US bounty on Charles Taylor

Pompey Magnus

Here
I could not believe what I was reading when I saw this! Are they having a laugh or what? I know Taylor got off light in merely getting exile but it saved alot of lives in Liberia and was surely worth it (better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be punished)!
If they go through with this now would it not in effect render any similar agreement to bring an early end to bloodshed in the future worthless! Not one despot worth his salt will ever go down without a fight again, taking as many lives as possible with him !

Vader

maybe thats the point. America usually backs dictators and despots, which are beginig to lose popularity or maybe America likes war: War is good for business. It is rarley america that loses cizilians so why not. The sad disgusting fact is that some people are willing to let others die for their comfort.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
maybe thats the point. America usually backs dictators and despots, which are beginig to lose popularity or maybe America likes war: War is good for business. It is rarley america that loses cizilians so why not. The sad disgusting fact is that some people are willing to let others die for their comfort.

You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

originally posted by Depeche Mode
I could not believe what I was reading when I saw this! Are they having a laugh or what? I know Taylor got off light in merely getting exile but it saved alot of lives in Liberia and was surely worth it (better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be punished)!
If they go through with this now would it not in effect render any similar agreement to bring an early end to bloodshed in the future worthless! Not one despot worth his salt will ever go down without a fight again, taking as many lives as possible with him !

First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case. The other thing that I question the article on is that if the corresondent knew the law that was signed, he/she would have put the House, Senate or Joint resolution bill number in the article. This suggests to me that either the correspondent was too lazy to put that little tidbit or that he/she is really making most of the article stuff up. If it was in the law that dealt with the resolution of Iraq, then I could find no such provision. But then again, the law was just passed and it will take a week to get the law into the database at the Legislative Offices web site.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

You meant "more Americans" rather than "more people" right? Or don't 20 million Chinese (and millions of others, from a large number of other countries but let's just pick one) killed in WW2 (in which the US took part if I recall rightly) count as real people any more?

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
You meant "more Americans" rather than "more people" right? Or don't 20 million Chinese (and millions of others, from a large number of other countries but let's just pick one) killed in WW2 (in which the US took part if I recall rightly) count as real people any more?

You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

Bollocks. I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read it. The set "people" includes the set "Americans". It also includes "<any arbitrary classification of the set 'people' that you can think of>". The set "people" does not equal the set "Americans". You may have understood what you wanted to say but you failed to convey that in an adequate manner. My correction stands.


Rather than satisfy your quest to classify every criticism of your posts as criticism of your country or native race, let me be clear that I'm referring to your post and your post alone.

I'd hate to think that this is diverting attention from the main topic at hand (ie the thread topic discussing US foreign policy) so if you've a problem with the above, please feel free to PM me or contact one of the forum mods rather than try to turn this into a thread-dumping flame war. I can't see a reason why you should have to but the option is there.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans

In fairness Geromino if you were only referring to Americans then your post doesn't make sense. Vader said America likes war because it hardly looses any of its own these days and you replied saying the bloodiest US conflict (you say with respect to Americans) was 100 years ago, which only supports Vaders original point.

Originally posted by Geromino
but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

Sceptre makes no comment of anything of the sort in this thread. His post pointed out that the civil war was not the bloodest war the US has ever been involved in with reguard to casualties. He is correct.

He made no comment on Americans (or native Americans) as scum at all.

Back on topic, I agree with Depeche, if this holds then any future dictator will be unwilling to voluntarily leave his country if he knows a few months later there will be a boundy on his head.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Geromino

First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case.

No it doesn't, it means that America would pay $2m to a paramilitary organisation or any group of people armed to the teeth and desperate enough for the money, to go to Taylors compound and capture him, presumably having to kill his secuity and bodygaurds to get at him in the process! Is that not inciting terrorism?

Despicable and all as it is, at least when Israel wants to illegally kidnap someone from another state, they do it themselves and get their own hands dirty!

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

I find this unsurprisingly indicative of Geromino's attitude regardless of the back-pedalling he later does...

Quoted from Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here

It was NOT understood - at no point did you make clear that you were referring specifically to US casualties - and then you post this tripe which can do nothing but attack a poster for anti-americanism, especially when I know that sceptre is not as vehemently anti-american imperialism as I am and that here he was simply pointing out that you were wrong, or as you would choose to believe, failed to make yourself clear.

Quoted from Geromino
You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture.

Surprise surprise, an assertion with absolutely no reasoning behind it; how were the people of C18 and C19 misguided - what proof do you have that they were misguided; all we have to do is point to the sheer number of wars for profit that the USA engaged in - in fact, give me half a moment and I will dig out an old post of mine containing an exhaustive list of the conflicts America has fought between inception and now - most of which are quite nakedly wars for material gain. The fact is that 'war IS good for business' and that I might stop short of saying America likes war, I can definitely see that America likes business and that the American government (important distinction there) has no qualms about resorting to war to get what it wants - including in the field of business.

Now, before you begin a rant about the other colonial powers, no, America was no different, she just is the foremost imperial hegemon of the present day (only the socio-economic and political situation, as you like to harp on, has changed, so we call this neo-imperialism - and she has killed more innocents than most other imperial powers.

Quoted from Geromino
First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case

WRONG; the article stated...."Nigeria has reacted furiously to reports that the US has posted a $2m bounty for the capture of Liberia's exiled former leader, Charles Taylor." This is a clear statement that there is information pertaining to a US bounty on the head of Charles Taylor, regardless of where it mentions POTUS. Now, if you want to dispute that the BBC, one of the foremost and unbiased (even in MY opinion) news services in the world (at least, when compared to those in the US but that ain't hard), has incorrect information, why join the thread other than to post a simple statement that they could have got it wrong...or maybe for once in your posts provide some rational, supported reasoning behind your opinions.

sovtek

I have no real problem with the bounty. I do wonder, however, how the Bush regime would react if some country like...ummmm huh i don't know....Iraq maybe put a bounty on his head for war crimes committed there.

Zombrex

This is just another sign that Bush, no matter how "good intentioned" he may be, doesn't actually live on a little planet I like to call Earth. He probably has this idea that Africa is like the wild west, and that law doesn't exist there.

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

Vader

I love it when GeroMINo is wrong I really do. When Im wrong I more often than not admit it but GeroMINo does one of two things. Claim he is misunderstood or stops replying.

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA. This is a very interesting point I had not concidered. Do you suppose that as well as creating anti-american sentiments this could improve Taylors popularity? I hope not.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Vader
I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA

Not that I am condoning such an action as putting a bounty on the head of Gerry Adams (despite my intense dislike of Sinn Fein as class traitors and sell-outs), why would this result in your joining the IRA? Surely the correct thing to do would be to mobilise the working classes in defence of their right to choose their own candidates or some such campaign?

Qupted from Vader
I love it when GeroMINo is wrong I really do. When Im wrong I more often than not admit it but GeroMINo does one of two things. Claim he is misunderstood or stops replying.

I assume Geromino is American?

Quoted from Vader
Do you suppose that as well as creating anti-american sentiments this could improve Taylors popularity? I hope not.

Compare him to Robert Mugabe. Mugabe's anti-western rhetoric goes down a storm at the pan-African conferences, and much of this is focussed on the USA. Given this fact, there can be no doubt that other nationalist populist leaders (and even the narrow-support-based dictators) will try and emulate him to hold power. The fastest way to increase this development is to declare to the world that one is a sworn enemy by placing a bounty on their head.

Capt'n Midnight

However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

Another chestnut I'm tired of hearing...

http://www.ku.edu/carrie/archives/milhst-l/19990201.mil/msg00152.html
If we counted only deaths from enemy action, World War II
alone would give a larger figure (291,557) than the Civil War (234,414).

Bonus question
How many Native Americans died during the various "Indian wars"
I take it less than a quarter of a million Braves died, BUT including disease, not just deaths from enemy action was it more than the combined total of Union and Confederate deaths in the Civil War, 622,511 ???

Notes:
Korea, in which an estimated 3,000,000 people lost their lives.

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/07/06/build/tribal/lbh-oped.php?nnn=4
When the colonist landed in Virginia and New England there were, historians tell us, an estimated one million native people living in what is now the continental United States. Following the battle at the Little Big Horn and the slaughter of the Ghost Dancers at Wounded Knee in 1890, those one million Indians had been reduced to 237,000. An officially sanctioned holocaust had taken place.

See also http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/0443.html

Sand

I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA.

Well theres a shock.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Well theres a shock.

Come now Sand, don't troll; let him have his say and tell us WHY he would join the IRA.

Sand

Come now Sand, don't troll; let him have his say and tell us WHY he would join the IRA.

Im not trolling - Talk to Vader about his views on the IRA and youll see how highly unsurprising and thus underwhelming his ( hopefully wildly exaggerated ) threat to join the IRA is.

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
Bollocks. I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read it. The set "people" includes the set "Americans". It also includes "<any arbitrary classification of the set 'people' that you can think of>". The set "people" does not equal the set "Americans". You may have understood what you wanted to say but you failed to convey that in an adequate manner. My correction stands.

