Iraq is the new Godwin's Law

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

My initial reaction to your last reply was almost just that, laughing my arse off. I actually saw that movie when it came out and thought it funny. Your attempt to use it as a preamble to your, to put it charitably, argument seemed a bit misplaced. Fact is, I'll take General Giap's interpretation over yours.

Oh really? Okay! Let's accept General Vo Nguyen Giap's interpretation of events as factual:

 

In this interview with CNN, General Giap said of the Tet offensive:

 

"The Tet Offensive is a long story. ... It was our policy, drawn up by Ho Chi Minh, to make the Americans quit. Not to exterminate all Americans in Vietnam, [but] to defeat them.

 

It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign. But of course, if we had gained more than that it would be better.

 

And [after Tet] the Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that's why we could claim the achievement of the objective"

 

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/giap/

 

So I guess General Giap and I have proved you to be incorrect Tot. Don't feel bad, with a great strategist like Giap as my ally, you really never had a chance.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Actually, you're wrong again on a lot of things. First, I have as much a sense of humor as you. The fact that I'm even dealing with you is proof enough.

You cut me to the quick, Sir!

 

Perhaps you DO have a sense of humour. There's evidence to suggest that you have a sense of humour; you crack plenty of jokes in these threads. I found the ones about the Iraqis having WMDs to be quite amusing. Your skit about Iraq "moving WMDs around to fool the inspectors" was a really good one. Hey, did you ever hear the one about the US "bringing democracy to Iraq"? Oh that one's great. The punchline's a killer. Six-hundred-and-fifty-thousand times over, in fact.

 

Now, it's worth pointing out at this juncture that the ratio of arguments to personal remarks in your posts has changed somewhat in this post. While in previous posts your points were incorrect and your arguments dubious, at least they were arguments of a type. In this post, you seem to have addressed a grand total of two of my points, and the rest is just unsubstantiated impugning of my character. Which, you know, is fine by me. My shoulders are broad, and the fact that you've run out of even spurious rebuttals essentially means that- whether you admit it consciously or not- you've accepted that you've been proven wrong.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Your contention that the VC were freedom fighters is still too ludicrous to take seriously. So you might as well drag out that hoary old saying.....one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But seriously, what freedom are you citing here exactly? The freedom to ruthlessly oppress your own people once you take control? Or is it just the "freedom" of sending any foreign influence packing (or rather replacing it with one more to your liking)?

As I said before, Tot, I KNOW you'd like to call the VC (and the Iraqi insurgents who are killing our troops) "terrorists". But as Samuel Dravis has already pointed out, I was correct.

 

My definition of "South Vietnamese freedom fighters" is the correct one. You know why we call them freedom fighters? Because they were indigenous forces fighting against our invading forces and the corrupt puppet government we kept in place in their nations.

 

When a country aggressively invades a sovereign nation and is an occupying, invading force, it doesn't GET to call the resistance fighters "terrorists". Whether you admit this simple fact to yourself or not, it's patently true.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

As I said before, you really need to get out of your pulpit. You still have a problem with twisting people's comments so that you can go off on one of your rants. If you don't understand what you're reading, and it's woefully apparent that you still have problems with comprehension, then perhaps you should hold off and ask what is meant before you commit the same kinds of errors you seem to believe others are doing with you.

This is just a string of unconnected, childish, derogatory remarks that make NO salient points, challenge NONE of my arguments, present NO new evidence and say NOTHING about the topic. Shame on you.

 

Instead of just being unpleasant, perhaps you should take me up on my earlier deal. (which you ignored) I said: If you will go and watch Pilger's 50 minute documentary and then give us a detailed and logical critique of the facts it contains and the conclusions it draws, I will review any material of comparable size or length that you believe supports YOUR case, and provide a logical critique in the same manner.

 

If you ignore this idea one more time, it will be clear not only to me, but to everyone who reads this thread that you are NOT interested in analyses of factual evidence, you are NOT interested in hearing other people's views and that you are NOT interested in divining the TRUTH.

 

I am interested in all three. Let's find the truth together, old buddy!

