*DAMN R6 Forum

Now as all of you know I quite firmly believe that the only justification for a war in Iraq is if the UN approves the action or if Iraq attacks someone, but since I can see that Bush and Blair are going to have the war no matter what (they say if Saddam does a certain thing by the 17th the war wouldn't happen...but that thing is not exactly objective...the US would no doubt say it wasn't enough and attack anyway).  Anyway, given the inevitability, all I can say now is lets just let them have the war because I figure a war now is better than a war in three months.  The economy would appreciate it, it could stop everyone from talking about it ad nauseum, and perhaps the idiots who boycott French and other products would stop as well.

Bondo, I love how you mock even the people that are demonstrating their opinion peacefully.  You are really the guy that names everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.  What in the world do you have against freedom anyway?  If people don't like what the French have done, they boycott, how is that a bad thing?

a war in 3 months isn't going to be possible anyway, we can't afford to wait that long. It's going to be bloody hot in Iraq, and those ground troops in bio suits are going to undoubtedly suffer immensely, even if we did attack now. The only way to wage war if we wait too long will be at night, at which time friendly fire is a HUGE problem.

Well, you seem to find distaste with people judging Americans based on the goverment/stereotype.  So why do you find it fine and dandy for people to do the same to the French?

Bondo, if someone makes a point against you while providing explicit proof, saying "OMG NO YOU DO IT TOO" with absolutely nothing to back it up is quite childish.

And anyways, it's not even the same thing. The people who are boycotting French products are hoping that their economic pressure will influence the government. The people who judge Americans based on the actions of the government are stereotyping. It is a world of difference, and in your oh so haughty proclaimed knowledge you should be able to realize this.

I'm not arguing their right to boycott the French, nor did I ever say it was in any way wrongful.  But I believe it is within my right to believe they are idiots for doing so (becuase the aformentioned reason of punishing French companies for the actions of the French goverment).

Although it is on a drastically different level, the people who died in the 9/11 attacks must have deserved it because the terrorists were simply attacking Americans in order to influence the US Goverment.  Certainly it is not a good analogy in terms of the action, but the theory does relate...the holding citizens accountable for the actions of the goverment.


No more childish than what Bucc did...but oddly you didn't mention that.  I had a very good reason for calling those boycotting French goods idiots as I've shown.  So Bucc's claim that I insult people who disagree with me, without reason wasn't true.  But my point that he insults people who stereotype others based on the goverments actions yet didn't see any problem with punishing people based on goverment actions still remains to be explained.

Ace. . .Bucc. . .

I know you're just trying to play devil's advocate. . .to find something wrong. . .to criticize Bondo.  And hey, that's your choice.  But lay off a little.

Even the most hard-core war hawk has to find a little bit of nonsense in the renaming of french fries (not even french, but Belgian!) to "freedom fries" and other changes.  Likewise, surely there are better protest methods than boycotting French wine and cheese, which are arguably the best in the world.  

To use yet another inappropriate analogy, that would be like if another country, in opposing America, boycotted freedom.  And don't tell me that any anti-American is against freedom. . .we've all been witness that America stands for other ideals, some in stark contrast.

Loud, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm just tired of Bondo spouting bullshit.


While I agree renaming french fries is on the extreme side, so what? It's a peaceful method of protest. Hell, haven't some people here been screaming all along that we should try peaceful methods? As for boycotting French wine and cheese, suggesting that you shouldn't boycott them just because they are of high quality is about the most spineless, gutless move I could imagine. If you disagree with someone so vehemently that you will boycott a country's economy, giving in just because they make certain products well is the sign of a coward who isn't willing to stand up for his moral ground.


See, you even admit it is on a drastically different level. No one in their right mind could realistically compare mass murder and terrorism to peaceful economic protest. That is what Bucc called you on the carpet for.


Bondo, you give NO reasoning for why you call the people boycotting French products idiots. On the other hand, Bucc logically questioned your argument and poked holes in it. So yes, Bucc's claim that you insult people you don't agree with is perfectly valid in this context.