I was only referring to Americans in all conflicts, and not other nationalities. The main reason is obsious. It is to dispell the myth that Americans like war. The Civil War was only about Amerians and only Americans. The Civil War was also about which political doctrine was most relevant: Federalism or anti-Federalism. But each side was very reluctant to go to war. This is the fact that several compromises have taken place even before the War took place and even before John's Brown "relovution" also took place.

Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft, corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

To Cap'n Midnight:

You might want to take a look at this site for a more accurate analysis of Civil War Casaulties

To put a more accurate analysis, let us look at the rate per 1000 troops:

Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.

During World War Two, it was 42 Americans killed or wonded per 1000 troops. As you can see, absolute numbers do not make much sense when you compare it to a percentage. The Civil War wsa still the deadliest conflict in American History.

Additional Bonus Question:
How many scalps did my borthers take on every white man in our clashes?

Surprise surprise, an assertion with absolutely no reasoning behind it; how were the people of C18 and C19 misguided - what proof do you have that they were misguided; all we have to do is point to the sheer number of wars for profit that the USA engaged in - in fact, give me half a moment and I will dig out an old post of mine containing an exhaustive list of the conflicts America has fought between inception and now - most of which are quite nakedly wars for material gain. The fact is that 'war IS good for business' and that I might stop short of saying America likes war, I can definitely see that America likes business and that the American government (important distinction there) has no qualms about resorting to war to get what it wants - including in the field of business.

And all I have to do is point to the alignment of Saturn, Venus, Jupitor, and Mars in relation to Earth through each of those conflicts that you listed, but that does not mean Astrology is a religion and always predicts when an event occurs. Each event has a set of circimstances, facts, events leading up to the event in question, attitudes of all parties concerned, political ambitions of all parties concerned, economic concerns, cultural motives, and other factors. You cannot put a grandiose broad sprectrum of events with a single common link into a nice, tidy box with political motivations and expect to explain the actions of a country that has spanned over two centuries. You cannot even explain the specific political motives involved with regard to the broad long term events you have mentioned in the other posts. Historians should not put politics into explaining history and why specific events occur. Historians can use specific similarities involving a specific event with that of another specific event but not to the extent in which you are treading on. "Neo Colonialism is a false concept designed to put the blame of a former colony's failures and blame everything on the past colonial powers that exhibit itself in a more insidious economic form. This is more of a copt out than anything.

Now, before you begin a rant about the other colonial powers, no, America was no different, she just is the foremost imperial hegemon of the present day (only the socio-economic and political situation, as you like to harp on, has changed, so we call this neo-imperialism - and she has killed more innocents than most other imperial powers.

And since when is America an empire/hegemon? This topic is hotly debated amoung historians. and has not been concluded concisivley in todays terms.

Now, if you want to dispute that the BBC, one of the foremost and unbiased (even in MY opinion) news services in the world (at least, when compared to those in the US but that ain't hard), has incorrect information, why join the thread other than to post a simple statement that they could have got it wrong...or maybe for once in your posts provide some rational, supported reasoning behind your opinions.

If such an amendment to the bill was included, the author should have posted the bill number or the public law number. Since he "supposedly" had this information to begin with, it would not have been hard to make such an attempt. This lack of evidence suggests to me, at the momnet, that either the author did not know or knew but left it out. But I still have not found any act passed by Congress and Signed by the President to include such a request. Hence my original post. If it was to pay $2 milion for the bounty, then any group, including the Nigerian President or a member of the legislative body or judicial body could collect such an award. It does not negate the fact that paramilitary group who could collect, but then again, which group would for that little of money and that big of a risk. The article did point out that it was a symbolic gesture, not a realistic one. This, any way you look at it, it is nothing more than hoopla to get a crowd or group riled up, facts be darned.

stuartfanning

Below is Nigeria's reaction to the Bounty on Charles Taylor. This is a mistake by George Bush and I would be very surprised if Colin Powell supported him in this.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200311111292.html

Vader

Not that I am condoning such an action as putting a bounty on the head of Gerry Adams (despite my intense dislike of Sinn Fein as class traitors and sell-outs), why would this result in your joining the IRA? Surely the correct thing to do would be to mobilise the working classes in defence of their right to choose their own candidates or some such campaign?

A bounty placed on Adams head wouldn’t be placed their for his claiming to be a socialist but more likely in connection with the PIRA. Mobilizing the masses in a political campaign takes time and Im didn’t mean to rule that out, only that while that was ongoing I would conceivably be willing to take up arms to defend my nations sovereignty. Note

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

Talk to Vader about his views on the IRA and youll see how highly unsurprising and thus underwhelming his ( hopefully wildly exaggerated ) threat to join the IRA is.

Not a threat, a hypothetical scenario.

I have actually had long discussions with Éomer before about my views on the IRA and NI politics. I am grateful that the IRA fought for my freedom and continue to fight for the freedom of all Irish men and women. Im not a “brits out” spouting idiot; when I say freedom I mean freedom to work, enjoy the fruits of my labour, live where I choose and pursue happiness. I do not believ that the current situation in the north can be solved by more violence but I do believe that without IRA campaigns the situation would not be as developed as it is now.

Recruit numbers in American armed forces has increased since 9/11 ; can you not see the similarity between that and my statement. One feels their sovereignty violated(some say justly, others ay not), people flock to arms(forces some called terrorists, others say not).
Whats “overwhelming” about the statement is that while I may be a PIRA sympathizer, it would be a huge change in stance to take up arms and join them.

It would be a disaster is people flocked to Taylor’s side.

I was only referring to Americans in all conflicts, and not other nationalities.

Why? Are America lives more valuable than innocents from other countries. Is America right to carpet bomb an area, indiscriminately killing men women and children if it save the lives of American service men?

What you said was:

The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

You say you were obviously talking about American casualties. If you are subconsciously substituting the word “Americans” for “people” then you either are very arrogant, or indifferent to the plight of those who die and suffer all over the world as a result of American wars.

Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft

LMAO. Brilliant. 5 stars!! Anyone who thinks America overuses its military strength is just as misguided as those who think she is afraid to use it.
We don’t want to kill you, but we will to make sure you don’t think that we wont!

…. corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.
Its so much easier to say im wrong when things like that are added to my arguments.
*why does this end up happening in every thread about America, and why did sand ask me where I got the idea that Americans actually use that as an excuse. Hmmm*

Zombrex

I would just like to say I didn't mean for the Gerry Adams comment to imply people would join the IRA to "defend" him. I meant it more as in imagine the insult to the Gardai, the Army and the general law of the State if another government put a bounty on someone in the Republic, to be forcably removed. It would be highly insulting to the State, never mind dangerous and probably illegal.

While I don't rank Adams in the same league as Taylor, I am not a fan, and I have absolutely no time for the IRA, no matter what branch or faction. They are terrorist.

But everyone is entitled to their views, I just wanted to distance myself from the way the replyes to my original post were going.

Anyways ... Carry on ....

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Vader

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.

You forgot to mention communist, stalinist, fascist, anti-Semitic terrorist who has a deeply rooted hatred of Freedom, and is a threat to the free world and democracy!

Vader

I particularly love it when people "hate the american way of life such as capitalism, interventionism, freedom and democracy"

Many people do hate the american way of life and large business but so as to make the american way of life and capitalism good things freedom and democracy are thrown in at the end.
Freedom and democracy have very little to do with america.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Vader
Freedom and democracy have very little to do with america

And even less to do with capitalism and interventionism.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Why? Are America lives more valuable than innocents from other countries. Is America right to carpet bomb an area, indiscriminately killing men women and children if it save the lives of American service men?

What you said was:

You say you were obviously talking about American casualties. If you are subconsciously substituting the word “Americans” for “people” then you either are very arrogant, or indifferent to the plight of those who die and suffer all over the world as a result of American wars.

You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my post, Vader. However, I do take offense at the supposition of inserting racism into the post there. Like I said (not to you specifically), you have no idea what real racism is. I have seen it and I have experienced it. No where in the post I was reflecting that position, Vader, and no reason to put that sentence in there. The statement was disspelling your position that America likes war.

LMAO. Brilliant. 5 stars!! Anyone who thinks America overuses its military strength is just as misguided as those who think she is afraid to use it.
We don’t want to kill you, but we will to make sure you don’t think that we wont!

Oh, I just love "arm chair quarterbacks!"

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.
Its so much easier to say im wrong when things like that are added to my arguments.
*why does this end up happening in every thread about America, and why did sand ask me where I got the idea that Americans actually use that as an excuse. Hmmm*

???? Is this just ranting or do you have a specific point?

Sand

Whats “overwhelming” about the statement is that while I may be a PIRA sympathizer, it would be a huge change in stance to take up arms and join them.