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, you are rather rabid in your assertion that your morality is beyond reproach

There is no "My morality". There is only morality. Morality must consist of a universally applied, logically arrived at standard, or it is not morality. Go to these two threads for more in-depth information:

 

Moral relativism

On the origin of morals - and the preservation of favoured logic

 

If you have any logical argument to present that refutes my claim that the invasion of Iraq was immoral... please, present it. If not, we can accept that the invasion was immoral and move on from there.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

and silly in your assertion that everyone who claims to be antiwar is only so b/c they oppose war (of course unless it's defensive or "UN approved").

Well let's examine our two opposing viewpoints.

 

I believe that those who are anti-war... oppose war. I believe they oppose war for moral reasons, as there are no other reasons for opposing war.

 

You seem to be suggesting throughout your posts that anti-war groups are merely fronts, concealing swathes of evil commie-rats and devious islamic fundamentalists who are pointing out the illegality and immorality of our actions MERELY in order to weaken the wonderful government of the United States, and ruin its noble quest to bring the light of democracy to backward, savage nations like Iraq. Despite the fact that you have no evidence to support this belief.

 

If you believe something less ludicrous, please, tell me. I wouldn't want to ascribe such an utterly infantile belief to you if it wasn't yours.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

If you think I'm being unfair in my description of you as behaving like an idealogue of that nature on foreign policy concerns, it's no more unfair than you're referring to me as a neocon b/c I've not come out and condemned vigourously the campaign in Iraq.

Oh, you didn't say I was "behaving" like anything. You directly called me (and I quote):

 

1. a "left wing military hating mindless idealogue"

2. a "pompous windbag"

3. a "vapid mindless idiotologue" (my personal favourite)

 

And the reason I call you a neocon is that you express belief in neo-conservative propaganda (WMDs), approve of neo-conservative actions (War on Iraq) and routinely regurgitate neo-conservative fallacies (War was not immoral). If you don't want to be called a neo-conservative, try extracting information from sources that aren't neo-conservative in nature.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

The heart of the problem about moral vs immoral is your insistence that the UN has any moral weight whatsoever. No country needs the impramateur of the UN for moral legitimacy. End of story. We are going to be perpetually at odds on this point, so there's no need for you to attempt to answer it. You think it's necessary, I don't. The end.

Wow, you DO have an open mind, don't you.

 

Samuel addressed this (as did I, twice in the previous post alone) but it's worth going over again.

 

The UN is the only body which can serve a truly international interest, and the only body capable of applying international law. It's like a huge police station.

 

The US/UK's actions in Iraq are counter to international law. Like... murdering someone. If we murder someone, it's the police who will catch us and bring us to trial.

 

But if the police CAN'T catch us, perhaps because we (the US and UK) have got too many guns, that doesn't mean that our actions weren't ILLEGAL.

 

And if an action is ILLEGAL, but it is done in the NAME of law and morality (as our invasion was), it's hypocritical as well as immoral. Like the actions of a lynch-mob.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, nowhere have I said that you are foaming at the mouth. You are, however not as dispassionate as you claim.

You directly claimed that I personally "hate the military". I disproved this assertion. End of story.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You believe, erroneously, that you have the corner on the truth. You work from your biases and reject that which does not fit within your comfortable framework, much as you accuse others. You also assume a great deal, which has been pointed out. Your ego, unfortunately, gets in the way. Many people have pointed out that you're basically a condescending sob, and they're right, though we all know you won't (can't, more likely) admit to that. Not the sign of a very mature mind, though one that is often quick to label others as being immature.

Once again, a completely irrelevant series of personal remarks and spurious assertions, in support of which you provide no evidence whatsoever.

 

I am not like you. I have no affiliations with any normal political camps. My politics is the desire to know the truth, and I arrive at the truth as best I can by reading and watching and listening to ALL the information I can, and then objectively and logically analysing this information.

 

Can you say the same? I think not. You haven't even bothered to look at one short documentary I've posted for you, dismissing it as "left-wing propaganda". It's your choice, and your failing.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Hitler is consigned to history and any reference to hitler and or nazis is not automatically a moral judgement, except perhaps in your mind. But just b/c you seem to need the reminder, right and wrong aren't used exclusively in reference to moral issues

Samuel addressed this. You described the US decision to enter WW2 as being "right" in the moral sense. I proved it was not a morally based decision. QED.