You have also ignored my point and once again showed your ignorance by comparing stereotyping with economic boycott. Stereotyping people based on the actions of their government is assigning them wholesale characteristics without regards to whether they may or may not apply to the individual. In contrast, boycotting French products directly affects the French government by reducing the amount of tax money they bring in.

I think that changing well-established names as form of protest makes the people that do it look dumb. This form of protest will not harm France or Germany??if anything it will probably make them laugh. Also, these foods are symbolic of cultures and to rename them with American names like "Liberty Steak" is in my opinion a very jingoistic and somewhat ridiculous thing. Also Orwellian (anyone remember "Liberty Gin"?). If individuals want to boycott French or German products that's different; it's their choice and they can protest how they want. I don't think its appropriate to call for the government to sanction this behavior because not everyone agrees with a war and even if they did not everyone would agree that this was appropriate.

I will protest my belief that these people are wrong by not patronizing their businesses.

Bondo, you need a world of help if you think that stereotypes and boycotts are anything close to the same thing.

Yes, I hate it when people rag on any specific group, be it the Americans, Blacks, Native Americans or even the French.  I'm not saying the French people are all spinless simps, I'm saying that if people want to protest peacefully, they should be allowed to, and that includes Americans.  You haven't noticed me bitching about all the French or Germans that avoid US trade goods, have you?  No, because once again Bondo, you just don't get it.

Loudnotes, time for you to grow up a little.  First, I'm not defending the people that go overboard and want to change the name of french fries, I'm talking about the people that have stopped importing French wines and cheeses and other such goods.  Get over yourself with that crap already.

And if you really want to talk about it, let's get into the unfair tarrif situation between the USA, and the rest of the world.  Where we aren't expected to tax goods coming in, but they thax the living fuck out of goods from the USA.  Don't preach to me Loudnotes, you don't know nearly as much as you seem to think you do to pull it off.  

Being all out against war is as bad as being all out for it.  I'm no war hawk, as you imply, but you are a peace at any price type person, and that is just as blind as any war hawk.  So bring something better or just leave it alone Loudnotes, everyone knows where you stand.  

First off, in my first post I wrote a whole paragraph, yet Bucc replied ONLY to the one sentance put in specifically as a bit of a joust.  Bucc, that is continued show that you are pathetic and instead of replying to a whole post would rather pick anything out of the context of the whole post and criticize it.  That, is a weaksause way of arguing.  The ignoring of all points to get the one you can insult.

Secondly, like I've said, I don't deny the right people have to not buy French products.  But you shouldn't deny my right to think them idiots for punishing the French people for the actions of the goverment.  Sure, they will lose a tiny amount of tax money, but the people whose products aren't being bought will lose a ton of money.  That and France has a social democracy so by depriving the country of money you are depriving the citizens of well-being.  Because of this I think, and for a damned good reason that you can't, not matter how hard you try, deny even if you disagree, the people boycotting are idiots.

Ace, I didn't spout any bullshit, nice try though.  First off, I said that terrorism and boycott couldn't be compared as ACTIONS, they can still be compared based on the REASON the actions are performed.  And just as killing any random American for problems with the goverment is wrong, so is depriving any random French person for the problems with the goverment.  They are equally wrong in theory, just one clearly is worse in action.  And the people are sterotyping French citizens as peace at all costs, interfere with American types.  True or not they are being stereotyped which is leading to the boycott.  So I am not ignoring your point, I'm arguing it.

Why is advocating for peace a bad thing? Some people put peace above "security" and that's their business, I don't think it makes them stupid. Are you saying people with strong moral convictions are stupid? Are all quakers stupid? I don't understand why having strong beliefs makes a person dumb.

Actually, ones of the reasons many nations dislike western society/ America is the freedoms we give some people, namely women, occasionally minorities and such.