Would it? When the Republic of Irelands sovereignity is challenged by placing a price on the head of a citizen of the United Kingdom by the government of the United Kingdom you decide to join a terrorist organisation who is based primarily in the United Kingdom all the protect the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - and you totally ignore joining say, the ACTUAL Army of the Irish Republic to defend the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - thus in your own way underminging the institutions and thus sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland.

It would be a huge change in stance by say , ME, to join the PIRA given the above circumstances. Seeing as you seem to believe the PIRA are the actual army of the Irish republic which should be joined over the actual Army of the Irish Republic then no, it would not be a huge change in stance for you.

One would have to ask why you would favour the PIRA over the actual Army of the Irish Republic? Is it because the PIRA bring the "war" to the shopping high streets of England?

It would be a disaster is people flocked to Taylor’s side.

Agreed. The placing of the bounty is a mistake by the US - it undermines their credibility in negotiations in the future. It should be revoked and the US should re-iterate it stands by the terms of the agreement which as far as I know included Taylors exile.

Vader

Originally posted by Sand
Would it?

It would be a huge change in stance by say , ME, to join the PIRA given the above circumstances. Seeing as you seem to believe the PIRA are the actual army of the Irish republic which should be joined over the actual Army of the Irish Republic then no, it would not be a huge change in stance for you.

There is a difference between a sympathizer and a rank and file member. You have just said quite clearly that you dont see such a difference; that is very interesting and if it is a veiw representative of Pro-Americans in general it would explain a lot.

Quick english lesson: "Offical" and "Actual" have two different meanings.
The Irish Defence Forces are the official armed forces of the republic because they are the forces sanctioned and funded by the current Dáil.
The PIRA are the actual army of the Irish Nation because they act on its behalf. They are the ones who have fought Irelands wars.

Before you or someone else says that the IRA has never avted on your behalf; Ireland is free and Independant.

When the Republic of Irelands sovereignity is challenged by placing a price on the head of a citizen of the United Kingdom by the government of the United Kingdom you decide to join a terrorist organisation who is based primarily in the United Kingdom all the protect the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - and you totally ignore joining say, the ACTUAL Army of the Irish Republic to defend the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - thus in your own way underminging the institutions and thus sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland.

It was made very clear as to why the Republic of Ireland's sovereignity would be challenged by placing a price on the head of Gerry Adams. In this scenario, Mr Adams is in the republic and either the British army or a subersive group is attempting to abduct/ kidnap him.
Anyway, Mr Adams is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland aswell. Im suprised you made that cóckup.

The Irish defence forces are no match for the British army or subersive groups. Irish sovereignity has been violated before by the British army and the RUC and the institutions of the state were powerless to stp it.

One would have to ask why you would favour the PIRA over the actual Army of the Irish Republic? Is it because the PIRA bring the "war" to the shopping high streets of England?

The PIRA are a better trained and organised army than the Defence forces, to paraphrase the Minister.
Yes the PIRA did launch campaigns in mainland Britain. It had the effect or removing voter apathy and created an atmosphere more open to negotiation and compromise.
The PIRA was also involved in community protection. It protected unions, protestors, businesses and housing estates. It didnt charge protection money or oops insurance like loyalists.
The British army or police force didnt do that, and I dont remember the irish army doing anything apart from the occasional grumble.[/QUOTE]

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my post, Vader. However, I do take offense at the supposition of inserting racism into the post there. Like I said (not to you specifically), you have no idea what real racism is. I have seen it and I have experienced it. No where in the post I was reflecting that position, Vader, and no reason to put that sentence in there. The statement was disspelling your position that America likes war.

I hope I was reading in too far.
I feel that americans in general are arrogent and have superiority complexs. I said it was a subconcious substitution which indicates ignorance more than racism.
I have experienced racism, again another example of you arrogence to presume that I havent.
You might also think it interesting that my land was stolen by the same foreigners that stole yours, only I am refering to somthing that happened less that 10 yrs ago.
You havent done a good job, or in fact any job at disspelling my position that America likes war.

Oh, I just love "arm chair quarterbacks!"

That phrase Im not to familiar with but if you are implying that Im a bar room proffesor and "know what everyone else should do but be unable to do it myself" then I dont see the relevence as to my finding an obvious fault with your arguement. I know your not perfect, I know Im not perfect, you dont appologise for/disput my interpretation of/ or withdraw you mistake. You just attack me for pointing it out. Still wondering as to why I think you're arrogent?

???? Is this just ranting or do you have a specific point? [/B]

do you not rember:

Originally posted by Geromino
Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft, corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

You through in a load of things that I never said onto my arguement to discredit my stance, I pointed out that that is an unfair, sly and idiotic way to win a debate.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
I feel that americans in general are arrogent and have superiority complexs.

That is the problem with gross generalizations, Vader. This type of gross generalization is a statement of contradictions. You personally believe that Americans are arrogant and feel superior but actual foreign policy has never stated this supposition or attitude (psychologically speaking). However, journalists/authors/scholars have written personal opinion pieces but try to present it as fact. Personal opinion is not fact, Vader. In contrast, have you ever met a proud Japanese? Or have you studied the pysche of Japanese of the 1930's? Or can you tell the difference between confidence and over confidence (superior complex)?

I said it was a subconcious substitution which indicates ignorance more than racism.
I have experienced racism, again another example of you arrogence to presume that I havent.
You might also think it interesting that my land was stolen by the same foreigners that stole yours, only I am refering to somthing that happened less that 10 yrs ago.

Is it arrogance or ignorance of assumption, Vader?

You havent done a good job, or in fact any job at disspelling my position that America likes war.

The only way I believe that you would accept that the US does not like war if for the US to disappear completely. I do not think any evidence from any reputable source will convince you otherwise. You are so wrapped up in this belief that it is pointless to discuss. But the phrase is very similar as "All Americans are soft" or "Americans are only interested in oil" or any other generalized statement that one can come up with. To make such statements shows both racism and arrogance. To try to justify such statements further shows the fallacy of making such a generalization.

That phrase Im not to familiar with but if you are implying that Im a bar room proffesor and "know what everyone else should do but be unable to do it myself" then I dont see the relevence as to my finding an obvious fault with your arguement. I know your not perfect, I know Im not perfect, you dont appologise for/disput my interpretation of/ or withdraw you mistake. You just attack me for pointing it out. Still wondering as to why I think you're arrogent?

The phrase means to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made. The is both the beauty and fallacy of hindsight, Vader. It is always 20/20 (perfect vision) when looking backwards and one uses when justifying a position that does not relate to the facts in hand.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You personally believe that Americans are arrogant and feel superior but actual foreign policy has never stated this supposition or attitude (psychologically speaking).

Are you saying that American foreign policy doesnt reflect a country that feels superior to the rest of the world?
American foreign policy is in short one of interventionism. What gives America the right to intervene?Superior morals? Because it can? Because those who die or suffer as a result arnt as important as supplying comfort to Americans at home?
Why shouldnt the US have to act in accordance with international law? Why should the US obey the UN? Why should US soldiers be exempt from war crime tribunals?


Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.
2)American international policy
3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY[edit] should be 20 something[/edit] live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.
4) Bibel bashers
5)the assumption that the rest of the world loves them and that they are doing us a favour
6)Americans use "make-it-y-up-y" words and then my WP automatically changes my correct words and spellings into new US versions.:D
7)The fact that the US gov lies to its own ppl.

Personal opinion is not fact, Vader.

Notice the words "I feel" in my above piece. Im not one who needs to be explained the difference between emotion and fact
but it is important to express my feelings and opinions. Facts are facts that will be either accepted or rejected (in some cases ignored even though you are aware they are correct).

Can you tell the difference between confidence and over confidence (superior complex)?

Yes. When sombody is not open to debate, when they are presented with proof they are wrong but still continue with their course of action; because they know they are right.
When sombody starts applying duel standards in order to explain why they are right.
If sombody is working off a premis which is proven to be faulty.
When sombody places no limits to the things they are capable of.

Is it arrogance or ignorance of assumption, Vader?

To make the assumption is arrogance, to accept it and work off it is ignorance.

The only way I believe that you would accept that the US does not like war if for the US to disappear completely. I do not think any evidence from any reputable source will convince you otherwise.

Is the reputable source you refer to the civil war casualty numbers. That proves war is costly; it doesnt prove America doesnt like war.
War is good for business. Every major advancement in human evolution (social,philosophical,technological) has been the result of war. America has repeatedly sabataged peaceful solutions to conflicts instead opting for war.Recent examples include the crisis in Yougoslavia, Iraq, Sudan and the backing of Dictators. [Which ever one you need explained in debt to you ask and Ill dedicate a thread to it]

You are so wrapped up in this belief that it is pointless to discuss. But the phrase is very similar as "All Americans are soft" or "Americans are only interested in oil" or any other generalized statement that one can come up with. To make such statements shows both racism and arrogance. .

It is never pointless to discuss; thats one of my arguements. Americans in general(and Im allowed to generalise for the purpose of debating) dont exaust all negotiative possibilities before going to war.
I never said americans were soft or oil hungry and generalizations are standard in any debate. Racism is to treat a person less favourably because of their ethnic backround. I treat you the same as everyone else and have accorded you much civilty and stuck to very logical arguements.

