entertaining enough! Don't fret, I suspect the Comedy Central educated folks will pump things up a bit and we'll soon have fine entertainment..
Things aren't improving Steve.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh My, please don't report me to immigration.. ;o) (did the Avatar to your left give me away?)
10 years total in Bangkok, 23+ in Asia, a few short breaks in America.
Never fear, my English, French, Aussie, Kiwi, Dutch, and other friends keep me fully informed on the worlds view of the US.. Its truly enlightening to hear so many different takes on the same issues.
I suppose the one constant. or the main lesson I've learned.. is an extremist on one side of the issue, is just as dangerous as an extremist on the other side. And most people who go around spouting other peoples talking points, are largely uneducated on the particular facts..
Quote Steve
Never fear, my English, French, Aussie, Kiwi, Dutch, and other friends keep me fully informed on the worlds view of the US.. Its truly enlightening to hear so many different takes on the same issues.
I suppose the one constant. or the main lesson I've learned.. is an extremist on one side of the issue, is just as dangerous as an extremist on the other side. And most people who go around spouting other peoples talking points, are largely uneducated on the particular facts..
Unquote
Is this an admission?
I see. Let me get this straight ... You're gonna really argue that you have a handle on internal American politics because you talk to people from the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand and Holland on regular basis?
The fact that you don't know that attacking "the media" as part of a debate on American politics is talking point #3 on Rush Limbaugh's quick-start guide "5 Easy Ways to Avoid a Real Debate" is proof you aren't remotely connected to our internal politics.
Sorry, you can't sit in Asia and talk to non-Americans and get a perspective on Sarah Palin and the looney right-wing.
Sigh.. I"m going to forget you said this and not hold it again[st] you..
An observation. Surely you can do better than such an unsupported remark?
Don't you see the connection? If America interests you so much and you would like to change it's political thinking why don't you return and do so? Are you waiting for it to happen and then you will jump on the first plane. Much like Sean Connery who resides in the Bahamas and moans about Scotland not being independent. He states he will return to live when it happens. You live in Bangkok which is part of a totalitarian regime. This seems to chime with your political and possibly your other thinking. Pissing on other peoples opinions with a haughty disdain. ::)
Steve, this is becoming really dry, boring and repetitive. Your focus on people, instead of issues, that is. Your ad hominem.Well gee Slobodan. All I've heard on the issues since I've returned has been remarkably ignorant remarks that should embarrass the originators to the core. If you think trying to get people to think and analyze their thought patterns and what comes out of their keyboard as "dry", then guilty as charged.
Ever since you returned to the thread on page 12, I have not heard from you a single argument in favor or against an issue, but rather a patronizing litany of psycho-analyses, belittling, thinly veiled or outright insults, etc., of other people on this thread. Your use of textbook logical fallacies and dirty debate tactics is simply boring for me.
I will be happy to continue sparing with you on issues, but will refrain from enabling and indulging your shoot-the-messanger tactics.
Don't you see the connection? If America interests you so much and you would like to change it's political thinking why don't you return and do so? Are you waiting for it to happen and then you will jump on the first plane. Much like Sean Connery who resides in the Bahamas and moans about Scotland not being independent. He states he will return to live when it happens. You live in Bangkok which is part of a totalitarian regime. This seems to chime with your political and possibly your other thinking. Pissing on other peoples opinions with a haughty disdain. ::)
I will be happy to continue sparing with you on issues, but will refrain from enabling and indulging your shoot-the-messanger tactics.I'm sure you would. But from what I've seen of you on the issues, I don't consider you qualified to discuss them. The "messenger" needs to improve their logic, tact, and ability to comprehend that which they read. Independent thought would be highly valued as well. Until I see such improvement I'll pick the subjects I think will do the most good. Thank you very much.
No, I would never see that connection. First, its not a connection. Second, it's incredibly short sighted to think I need to actually reside in my home country to understand or participate in its politics. The person who suggested I couldn't possibly keep up on USA news because I live in Asia probably is one of the 80% of American's who have never held a passport.
Perhaps you can educate me. What can I do concerning my countries politics in America, that I can't do in Asia? Give me some examples.
I
Vote?
US expats can vote from abroad.