EMPIRICALLY DENIED  ;D

What else can the American people do, short of going over to France and knocking on Chiracs door? The only way (not saying the current boycotts will work) people would get France to respond is through boycotting goods. If people went out with "please support us, France" signs they'd be like haha funny americans, no. Yeah, plus the fact that they need us alot more than we need them. Essentially, the only thing we do get from them is wine and cheese.

now, to tastys post  ;D
i agree for the most part, except for one part
Sure, it might seem dumb to other countries or other people but maybe it's important to the people doing it, maybe this is their form of expression. I think it is kind of silly, but I don't criticize the people that do it because maybe they have their own reasons and outlooks on the situation.

I have it on a good source (who met with one of Colin Powell's undersecretarys last friday on the Israel-Palestine problems) that the war will start on March 15th regardless of the UN.  How poetic and apocolyptic at the same time (shakespeare anyone?).  Anyway, he says that they expect the war to be hot for 4 months.

I dunno if that's true at all, but as I said, he's pretty reliable.  So there ya have it.


And Cookie, I'm going to use a Baz tactic right now, cause I have to go to dinner: your wrong.

Forgive me if it seems haughty of me when I try to discourage personal attacks on this board.  Obviously that didn't work, and it got turned against me.  However, Buccaneer:

I know where you stand.  I know how old you are, how intelligent you are, and how reasoned your opinions are.  Likewise, you seem highly aware of my relative lack of education and the foundations of my beliefs.  Just because these two ideals contrast does not make me absolutely wrong.  And for you to tell me to "grow up" as you yourself dismiss me out of hand is ridiculous and offensive.  

On to the points against me:

Cookie, while you are a woman and you enjoy rights, recognize that not everyone in this country lives the ideal free life that our laws supposedly guarantee.  Besides, countries don't dislike us for having rights, they dislike us for trying to impose our ideas of liberty and equality on them.

Honestly, if your culture believes women to be subservient, for example, would you not resent another culture trying to change things?  This works the other way as well.  If Arab women themselves are not discontented, why must we continue to meddle in their lives.  Or if that example isn't good enough, what about people who DON'T WANT to live in a democracy?  Isn't it arrogant of us to assume that everyone wants to live our way of life, and then try to force them?  Isn't the American way all about giving people free choice?

Bucc, if you'd taken the time to read more of my posts, you would know that I'm by no means purely a pacifist.  I am against war on an individual basis, though I ultimately believe it to be a last resort option.  I would have fought in World War 2, for example.  However, I am strongly against the United States pushing over any nation it disagrees with; rather like the way you tend to write off any forum poster who disagrees with you as being beneath you.

As for trading, you're missing the point.  The other day here in Raleigh some people organized an anti-war protest, it had a decent turnout of about 2000 people.  At the same time someone came up with the idea to do a pro-war protest; this garnered about 100.  I fully support people expressing themselves however they wish.  But protesting for a war is ridiculous, and going to the extreme of boycotting anti-war nations' products is stupid as well.  Since war really ought to be a last recourse, and no one should really want it, why the hell would you be that bent on it?  When you look at the motivation, it seems petty, and loses the altruism that makes protest really effective.  

And as for quality products, I'm just saying protesting the goods isn't the smartest form of expression.  That'd be like if we as a nation embargoed Saudi oil because the government is undemocratic.  Well. . .we need the oil. . .and I think we need French wine more than we need a war of aggression.

Finally, everyone please stop using that word "weaksauce"  I don't know where it came from, but it makes all your arguments sounds lame.  For god's sake, why can you all not stop bickering like little kids for a few minutes and just discuss the issues?  In particular, Bucc, when you address my maturity while personally attacking people on an online message board I have to question everything you say.

Come on now, I've agreed on something or other over time with everyone here.  Try not to get so galvanized.

Note:  and I will stop being galvanized too  ;)

Oh and btw cookie - since when is it bad to make fun of people who do stupid things, whether or not they think they have good reasons for them?

I never claimed everyone got perfect equality and everything is equitable.. but you have to agree with me that we give more freedoms than most countries allow granted that there have been limits.

Also, you say countries don't dislike us for having rights, etc.. but then what's the antiwestern sentiment about? I don't recall the US trying to station a McDonalds in Osama's hood... yet things are still taken out on them. Why? It's the principle of things in many situations. Even if we are good people and upstanding citizens, we will always be the enemies in many eyes because we have different principles and beliefs, and we embody to them what they believe is immoral. We are not humans, we are lesser beings that threaten their way of existence just by existing. It has nothing to do with actions in many circumstances.