To try to justify such statements further shows the fallacy of making such a generalization

No it doesnt thats just complete bull. If you make a statement be prepared to back it up; dont go into hidding or start ignoring ppl when you are proved wrong(not looking at any two in particular).
If you try to defend your statement and you then start applying double standards, lying, misquoting or just spouting total nonsense(you know what I mean) then you've shown the fallacy of making such a statement.[/quote]

The phrase means to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.

To be fair I have just as much info available to me as you have to you and am just as entitled to air my veiws as you are to air yours.

The is both the beauty and fallacy of hindsight, Vader. It is always 20/20 (perfect vision) when looking backwards and one uses when justifying a position that does not relate to the facts in hand.

Why america went to war last time round, how they conducted that war and how often they go to war has every bearing on the arguement "weather or not America likes going to war".

Originally posted by Vader

Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.

Vader, you should meet more americans, or perhaps spend some time there.
Half my family tree are americans and are very nice people, and not Bush supporters. I've spent a lot of time there and quite frankly have not met any higher a percentage of arrogant people there than here.
You are making a generalisation which you could just as easily make of Irish people. Doing so in either case is wrong from my personal experience.

3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.

This is probably one of the the worst examples of an inaccurate generalisation that I've ever read in a post to be honest.


55% of New york people live below the poverty line do they??
Have a look at the 2000 census report and you'll get a figure of 11%.

Regarding the health service of the U.S, being the worst in the world,I suggest you start a thread in humanities on that maybe, because, you offer no evidence here, and if you did an I was to counter it ( which would be easy as I have experience of it ) this thread would go way off topic. I will tell you though, that I have a friend who is a nurse and Irish who works in the health service in Atlanta( and has nursed here in Ireland also), who would tell you the differences between here and the states, very quickly and it wouldn't support your contention that their service is the worst in the world

And while I agree with you regarding the underhand behaviour that won the last U.S presidential election for the Republicans....
We only have to go back to the last Fianna Fáil-labour coalition government to see an example of that in Ireland.
The Majority of the voters in the Republic of Ireland voted to turf out an FF Taoiseach, whereas , wheeling and dealing got one back in!!

mm

Vader

I've talked to about 100 americans out of a country of a few 100 million so I admit I may not have met a very proportional segment of the population but of those I have met all but about 10 or 15 were arrogent and self rightous.
Generalizations are unfortunatly a neccessity of debating.

Sorry I rechecked my source and it reads 24.3 percent of New Yorkers in the period 1997-1998 lived below the poverrty line and then it give percentages of each ethnic backround and the one I read was 55% of african americans in NY live below the poverty line. Sorry it was early in the morning. I was right however when I said 13% of americans nationwide live below the poverty line.

I said amongst the worst in the world and I'm right. If you cant afford to go private you'd be on some of the longest waiting lists in the world. Hospitals and schools are ridiculously under funder and under staffed for a country the siza and wealth of the USA.
People die in america because they dont have insurance or adequet cover. The US is wealthy enough to give free healthcare to the poor, Ireland is a poor country and we can do it.

Ireland is the most corrupt country in western europe. I know that. But Ireland doesnt go about shouting its political system is clean.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Man
Vader, you should meet more americans, or perhaps spend some time there.
Half my family tree are americans and are very nice people, and not Bush supporters. I've spent a lot of time there and quite frankly have not met any higher a percentage of arrogant people there than here.
You are making a generalisation which you could just as easily make of Irish people. Doing so in either case is wrong from my personal experience.

I agree ... i think it is important to differenciate between the current American government, and neo-con movement, and Americans in general. I know a ton of Americans who think Bush is the worst thing to happen to their country in a long time.

Don't forget this country produced The Simpsons, Mark Twain, Martain Luther King, Half-Life etc etc ... the American culture is rich and diverse. Most anti-war movements start in the US.

It is just a section that we notice over here. It is the conservative anglo-saxon groups (WASPs) that tends to get into power in the States, so the US government policies tend to reflect that groups conservative and self-serving beliefs. But it should always be remember that they are not the only group in America.

American governments love war. It is good for getting them re-elected, and good for the businesses that support them. It doesn't mean ALL American's support war (even though quite a few seem to at the moment)

Originally posted by Vader

Generalizations are unfortunatly a neccessity of debating.

No they are not Vader, generalisations, leave an argument weak.
When statements are backed up with references and facts they are no longer generalisations.
You are telling me by your experience, 85-90% of Americans are arrogant.
Thats a crazy thing to say,and is as invalid as someone in England saying Paddy and all the rest of the Irish are stupid to be honest.
Or for instance, meeting someone who is grumpy and complaining of the cold, and then deducing from that, that the people of Iceland or Greenland are grumpy because it is always cold there.

mm

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Are you saying that American foreign policy doesnt reflect a country that feels superior to the rest of the world?
American foreign policy is in short one of interventionism. What gives America the right to intervene?Superior morals? Because it can? Because those who die or suffer as a result arnt as important as supplying comfort to Americans at home?
Why shouldnt the US have to act in accordance with international law? Why should the US obey the UN? Why should US soldiers be exempt from war crime tribunals?

You use the word intervene as if USA has no right to do so at all. Personally, I do not like the word intervene or intervention which has a connotation that foreign policy is only one directional. However, a country must and should protect its international and domestic interests. Those same interests of my country also involve the coutnry or countries signed or in agreement with the same shared interests through their domestic legislative process.

Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.

I too have traveled but never in my entire time do I judge a country based on the people whom I encounter. I have met the most personal individuals, full of life and experience, and who have different political opinions. If they ask me my honest opinion on something, then I will give it. However, when traveling, I tend to shy away from political discussions and concentrate on culture, shared history, and habits.

3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY[edit] should be 20 something[/edit] live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.

Ah, socialism and Karl Marx. In the US, you have freedom of capital movement. I have met individuals who have come from poverty and have been successful. 11% of small businesses are operated by immigrants. 65% own homes if I recall, but I think the number may be a little low. Anti-discrimation laws dominate every aspect of society. Hardly the work of exploitation, Vader. You also have employee owned companies like Delta and United Air Lines, just to name a few. But I think one of the other posters is right that if you want to continue on this direction, a different thread should be started. The US has approximately 1 million new immigrants and roughly 300k to 500k of undocumented workers. I do not think it is as bad as a place as one would think.

4) Bibel bashers

Every major religion is represented in the USA. I personally have friends who are Muslim, Buhdist, shintoist, Daoist, and Christain. I will not tell you what my religious beliefs are for simply they are not open to this forum.

6)Americans use "make-it-y-up-y" words and then my WP automatically changes my correct words and spellings into new US versions.:D

It is called dialects, Vader. Yes, there is the Queen's English and American English just as there is Cantonese and Mandarin (Chinese) as well as Castillian Spanish, Bosque Spanish, Latin American Spanish, Mexican Spanish, and Puero Rican Spanish. So, which Spanish, English, or Chinese should one use.

Yes. When sombody is not open to debate, when they are presented with proof they are wrong but still continue with their course of action; because they know they are right.
When sombody starts applying duel standards in order to explain why they are right.
If sombody is working off a premis which is proven to be faulty.
When sombody places no limits to the things they are capable of.

And who determines who wins and who loses a debate, Vader. And how does one decide who is faulty or not. And what you call proof I could call it false information. How does one decide which info is right and which one is wrong? Is it simply by the web site presented or authors used? Sometimes I have played "devil's advocate" on a position taken. This does not mean I agree with the premise that I have taken in a discussion, and I have made little indication what I believe in this political forum.

It is never pointless to discuss; thats one of my arguements. Americans in general(and Im allowed to generalise for the purpose of debating) dont exaust all negotiative possibilities before going to war.
I never said americans were soft or oil hungry and generalizations are standard in any debate. Racism is to treat a person less favourably because of their ethnic backround. I treat you the same as everyone else and have accorded you much civilty and stuck to very logical arguements.

The analogy I was making Vader were similar statements of historical political focus but have also been proven completely wrong. I never said you said it. It is very similar to a statement "Any good Injun is a dead Injun." Gross generalizations that tend to be very racist and full of misinformation.

No it doesnt thats just complete bull. If you make a statement be prepared to back it up; dont go into hidding or start ignoring ppl when you are proved wrong(not looking at any two in particular).
If you try to defend your statement and you then start applying double standards, lying, misquoting or just spouting total nonsense(you know what I mean) then you've shown the fallacy of making such a statement.

[/QUOTE]

Double standards based on what argument Vader or under whose authority or assumption? Further, I am not going to give you my itenary when I am gone on a job or my work is a little too busy for me to join in this fun filled affair. That is none of your business, Vader and has no part in this discussion as well as calling someone a liar or anything else.

To be fair I have just as much info available to me as you have to you and am just as entitled to air my veiws as you are to air yours.