 

Secondly, once again, nobody's comparing anyone with Hitler in moral terms or any other terms, and you and the other neocons are the only ones who keep bringing up the WORDS "Hitler" and "Nazis" even. I'm not making these references. You are.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Preemption, is not as you put it only "about picking the weakest countries with the best energy-reserves and invading THOSE." That's merely your politics overiding any remaining vestige of common sense you might still have in you.

Once again I don't have "politics" in the sense you're trying to imply, I merely have a desire for fact and truth.

 

Secondly, neocon pre-emptive doctrine has so far been ENTIRELY about picking the weakest countries to invade. We haven't invaded any strong nations. And Iraq has some of the best energy reserves left in the world. So my statement is factually accurate as far as it goes. I could take it further, but you'd probably have an aneurysm.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Have you figured out incredulity yet, btw?

Oh, yes, I forgot to tell you:

 

You accused me of being "incredulous" and I have figured out that you haven't yet realised that you used the wrong word. I don't know what you were trying to call me, but here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of incredulous to help you along:

 

in·cred·u·lous (in-krej'?-l?s) Pronunciation Key

adj.

1. Skeptical; disbelieving: incredulous of stories about flying saucers.

2. Expressive of disbelief: an incredulous stare.

 

[From Latin incredulus : in-, not; see in-1 + credulus, believing; see credulous.]

in·cred'u·lous·ly adv., in·cred'u·lous·ness n.

 

When you've found the right word, let me know.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

At the time I wrote that I was having a nasty bout of insomnia and was up way too late. The concept I had in mind at that point was actually names associated with coffins, but I didn't write it in an obvious manner. Anonymous coffins aren't the same security risk, obviously.

That's fine, but any statement you post is your responsibility, regardless of how much sleep you've had.

 

When someone accurately describes a statement you made as ludicrous and bordering on paranoia. (When you chose to post it while mentally debilitated through lack of sleep,) You cannot then accuse them of "being condescending" or trolling or baiting. Because if you misrepresented your OWN point of view, it's your own fault.

 

As for your clarification, I still consider the idea that named coffins are a security risk of ANY appreciable size to be still really ludicrous.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

If I could learn all that with just a little effort of typing a name in a google box, what could someone learn about my family and me if they were to see Jimbo's name and his coffin and were far more determined to accomplish something?

With 2 young ones to protect, security is a far greater concern for me than it used to be when I didn't have kids, so I have to be concerned with anything that could invade my family's privacy.

Well for starters, the amount of information that is available on any one individual online varies greatly from person to person. I've done searches on really obscure people and found a wealth of information, and I've done searches on quite gregarious individuals and have found virtually nothing on them. (As I'm sure you have, or if you haven't, you can try it now.)

 

And often one's personal dedication to security is a contributing factor in keeping information OUT of the system.

 

So with that in mind one of the undesirable situations you're describing might unfold thusly:

 

1. First, some deranged violent individual wants to assault another random individual.

2. They happen to watch the news and see some named coffins returning to the US.

3. They pick a surname at random, and decide (without evidence) that there must be a vulnerable spouse somewhere.

4. They decide (without evidence) that the spouse will have NO other adults around to protect her.

5. They then find out what area of the US the poor dead soldier came from.

6. They research local papers, the internet and any other available sources to find an address.

7. They succeed in discerning which is the one correct "Mrs Smith" or whatever out of the many possible candidates.

8. They then luckily find the address of this spouse.

9. They then travel to this area of the US from wherever they live.

10. They "case the joint" for some time without arousing suspicion.

11. They see that they have miraculously found a war-widow without anyone around to protect her. What good fortune!

12. They then perform whatever dastardly crime they were planning without hiccup.

 

The chances of all these things happening are astronomical, and for the life of me I can't see how ANYONE who wishes to do a random war-widow harm could do so without going through these steps or similarly unlikely steps. You're more likely to be eaten by a shark, frankly. I'd be more worried about sharks.

 

And since the US public has a right to see the consequences of an illegal and immoral war, I'm afraid that irrational fears don't weigh very heavily against that right. The coffins should be shown.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The rest I don't feel like dealing with, but I had to clarify that one.

Mm, okay. But if you want to debate properly, I personally would prefer it if you'd address all the points and questions directed at you, rather than just addressing one and going away. If I didn't want to debate properly, I wouldn't debate at all.