Next.. you talk about a culture advocating womens subservience. While i get what you're talking about, I refuse to believe it. Is it human nature to be oppressed, even if it is your "culture"? Doubtfully. Also, I think that assuming a person is the culture they come from is repugnant. Do you really believe women in countries that veil, seclude, and oppress LIKE their situation? Don't you think they might like to be educated, have free will, be able to walk the streets without a man by their side? I think so, and i happen to be a woman.

you should watch some documentaries on women in the middle east, they're quite informative.

First off, total equality is known as anarchy.  The only way to have order is to have inequalities that put some people above and some people below.

Secondly, weaksauce is the product of abe, I use it only to be ironic when acting like Bucc to Bucc's posts...otherwise I agree that it, like calling bullshit are stupid means of arguing and that making strong counter points to an argument would be much more impressive than insulting it.

Total equality is also impossible, so since it's futile, why not aim for it?  Near equality seems like a pretty good idea.

I wish I had more to add to this debate, but I have nothing as smart as Loudnotes to say, and since I agree with him, I'll let him speak for me.

Come on cookie, you know that globalization affects the Middle East just as much as anybody else. Look at Egypt. They have McDonalds, American movies, etc? and as far as us being "good people and upstanding citizens", look at how US oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon interact with Middle Eastern countries. I'm sure that government supported takeover of oil fields at the hands of US transnationals isn't exactly their favorite thing. And if we threaten their way of existence by just existing wouldn't it be more polite of us to just ignore the region completely?

As far as the culture thing, I agree with both cookie and loudnotes to an extent. Cookie, I agree that not all Muslim women enjoy their treatment or their lifestyle. But culture is learned. If Muslim women are growing up to be socialized into such a society, than generally that's what they are going to believe is right. Their religion even guarantees a certain sub-western degree of oppression for their gender, and I doubt that many of them are going to go against their religion. So while such treatment is unnatural to us, these women are growing up firmly believing that they are inferior. Can culture ever be "wrong"? Maybe, it's a complicated subject. And surely if these women were subjected to a Western education they would begin to resent their upbringing. But is it our place to provide that? The Middle Eastern fear of Westernization is well-founded, because they understand that once their cultures are exposed to elements of the West that they can never go back. We probably all believe in the supremacy of our more open, liberalized Western beliefs about gender, sex, race, and religion. But I think we need to tread these water lightly and not be forceful with our beliefs in relation to other countries.

Sure, but it's incredulous to say globalization was caused solely by the US.
So all the citizens in the US should be judged by what big buisnesses do abroad?
If we ignored the region, that still wouldn't change the fact that we exist, that doesn't make us any less of a western enemy in their eyes.
But the question still remains: do they like what's right? Very, VERY doubtful.
see, this is what i've had trouble with recently: people thinking that all nations in the world are morally equivalent and we have no right to tell people how to think. This is going to sound terribly arrogant: but thats bs. There are certain beliefs that ARE wrong, truth is not relative in this case, end of story. One such belief i feel is absolutely wrong is the mistreatment of people based on gender, and if we're trying to instill that belief into other nations, then more power to us.  

When you look at morality outside of religion, yes, there are some cases in which you could say one way is better than another.  I don't believe the freedom of speech, equality, and certainly not capitalism are morally enforcable.  Life is, liberty is questionable because it is vague, and property is most certainly not a moral issue.  These things that America tries to force on others...democracy, capitalism, and liberties of religion, speech, protest...they are not great moral issues that deserve to be forced onto a nation whose culture doesn't support them.

Yes, I value those ideals (well, less so capitalism) and the Western world in general does as well, but that does not make them empirically morally superior.

Well said tasty, and Mort.  I assure you I'd much rather be chillun than sounding smart.