It is called interpretation of the information, Vader. And who decides which information is above the other. Who is right and who is wrong on which info is presented. This is not a court of law Vader, but a forum of opinion.

Why america went to war last time round, how they conducted that war and how often they go to war has every bearing on the arguement "weather or not America likes going to war".

Just because someone goes to the restroom all the time does not mean that person likes to go to the restroom. Let me explain the anology. You are viewing a person who goes to the restroom a lot. However, a medical explaination would more likely explain the occurance, not the gross generalization implied in the analogy. With the "America likes War" statement, other factors determines the use of military action or the non-use of military action in given international affairs. The analysis of that specific event or chain of events within a relative short time frame along with the combination of social, economic, political, and cultural factors will more accurately determine how, why, and to what extent the reason for use or non use of military force.

Vader

Hmm. The americans I've met and talked with for the most part are arrogent.

The US public usually returned presidants that are arrogent: Clinton felt he was entitled to lie to congress, Bush's foreign policy speaks for itself.

All US foreign policy is based on interventionism. Interventionism is arrogant as it implies you know better or have superior morals which history would suggest america doesnt. If the majority of americans were against interventionism it would stop being american policy.

So it is logical for me to feel americans in general are arrogent but that doesnt cut it with you; you need somone more creditable than me to say it or back it up with a reference.

When statements are backed up with references and facts they are no longer generalisations

The BBC is the most creditable news service in the world, it produced a program during the summer: "What the world thinks of America". It involved a huge survey, 11000 ppl in 11 countries.
What the world thinks of America
I felt the discussion of the results was lacking but if you want a reference heres a few:
65% of those interveiwd felt americans are arrogent
and of those americans interveiwed 54% felt americans are arrogant.


You dont believe generalisations are a neccessity of debating?
Then you are disagreeing with nearly all debating societies. Do you think you know better than them?

Now if you will accept that generalizations are an acceptable debating tool then I will accept that they are not always the most valuable. I dont make a habbit of spouting unfounded generalizations and I suppose my points would be stronger with specific reference but that is time consuming and I thought this one was pretty standard.

Vader

Sorry Geromino Ive been looking for that reference for Man and typing off line. Ive only seen your reply now whan I connected to post my reply. I dont have time to read yours or reply now but I will.

sceptre

Originally posted by Vader
You dont believe generalisations are a neccessity of debating?
Then you are disagreeing with nearly all debating societies. Do you think you know better than them?

Generalisations are dangerous and get shot down by any half-decent debater unless there's something concrete to back it up. In other words, abstract generalisations based on limited experience are very very bad. They may be an acceptable debating tool up to the point in the debate that someone points out that it's a generalisation and that they've an example that can be counted as an exception to the generalisation, at which point they may become entirely irrelevant to the debate. Assuming that there's someone competent enough to do that on the other side, it's safer not to generalise at all (or at least about the important things) as it can make a perfectly valid argument appear to have a possibility of sandy foundations.

(and as an ex-auditor of a college debating society, ex-auditor of a college law society, judge at a number of reputable international debates and a worlds debating championship competitor in 1997 I should know something about it, though I wouldn't classify myself anywhere near the expert category)

Originally posted by Vader
I suppose my points would be stronger with specific reference but that is time consuming and I thought this one was pretty standard.

What you are doing Vader is associating all americans with the actions of Bush.
But at the same time you recognise that he "stole" the election, ie that he didn't have a majority.
The two concepts don't go together, as the latter means a majority of Americans who voted did not want the Bush agenda.
In fact it's about as standard in my view as When in the 70's a lot of the British people associatied all or most Irish people with the IRA campaign of the 70's eg the Guilford and Birmingham bombs etc.
Irish people got an awfull hard time in the UK then even though a majority never supported that campaign, indeed only a tiny minority nationwide did...


As regards the BBC poll, that you have linked to....
On Politics, it states that 57% of respondents in the UK had a favourable view of the U.S but a very poor opinion of Bush.
That underlines my opinion , that the U.S is not all just GWB, you know, he's made enough mistakes methinks also, to seal his fate.
One shouldn't blindly base ones opinion of the U.S people on one president who got into power on a minority vote and whose popularity there is by now slipping fast.
To do so is only to look at some of the picture and that would be an unfairly skewed analysis.

65% of those interveiwd felt americans are arrogent

I think you should read the poll results again as the devil is in the detail as they say....
The choice in the poll is: Are they Arrogant or humble, ie the poll only asked for a decision on the opposite extremes, there was no question regarding the middle ground.

And again if you take the results from the respondents from each individual country on america, you will notice that , 63% of those from the U.K think americans are Friendly and that even more of the French interviewee's thought Americans were friendly than thought they were Antagonistic.

Thats hardly conclusive

Regarding debating tools, no debater worth his or her salt, that I've ever heard has ever presented sweeping generalisations as part of their arguments without evidence or back up...

How can one debate without backing up ones arguments...Such a discussion would not be a debate at all.
It would be a walk over for the side that did back up it's arguments.

mm

Sand

There is a difference between a sympathizer and a rank and file member. You have just said quite clearly that you dont see such a difference; that is very interesting and if it is a veiw representative of Pro-Americans in general it would explain a lot.

Is there? - You go off and murder people, I know youre doing it, indeed Im helping you by storing your gear for you and making sure you have a place to stay . When the cops come round looking for you I cover for you. Youre an activist, Im a sympathiser. Were both murderers.

Quick english lesson: "Offical" and "Actual" have two different meanings.
The Irish Defence Forces are the official armed forces of the republic because they are the forces sanctioned and funded by the current Dáil.
The PIRA are the actual army of the Irish Nation because they act on its behalf. They are the ones who have fought Irelands wars.

Reality Check: The Army of the Irish Republic are the armed forces of the Republic, who are servants of Dail Eireann - the elected representives of the citizens of the Irish Republic. They are paid for and staffed by the people of the Irish Republic. They are the one and only milatary force which accepts and serves the will of the people of the Irish Republic.

The PIRA are a bunch of scumbags from Belfast who murder children to make a political point, who are a law totally unto themselves and represent no more than one tribe of the most malevolent denizens of the North. The PIRA are an illegal crinimal organisation who regularly deal with other crinimal organisations to make profits to line their own pockets. They have only ever fought their own wars, they have never accepted the right of the Irish people to control their actions thus they have forgone the right to claim to represent the Irish people.

Before you or someone else says that the IRA has never avted on your behalf; Ireland is free and Independant.

Ah yeah the good ol IRA. Wasnt it they who rejected the authority of Dail Eireann and waged a divisive and destructive civl war against the elected representives of the people of the Irish Free State which later became ( peacefully, you know - without the need for Omaghs ) the Irish Republic? Youre right, we owe them all a great debt of gratitude - if it hadnt been for them being such lousy fighters the Free State mighnt have won.

It was made very clear as to why the Republic of Ireland's sovereignity would be challenged by placing a price on the head of Gerry Adams. In this scenario, Mr Adams is in the republic and either the British army or a subersive group is attempting to abduct/ kidnap him.

If the British Army were to cross into Ireland after him it would be a challenge to our sovereignity - othwerwise its just a close ally placing a price on the head of scumbag. All credit to them I say. Im sure the Irish security forces would be happy to hand over Adams - we extradite plenty of crinimals.

The Irish defence forces are no match for the British army or subersive groups. Irish sovereignity has been violated before by the British army and the RUC and the institutions of the state were powerless to stp it.

LOL and the IRA were? Pffft, 30 years on and the British are still in Northern Ireland despite all the murder and chaos caused by the terrorist campaigns. Lets all hold a victory parade for the most self defeating and ineffective "milatary" campaign in history. Oh wait, now I see their tactical masterstroke --- they went to the negotiating table to get a deal like Sunningdale. Hurray for them.

The PIRA are a better trained and organised army than the Defence forces, to paraphrase the Minister.
Yes the PIRA did launch campaigns in mainland Britain. It had the effect or removing voter apathy and created an atmosphere more open to negotiation and compromise.
The PIRA was also involved in community protection. It protected unions, protestors, businesses and housing estates. It didnt charge protection money or oops insurance like loyalists.
The British army or police force didnt do that, and I dont remember the irish army doing anything apart from the occasional grumble.

The PIRA isnt even in the same league as the Army of the Irish Republic. Its laughable that youd suggest a gang of crinimals whose best weaponry ( small arms at that ) is either inoperative or over 20 years old and stored in bogs can match even a badly equipped Army such as the Army of the Irish Republic.

As for the PIRA involved in community protection? They killed more Catholics than any other group, they continue to beat Catholics to a pulp for looking at them the wrong way? If they were a purely defensive organisation then you could at least give them some credit but they happily threw petrol onto the fires of hatred up there by engaging in tit for tat killings - theyd kill say, a group of prodestants mourning their war dead, and then the UVF or whoever would retaliate by killing some random catholics - rarely IRA members or their family - so then the IRA would kill some random prodestants and so on and so forth for 30 years of sheer pointless slaughter.