Cookie, have your quotes back:

1.  The US propagates globalization far more than any other nation.
2.  No, but those corporations are the major international face we present.  With that being the primary exposure to the West that many people have, no wonder they hate us.  Anyway, again who's to say which society is more upstanding and good?
3.  Tasty's point is that our existence isn't the problem, except that we affect them.  If we ceased to affect their lifestyles, it would be as if we didn't exist.  And then, of course, there would be no reason to vilify us.
4.  Of course it's doubtful in your eyes.  But perhaps in their eyes, it's doubtful that you would enjoy your life.  It's just an analogy to get you thinking from their perspective.  That is really the whole point - before we go bombing other countries, we ought to at least walk a ways in their shoes.
5.  Here's the issue with that statement tasty.  Lots of people believe in absolutes.  Generally, most of us believe in the total infallibility of most of our arguments.  I believe that racism is always wrong, for example.  And through debate and discussion, we try to influence our culture, to cultivate people into the same frame of mind.  There will always be disagreement.  However, society exists to regulate this disagreement, to impose absolutes on issues (such as racism) which need enforcement over the dissenters.

The problem, then, is that different cultures have built societies with different views of these absolutes.  And these people are no less human than we are.  I'm not going to say I agree with them - as far as my culture is concerned, I'm equally appalled at much of Muslim treatment of women.  What I don't think is right is that we completely reject their culture.  What I ultimately believe is that while individual ideas can be superior, they are only so within the context of their cultures.  No one culture can be superior to others, and thus we should not advocate dominance of other cultures.  In effect, that's what a war on Iraq represents.  Specifically, there is little real evidence that the Iraqi culture threatens ours, and thus we needn't retaliate over nothing more than our differences.  Eventually, if any culture is truly inferior to another (cannibalism, for example) it dies out.  People are capable of thought, and culture can be changed.  However, that change has to come from within, lest we foster perpetual discontent.

Bingo, that is the essance of the issue (the second part of the quote)...forced change isn't real change.  The change must come from within to be true and strong.  The US doesn't understand that and has made a habit the last half century forcing those changes, and in such being very unsuccessful...not only that but creating all sorts of hatred in the process.  For a successful change in the Middle East, the countries need to take it upon themselves to have a better situation, whatever that is to them.  Just like Europe and most colonies have excerted their own rights in overthrowing monarchies and colonialism, so the Middle East needs to make its own change.

As for the other part, I think that works in this case but also in the case of religion in America...the stuff from the pledge debate.  The existance of religion in America is ok, but that it affects me against my will.  If it didn't, I wouldn't have a problem with the existance of religion.  But I don't want to get this thread off-topic.

Just one thing about that, there are a lot of anti-American sentiments here in Sweden but they're absolutely not about you having freedom, they're more about how the American foreign politics being 'fascistic' or whatever. I'd also like to say that our society is even more equal than the American society when it comes to women's rights and all that, one of the things that makes me proud to be Swedish is that it's about the most equal country in the world according to a lot of studies.

Going by the Gender Empowerment rankings, Sweden is actually third...behind Norway and Iceland.  The US is 13th.

Some other Sweden/US comparisons
Educationally both are similar in Male/Females getting advanced training (which is to say more females than males in both)...in terms of income earning, women in the US make 80% of what men do where as it is 89 in Sweden.  In temrs of GDP per capita, in the US men make 14k more than women, in Sweden it is only 4k more than women...mind you the men make only slightly more than the women make in the US.  In the US females are 44% of the "administators" where as women are 28%...so the US is actually better there.  The US is also ranked higher in the Gender Development Index (4th compared to 6th for Sweden, Canada is 1).

I think the main thing that sticks out is in pay, gender earning equality is much better in Sweden than in the US and for that matter most other top countries such as Canada (which is the same as US)...Sweden is 1st in this very important category.

k, people. 4 things:

1) loudnotes, your notion of "globalization" is a little skewed. its a pretty sketchy term to begin with, but if you look at the post-73 oilshock and the eurodollar-market that resulted, arab countries such as kuwait, iraq, uae, bahrain, qatar, oman etc. benefitted from this trend, as did european banks and transnational corporations. dont "blame" america for globalization. furthermore, iraqis would greatly benefit from opening their markets to the world since a us-installed "democratic" ruler is likely not spend all the oil revenue on pursuing wmds and will allow the revenues from oil receipts to go to the iraqi people (right now, the only ones who benefit from the oil wealth are saddams extended family).