And ask the family of Gerry McCabe how the IRA funded their operations. Ask the victims of the recent Limerick violence where the gangs are getting their weapons. Ask the same of the increasingly violent Dublin drug gangs. Pffft.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You use the word intervene as if USA has no right to do so at all. Personally, I do not like the word intervene or intervention which has a connotation that foreign policy is only one directional. However, a country must and should protect its international and domestic interests. Those same interests of my country also involve the coutnry or countries signed or in agreement with the same shared interests through their domestic legislative process.

I believe the only justifiable foreign policy is one that is in keeping with international law and is approved by the UN.

I too have traveled but never in my entire time do I judge a country based on the people whom I encounter. I have met the most personal individuals, full of life and experience, and who have different political opinions. If they ask me my honest opinion on something, then I will give it. However, when traveling, I tend to shy away from political discussions and concentrate on culture, shared history, and habits.

Those are great reasons to travel and good things to do abroad. I would include politics in culture and the US shares so much history with so many countries that I would imagine it hard to avoid politics.
I gave 7 reasons as to why I feel Americans arrogant, I didn’t say my only basis for judging America was from the 100 or so Americans I talked to.

Ah, socialism and Karl Marx.

I support the Labour Party first (Not SF as Im sure Sand would love to point out. Although I do transfer my votes to SF before FG the PD or two of the FF in my constituency) and am a member of two coops.
The state is the largest employer in Portlaoise (the town where I live) with a government department building, the ESB (soon to be private alas), two hospitals, two prisons (no smart comments Sand), the County Council, a post office, county mail sorting centre (yes it’s different to the post office), SDS, Train Station, Town Link(bus), Fás Centre, Library and a large Garda Barracks. We had a telephone exchange and TSB but they were privatized. Why wouldn’t I support a system that creates so many jobs locally and improves the standard of living?
So yes I suppose I could be called a socialist although I don’t think Im quite a Marxist yet; a healthy balance between state and enterprise is preferable.

In the US, you have freedom of capital movement. I have met individuals who have come from poverty and have been successful. 11% of small businesses are operated by immigrants. 65% own homes if I recall, but I think the number may be a little low.

People can go from poverty to success in Ireland as well but the gap between rich and poor is narrower.

Anti-discrimation laws dominate every aspect of society. Hardly the work of exploitation

Social welfare services in America are a disgrace even before you take the immense wealth of the country into account, Intel a huge American MNC doesn’t recognize trade unions and there are all types of hidden ways to discriminate against people. Ppl who talk about glass ceilings aren’t paranoid.

Every major religion is represented in the USA. I personally have friends who are Muslim, Buhdist, shintoist, Daoist, and Christain. I will not tell you what my religious beliefs are for simply they are not open to this forum.

I have no problem with Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Daoist, Taoists, Jews, Sheiks, Hindu, Christians, Jedi or pagans so long as you don’t try to force that religion on others or proclaim yours to be 100% right and others 100% wrong.

It is called dialects, Vader. Yes, there is the Queen's English and American English just as there is Cantonese and Mandarin (Chinese) as well as Castillian Spanish, Bosque Spanish, Latin American Spanish, Mexican Spanish, and Puero Rican Spanish. So, which Spanish, English, or Chinese should one use.

There was a smiley beside that point so it wasn’t meant to be taken to seriously. There is an easy way to change the dialect on most WPs.

And who determines who wins and who loses a debate, Vader. And how does one decide who is faulty or not.

Maybe that’s a feature that should be added to this forum, perhaps the Mod could judge threads of note.

The analogy I was making Vader were similar statements of historical political focus but have also been proven completely wrong. I never said you said it.

That’s grand

Double standards based on what argument Vader or under whose authority or assumption? Further, I am not going to give you my itenary when I am gone on a job or my work is a little too busy for me to join in this fun filled affair. That is none of your business, Vader and has no part in this discussion as well as calling someone a liar or anything else.

Double standards is when in your argument you apply two different sets of standards to two different sets of people. It doesn’t matter if one uses a different set of standards to me so long as one is consistent.
You could say at the end of a post “Gone off for a few days” and save me the bother of replying or waiting for a reply.
I didn’t call you a liar. I listed a set of circumstances when a person is being over confident. Did you feel some of them applied to you?

It is called interpretation of the information, Vader. And who decides which information is above the other. Who is right and who is wrong on which info is presented. This is not a court of law Vader, but a forum of opinion.

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.

Just because someone goes to the restroom all the time does not mean that person likes to go to the restroom. Let me explain the anology. You are viewing a person who goes to the restroom a lot. However, a medical explaination would more likely explain the occurance, not the gross generalization implied in the analogy. With the "America likes War" statement, other factors determines the use of military action or the non-use of military action in given international affairs. The analysis of that specific event or chain of events within a relative short time frame along with the combination of social, economic, political, and cultural factors will more accurately determine how, why, and to what extent the reason for use or non use of military force.

So the man needs to go to the restroom a lot or he could suffer some sort serious problem like a Kidney infection and die? If Americas world position cant be maintained without war then it deserves to die.

Originally posted by sceptre
Generalisations are dangerous and get shot down by any half-decent debater unless there's something concrete to back it up. In other words, abstract generalisations based on limited experience are very very bad. They may be an acceptable debating tool up to the point in the debate that someone points out that it's a generalisation and that they've an example that can be counted as an exception to the generalisation, at which point they may become entirely irrelevant to the debate. Assuming that there's someone competent enough to do that on the other side, it's safer not to generalise at all (or at least about the important things) as it can make a perfectly valid argument appear to have a possibility of sandy foundations.

If you had seen the line below what you had quoted you would have seen I agree with you but for simple things which nobody will argue they’re handy. I misjudged weather ppl would accept this one or not, I put in a reference. You should read my posts more closely.


I havnt had time to read Sands and Mans last posts yet so if anyone has any Qs to ask me or points to debate with me could they please wait till Ive replied to those two and cought up on my posting. Thank you.

Zombrex

Don't mean to act as a mod (since I am not one) but considering I kinda brought this onto the thread in the first place I should really say that I think we should stick to the the theme of the thread header and leave the debates about the IRA vs the Defence Forces for another thread.

Vader

Originally posted by Man
What you are doing Vader is associating all americans with the actions of Bush.
But at the same time you recognise that he "stole" the election, ie that he didn't have a majority.

I realized that and that’s why I referred to Clinton as well.
While the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, 75% of ppl in America supported the war in afganistan and in Iraq. This figure is beginning to dip as US casualties rise but that shows more that they are opposed to a lasting occupation than a foreign policy based on interventionism.

In fact it's about as standard in my view as When in the 70's a lot of the British people associatied all or most Irish people with the IRA campaign of the 70's eg the Guilford and Birmingham bombs etc.
Irish people got an awfull hard time in the UK then even though a majority never supported that campaign, indeed only a tiny minority nationwide did...

And if somebody wanted to support that reasoning they might point out that Haughty, after being associated with the arms crisis went on to become one of the most popular and successful politicians in Irish history. While there were other reasons why he was elected and in hindsight many of his supporters now despise him the link could be made.

As regards the BBC poll, that you have linked to....
On Politics, it states that 57% of respondents in the UK had a favourable view of the U.S but a very poor opinion of Bush.
That underlines my opinion , that the U.S is not all just GWB, you know, he's made enough mistakes methinks also, to seal his fate. One shouldn't blindly base ones opinion of the U.S people on one president who got into power on a minority vote and whose popularity there is by now slipping fast.

The next election will be the test of his popularity, we must wait and see if he is elected(note the fact I didn’t say re-elected) or if somebody else with the same agenda is elected.

I think you should read the poll results again as the devil is in the detail as they say....
The choice in the poll is: Are they Arrogant or humble, ie the poll only asked for a decision on the opposite extremes, there was no question regarding the middle ground.

Maybe you should examine it as well; they were given the choice of neither ie a balanced people.

Regarding debating tools, no debater worth his or her salt, that I've ever heard has ever presented sweeping generalisations as part of their arguments without evidence or back up...

How can one debate without backing up ones arguments...Such a discussion would not be a debate at all.
It would be a walk over for the side that did back up it's arguments.

If they disagreed with those generalization and the team overused that tool.
It’s a tool that’s available, choose to use it or not, I have said that its not always the most valuable.

Originally posted by Sand


Is there? - You go off and murder people, I know youre doing it, indeed Im helping you by storing your gear for you and making sure you have a place to stay . When the cops come round looking for you I cover for you. Youre an activist, Im a sympathiser. Were both murderers.

Well we'll both get different prison sentences. Anyway when I said sympathizer I meant one wouldn’t hinder an operation or volunteer info to the police. If you store gear then your registered with the quartermaster and you’re a member, your just not on active service. I can see now where you were getting confused.

Reality Check: The Army of the Irish Republic are the armed forces of the Republic, who are servants of Dail Eireann - the elected representives of the citizens of the Irish Republic. They are paid for and staffed by the people of the Irish Republic. They are the one and only milatary force which accepts and serves the will of the people of the Irish Republic.

"It is a recognized principal that a revolutionary may, with honour at least, assume responsibility for interpreting the national will even against apparent national wishes, provided he sincerely and selflessly believes it to be in the national interest to do so". Not my words but those of Dughlas Hide, "..a man of national pride, vision and impeccable honour" according to Mary Robinson. I'm going to work off the premises that if his reasoning is acceptable to a woman who went on to become UN Commissioner for Human Rights then his reasoning put into practice is not immoral.

The PIRA are a bunch of scumbags from Belfast who murder children to make a political point, who are a law totally unto themselves and represent no more than one tribe of the most malevolent denizens of the North. The PIRA are an illegal crinimal organisation who regularly deal with other crinimal organisations to make profits to line their own pockets. They have only ever fought their own wars, they have never accepted the right of the Irish people to control their actions thus they have forgone the right to claim to represent the Irish people.

Now that seems like a troll if ever I saw one. I entertained the idea of the hypothetical Gerry Adams scenario because it was relevant to national feelings which could flock to Taylor. I explained the issue of sovereignty because it is central to the topic and I even gave a few reasons why I could sympathize with the IRA because I noticed you were having difficulties understanding what a sympathizer is but I think that’s cleared up now.
But the internal and external dealings of the IRA, its goals and means are defiantly unrelated to this thread. I have explained these things before, in detail, with reference and facts and with a logical and open mind. If you want to hear them again start a new thread and conduct a serious debate.

Ah yeah the good ol IRA. Wasnt it they who rejected the authority of Dail Eireann and waged a divisive and destructive civl war against the elected representives of the people of the Irish Free State which later became ( peacefully, you know - without the need for Omaghs ) the Irish Republic? Youre right, we owe them all a great debt of gratitude - if it hadnt been for them being such lousy fighters the Free State mighnt have won.

The IRA fought on both sides in the civil war, regulars and irregulars. The RIRA was responsible for Omagh and it was condemned by all, even the CIRA as being contry to the goal of a united Ireland.

If the British Army were to cross into Ireland after him it would be a challenge to our sovereignity

Which they have done before (not Adams but others). The British Army, RUC, and undercover agents have crossed into the republic and executed Irish citizens. That is illegal under international law. The Irish army couldn’t stop it. The IRA exacts its own form of justice.

othwerwise its just a close ally placing a price on the head of scumbag. All credit to them I say. Im sure the Irish security forces would be happy to hand over Adams - we extradite plenty of crinimals.

We don’t extradite political leaders who have served time for past offences. Scumbags or not.

LOL and the IRA were? Pffft, 30 years on and the British are still in Northern Ireland despite all the murder and chaos caused by the terrorist campaigns. Lets all hold a victory parade for the most self defeating and ineffective "milatary" campaign in history. Oh wait, now I see their tactical masterstroke --- they went to the negotiating table to get a deal like Sunningdale. Hurray for them.

But could the Irish army have done any better? The deal that the IRA fought for was the Good Friday Agreement. It’s a good deal based on equality and peace. There is no mention of a united Ireland but the IRA is happy. Shows your understanding of the IRA.

The PIRA isnt even in the same league as the Army of the Irish Republic. Its laughable that youd suggest a gang of crinimals whose best weaponry ( small arms at that ) is either inoperative or over 20 years old and stored in bogs can match even a badly equipped Army such as the Army of the Irish Republic.

They were revolutionary in areas of weapon design and logistics.

As for the PIRA involved in community protection? They killed more Catholics than any other group, they continue to beat Catholics to a pulp for looking at them the wrong way? If they were a purely defensive organisation then you could at least give them some credit but they happily threw petrol onto the fires of hatred up there by engaging in tit for tat killings - theyd kill say, a group of prodestants mourning their war dead, and then the UVF or whoever would retaliate by killing some random catholics - rarely IRA members or their family - so then the IRA would kill some random prodestants and so on and so forth for 30 years of sheer pointless slaughter.

It’s a case of nationalist and unionist, not catholic and protestant and the IRA. As for that tit for tat business that is all very simplistic. Are you a simpleton?

And ask the family of Gerry McCabe how the IRA funded their operations. Ask the victims of the recent Limerick violence where the gangs are getting their weapons. Ask the same of the increasingly violent Dublin drug gangs. Pffft.

Might he tell me taxing criminal gangs, robbing banks, smuggling, counterfeit, gifts from friendly governments, political donations and wise investments?
Might the Limerick violence be fueled by CIRA weapons or new ones?

Your questions on the IRA are answered, although some sound the Troll Alert alarm in my WP. If you have more start a new thread.

Originally posted by Vader
I realized that and that’s why I referred to Clinton as well.
While the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, 75% of ppl in America supported the war in afganistan and in Iraq. This figure is beginning to dip as US casualties rise but that shows more that they are opposed to a lasting occupation than a foreign policy based on interventionism.

People in the US believed their President, thats what they generally do in times of conflict.
His administration convinced them easily with respect to Afghanistan, but less easily regarding Iraq.

Haughty, after being associated with the arms crisis went on to become one of the most popular and successful politicians in Irish history.

He was popular among the countries 40% core of FF supporters, but despised by as many more, neither were a majority, and indeed Charlie never got an overall majority.

But that wasn't my point, I was merely pointing out that, you were making the same mistake with regard to Americans as many British made with repect to the Irish in the 70's, ie you are tarring them all with the one brush.

On this board, at the moment, for instance you will often get, a rush of posts, which are anti the current government. Yet if this board is representative of society, then a good percentage of the posters must have changed their minds since the last election.
Or at least, a good percentage of the electorate must have done so.
Since that election was less than 18 months ago, it's not long since these voters were singing a different tune.

The same is true believe it or not for Americans. They were given a plausible story ( to them ) in a time of crisis for their own security and they bought it.
In the same way that the electorate here obviously bought the FF story at the last election.
These things happen, but I wouldn't condemn a whole race of people for it.
In the case of America, I'd put the case against the politicians who advance the policies I disagreed with and their associated reasoning.
I'd be inclined to give the American people the benefit of the doubt.

if they disagreed with those generalization and the team overused that tool.

Regarding the use of generalisations as a debating tool...
I think Sceptre summed it up well.
The only thing that I would add is, you can use almost any tool you like when you are in a debate, but if you want to win a debate generalising is not one of them.
Having said that, please note, I'd regard this as more of a friendly discussion than a debate

mm

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
I believe the only justifiable foreign policy is one that is in keeping with international law and is approved by the UN.

That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Those are great reasons to travel and good things to do abroad. I would include politics in culture and the US shares so much history with so many countries that I would imagine it hard to avoid politics.
I gave 7 reasons as to why I feel Americans arrogant, I didn’t say my only basis for judging America was from the 100 or so Americans I talked to.

You should never include politics when you travel Vader. It spoils the conversation quickly and makes the instigator as one who is snobby. Contrary to what you believe, avoiding politics in casual conversation when traveling is quite easy. And when you talk about indiginous culture, you should never bring in politics. You could put yourself in a bad situation if you do.

I support the Labour Party first (Not SF as Im sure Sand would love to point out. Although I do transfer my votes to SF before FG the PD or two of the FF in my constituency) and am a member of two coops.
The state is the largest employer in Portlaoise (the town where I live) with a government department building, the ESB (soon to be private alas), two hospitals, two prisons (no smart comments Sand), the County Council, a post office, county mail sorting centre (yes it’s different to the post office), SDS, Train Station, Town Link(bus), Fás Centre, Library and a large Garda Barracks. We had a telephone exchange and TSB but they were privatized. Why wouldn’t I support a system that creates so many jobs locally and improves the standard of living?
So yes I suppose I could be called a socialist although I don’t think Im quite a Marxist yet; a healthy balance between state and enterprise is preferable.

I was more interested in the economic theories of Karl Mark and Socialism, not political. Economically, socialism is very inefficient, promotes stagnation, and lack of capital freedom (too much taxes). However, I do believe in having specified regs so that no one person or group can "corner the market" so to speak.

People can go from poverty to success in Ireland as well but the gap between rich and poor is narrower.

You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

Social welfare services in America are a disgrace even before you take the immense wealth of the country into account, Intel a huge American MNC doesn’t recognize trade unions and there are all types of hidden ways to discriminate against people. Ppl who talk about glass ceilings aren’t paranoid.

Considering that the poor are by most international standards "rich," your statement does not take into consideration of the different avenues. Most programs are privately sponsored through non-profit organizations like the United Way, Salvation Army, and other various religious and non religious organizations. Besides, you really have to be poor in order to qualify for the programs and put on a track to get yourself off. However, there are some people who want to use and abuse the system as a means of perputual support. Also keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest programs in the country with one means tested and the other not, I could hardly say the social welfare services are not a disgrace.

I have no problem with Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Daoist, Taoists, Jews, Sheiks, Hindu, Christians, Jedi or pagans so long as you don’t try to force that religion on others or proclaim yours to be 100% right and others 100% wrong.