B) Bondo, you admit that there are some of our principles that are "morally cautionable" (im not sure if this is the term u used). now, currently, iraqis (esp. kurds) enjoy no rights whatsoever to either life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. they are persecuted and their villages are constantly attacked by the iraqi army (notably with mustard gas in 1988). this situation is no different than what slobodan milosevic was doing in croatia, kosovo and bosnia throughout the 90s, yet in that circumstance it WAS justifiable on humanitarian grounds......and here it isnt? and guess what else? when NATO bombed in 1998, the UN hadnt approved it either. France participated, Russia did too eventually.

iii) cookie. woot!

Actually, I'm not really against globalization - I just don't think the United States should impose it's culture on nations that don't desire it.  Otherwise, it's generally a good thing for all the nations in the world to cooperate, and even share common ideals.  But when they don't, it shouldn't be a streitpunkt.

Besides, no matter who started it, the United States has been the biggest proponent of globalization of any sort.  Most of those transnational corportations you refer to are based here in the states.  

Furthermore, my point is that who are we to decide that a US-installed government is better than the current one?  Besides, if it is installed by the United States, that rather defeats the idea of a democracy doesn't it?  The Iraqis haven't had the will or the strength to successfully oppose Hussein - that should be an indication of how urgently they desire change.  

To pretend altruistic motives of helping the Iraqi people in a war of aggression against them is ludicrous.

First of all about we all stop posting about War in the forums its old hat and makes the forums suck.
 For my opinion i think we should kill any country that does not join or comply with NATO therefor idealy forming a United World.  Maybe then we can stop wasting dollars fighting and shit.  If we had a United World money would no longer be wasted fighting and lives would be saved.  With all the money saved and cooperation from other countries i think the world as a whole could excel a lot better.  Find cures for diseases and maybe do some research in NANO Tech.  I know i would feel a lot safer in a United World.

Look at history. Would you say imposition has always been a BAD thing? I think in the case of many countries today, and in the past, imposition is a damn good thing. Look at Kenya and India. While they aren't in the best of shape, both are the richest of their regions and are progressing nicely. This is a result of British colonialism. Long term, Britain did good for both by leaving behind their law and government ideology (the only thing about Kenya is they are still highly tribalistic, and that seems to be hindering them from realizing full potential). India is also predicted to be the 3rd richest nation in the world in a decade or two. They STILL benefit from railroads left behind, and the economic nationalism cause by British occupation continues to fuel their market. I could also give more examples of times when imposition has been good as well, but i digress. But as a final question: do you find the US to be morally equivalent to that of say, Iraq?
Common ideals such as equal rights? Hmm?
Once again, I have a large problem with you intepreting the actions of large, NG buisnesses actions as being those representative of the US. They represent that particular sector of the market and are basically the only kind of buisnesses that can have overseas operations. Why is it the US that gets the rap for all this terrible globalization? Last time i checked the US was comprised of people from all classes and backgrounds.
Judging from how the Iraqi government has treated it's citizens in the past, I think almost anyone could make the same call the US is right now. I'd say most people would opt for a less psychotic, less oppressive dictator-esque administration, no?
You make it seem as if we're going to be there forever, and that we're never going to give up our hold to the people. However, last i check the general plan was to take over post-conflict, try to reestablish stability, and eventually hand over power to the people in an open election. It would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to let the Iraqi people have an open election immediately after the war.
I find this repugnant. Just because people don't fight back doesn't mean they don't want to. Just look at the world, pre global abolition. There weren't many slave revolts aside from Haiti and minor ones sporadically, but it didn't mean the people were happy with their situation. They feared the repercussions, just as I'm sure the Iraqis do. Hussein has hyper-deadly vx gas, chemical bombs, tons of munitions... what do they have but their fists?