Then please explain the bible thumper statement.

Double standards is when in your argument you apply two different sets of standards to two different sets of people. It doesn’t matter if one uses a different set of standards to me so long as one is consistent.
You could say at the end of a post “Gone off for a few days” and save me the bother of replying or waiting for a reply.
I didn’t call you a liar. I listed a set of circumstances when a person is being over confident. Did you feel some of them applied to you?

Please list specifically where I made a double standard? I

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.

You were quoting sources that can be best described as "tabloid" IMHO. That is interpretation. The internet has a lot of data, not info. The info comes from our own understanding, or lack thereof.

So the man needs to go to the restroom a lot or he could suffer some sort serious problem like a Kidney infection and die? If Americas world position cant be maintained without war then it deserves to die.

The anology I was using Vader was that if one only sees what he wants to see easily identifiable and thus draws that conclusion, then that conclusion is totally flawed. Depending on which situation you are looking into depends on why the events unfolded. It does not fit into a nice little mold that fits into a political idealogy of one's accord. That is revisionist history Vader.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

So once your neighbour beats his wife and children inside the house, not outside, it's OK then? Domestic matter, move along please. There is a time when a neighbour, not only can or should intervene, but **must** intervene.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Funny...I coulda sworn you supported the US invasion of another nation's national sovereignty.

Weren't you in favour of removing Saddam because he was such an oppressive ruler within the limits of his national sovereignty ?

Or by "national" do you mean "American" exclusively?

jc

Vader

Originally posted by Gerominiminnomino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Really? Then for reasons of national sovereignty Saddam was correct to flout UN resolutions and proceed to develop WMD’s as part of his nations defense strategy if he so wished.
What reason of national sovereignty did Bush II have to invade Iraq? He didn’t like us? He didn’t want to give us his oil? He was unpredictable? While we’re at it what part of national sovereignty gave America the right to topple the governments of South America or to put Saddam in control of Iraq in the first place? But, but, but the Russians were at it too. The sneaky Ruskies would have done it if they had the chance and its better our guy than theirs! Two different political systems that have had the same effects on the local populace. That doesn’t to say one was better than the other. We have a right to protect ourselves from all conceivable threats! Pre-emptive attacks on innocents can hardly be called self defense. That’s why pre-emptive attacks are not permitted by the UN, or the US when it suits their propaganda purposes.
Do you mean that because America and its client states such as Turkey, Israel, Columbia and Indonesia etc continue campaigns of genocide, or to stock pile WMD’s that that’s OK. Let me try and grasp the logic. America doesn’t obey the UN, America is always right so disobeying the UN is alright. Was not one of Bush II reasons for invading Iraq that Saddam had constantly violated UN resolutions.
Don’t bother pointing out that America vetoes UN resolutions rather than disobey them because it’s the same thing. The power of veto is undemocratic and it’s the same as violating it. People say that the UN doesn’t work; that’s probably because so long as some countries have the power of veto it will be a tool in their back pocket. At the moment it is useful for providing neutral peace keeping cores but since US peace keepers are now above the law and the US gives relatively little funding for peace keeping initiatives then yes, it is a dying organization. Remove the power of veto and its institutions work.

America doesn’t believe in national sovereignty, it believes in divine rights.

You should never include politics when you travel Vader. It spoils the conversation quickly and makes the instigator as one who is snobby. Contrary to what you believe, avoiding politics in casual conversation when traveling is quite easy. And when you talk about indiginous culture, you should never bring in politics. You could put yourself in a bad situation if you do.

If your country has a history of imperialism, you are an arrogant bustard or are totally ignorant of local circumstances then yes, you should avoid politics. Do any of those apply to you?

I was more interested in the economic theories of Karl Mark and Socialism, not political. Economically, socialism is very inefficient, promotes stagnation, and lack of capital freedom (too much taxes). However, I do believe in having specified regs so that no one person or group can "corner the market" so to speak.

You have twice now referred to capital freedom being the big advantage of capitalism. There is more or less capital freedom in Ireland. Socialism according to Marx is the middle stage between capitalism and communism where wealth is still distributed unequally. I was talking about socialism and Ireland is a socialist country. What do you mean you were talking about economic socialism not political socialism? The two are mutually inclusive. Political socialism is the implementation of socialist economic theories, just because they’re not straight out of Das Capital doesn’t mean they’re not socialist.

You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

So your son then starts better off in life than your neighbours son, his son is better off than the neignbours grandson and so on and so. I thought all men were created equally where you come from. And what if somebody is unlucky or gets a bad break in life? Well then after 6 months and they are living like animals we’ll give them a measly pittance and if they need medical attention and cant afford insurance, well, then they die. Its not like they were contributing much to society anyway. It is possible to reward enterprise and hard work and still share the wealth. There are cooperative as well as competitive business relationships. There is no reason why 13% of the population of the richest country in the world should live below the poverty line.

Considering that the poor are by most international standards "rich,"

Whos been peddling you that shít? 13% of your population live below the international poverty line.

your statement does not take into consideration of the different avenues. Most programs are privately sponsored through non-profit organizations like the United Way, Salvation Army, and other various religious and non religious organizations. Besides, you really have to be poor in order to qualify for the programs and put on a track to get yourself off.

Why cant the gov for the people by the people help the people, why must it fall to the private sector? The US gov can afford it.

However, there are some people who want to use and abuse the system as a means of perputual support. Also keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest programs in the country with one means tested and the other not,

A McGregor Theory X man are we? Poor people are lazy scum who don’t like work and think the world should support them; these free loafers are usually Islamofascist Commi-Nazis..

I could hardly say the social welfare services are not a disgrace

Thanks for admitting your wrong about something.

Then please explain the bible thumper statement.

The term is bible “basher” and it referrers to Christians so sure that the bible is truth and believe that the bible is not open to interpretation or fault. That would be grand only they refer to everyone else as cultish, show no respect to non-Christians, and sometimes none to Christian denominations that use too much interpretation. They believe in conversion by any means necessary and that rights are reserved only for other Christians.

Please list specifically where I made a double standard?

Look back at my first point in this reply Re: National Sovereignty and skip forward to my last point Re: lessons of history.

quote:

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.



You were quoting sources that can be best described as "tabloid" IMHO. That is interpretation. The internet has a lot of data, not info. The info comes from our own understanding, or lack thereof.

So if you are still calling me an armchair quarter back then your saying now that its not that I don’t have any info, its that my info contradicts American philosophy and so must be wrong. The easiest way for you to explain this is that I read tabloids and other questionable sources of data and that I’m, in your humble opinion, not intelligent enough to interpret these facts. Interesting. If I had such poor taste in news papers and websites I most probably would spend as much time on boards. The notion that I cant form my own opinions is absurd which is evident from the sheer volume of topics I’ve gebated about and the quality to which I conduct debates. Granted I have once or twice been guilty of human error by misquoting a source but I concentrate mostly on the post not the poster and am open to the suggestion that I could be wrong. And finally I don’t believe that if your time was as precious as you say it is that you would bother debating(call it what you will) with me if you had such a low appreciation of my abilities.
Just to set your curiosity at rest, I read the Leinster Express, Sunday Independent and Sunday Tribune. I watch political satire (my list of favorites are posted on the satire board) and rarely research topics over the Web. My preferred method of research is either a college or local library(the local Library will let me keep the book longer and has a wide selection by Chomsky, probably the most credible source by any standards) which surprise surprise is state funded.

Vader

sorry it has to be in 2 posts, that whole 1000 character thing

The anology I was using Vader was that if one only sees what he wants to see easily identifiable and thus draws that conclusion, then that conclusion is totally flawed. Depending on which situation you are looking into depends on why the events unfolded. It does not fit into a nice little mold that fits into a political idealogy of one's accord. That is revisionist history Vader.

You used an analogy whereby you compared America to a faulty kidney/bladder. I agreed with you and said that America is faulty and that this fault should not be tolerated. You cannot say I only see what I want to see when I look into your analogies and see something you didn’t. Are you saying that looking at history in hindsight wont tell you weather in hindsight a course of action was right or wrong? Of course it will, that’s why your so opposed to it. You see evidence which you both agree with and understand that tells you that you or your country was wrong about something. I wasn’t trying to rub it in, I was saying that we should draw lessons from history. You cant accept this reasoning, you don’t admit that you or America were wrong but at the same time say that the opponents of America’s course of action were only lucky to be proved right.

So on a completely different note, did you have a nice trip? Go anywhere interesting? Did you get me anything?

Victor

Originally posted by Vader
That’s why pre-emptive attacks are not permitted by the UN.

Pre-emptive attacks are permitted when attack is inevitable.

Vader

I must of missed that bit anyway if you could just point it out to me I'd be much abliged.

If the attack is inevitable? What do you mean inevitable? If they have declared war then yea its inevitable but thats not preemtive. If they're lining troops up along the boarder then its not really preemptive, although on must ask the question why are they doing that.