now the other post (skipping to the ideas i haven't already addressed)
My point is how do we not affect them short of ceasing to exist? The ONLY way we would be able to have no affect on them whatsoever is to remove all signs of the western world in their region, to withdraw from our prominent position in the world, to stop advocating the rights we do, and to cease exporting/importing anything, even gas, from their region. Yes, we should do all this just to appease the radicals.
I try to look at things from a human perspective rather than from a western one. As a human being, more specifically a woman, I believe that I would not like to be oppressed. Sorry if my logic is somehow skewed.
With the exception of what is spewed out of 13 year old mouths, I haven't witnessed any widespread rejection of Islamic culture aside from their policies on women. Of course some people in the US provide stupid, ignorant reasons for disliking Muslims but discrimination is bound to happen no matter what country you're in. What we DO reject on a widespread basis, however, is the radical Islamic fundamentalist ideology but that is NOT what Islam has come to be about.
Ok, so if the zeebos(theoretical race) believe in smacking puppies, killing all 6 year olds with blue eyes, and ritual bloodletting that's a perfectly ok idea as long as it's a part of their culture? I think that there are ideas that transcend cultures and should be practiced worldwide, such as human rights.

Who said we're waging a war on Iraqi culture? The government we oppose is most decidedly NOT representative of the peoples values and culture.
Change frequently happens through cultures influencing eachother, such as the industrial revolution. It's not like every advancement and change the US has made has come solely from within itself.

One really good thing that came from the middle east (more specifically turkey) is the kebab, AWESOME fast food ;D Don't know if you have it over there in the US but it's really wide-spread here in Sweden anyway.

I do not see how america can play the 'legal' lets uphold the will of the UN card when the US coninues to bac the actions of Israel. Israel continues the illigal occupation of westbank etc, and the UN has orderd that it ceases the illegal settlement of israeli's on this land etc. Yet Israel has totally ignored this. even flaunting the fact that it has done so. WHY then do the americans support these actions? why? becasue the buss administration is too scared that it will loose the jewish vote if it applys any pressure whatsoever on israel.

Saddam Hussain is a threat. But the biggest threat to world piece is the ape sitting in oval office in the white house.

DONER KEBABS KAMI!!! AAAH those rule. when i wasn't a vegetarian those were sooOOoOooO good.

Yeah kebabs are great.  Cookie, this is turning into a Buccaneeresque line-by-line debate - you misinterpret one line, I have to correct you, I misinterpret you, you have to correct me.  

Going with the major ideas, take this for an example:


You were discussing Kenya's tribal "backwardness".  Have you ever read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?  I highly recommend it to you, if only to foster a little more thought from different perspective.  The issue cookie is that even when you try to view things from a "human" perspective, you still are affected by your own opinions and society.  Recognize that not every culture has the same view of barbarism as yours.  Why should we, simply because we believe strongly in our cause, try to change other cultures?  And a war against Iraq, if we try to justify it in the name of "oppressed" people, is really a war against the culture of Hussein.  Recognize that if his rule were so terrible by THEIR standards, they would have done something about it.  It simply isn't the responsibility of the United States to make the change.

People don't hate the United States for our presence or even our corporations as much as they hate the country for its pervasive propaganda - "life is better in the US".  Well, it is by our standards, but it's time we became aware that other standards of living exist.

Ultimately, we shouldn't make value judgements that determine that our life of big houses, materialism and waste is better than others' relative hunger and shortened life.  I prefer my existence to theirs, but were I in their position I don't know that I would prefer to be filthy rich.  Sometimes it's better to be dirt poor.


Ok, enough generalization.  If the United States attacks Iraq, it won't do anything to improve American security, would likely increase the chance of terrorism, and will potentially set off a chain reaction of unrest throughout the Middle East and the world.  furthermore, it will destabilize the UN, creating a world with no moral authority, allowing "bad" dictatorships to flourish and requiring the United States as policeman forever.

Or, instead of harping on the fact that Iraq doesn't want to disarm and is doing so gradually, we could just let the UN slowly push them toward it.  As long as Iraq is sanctioned as much as it is, the country is no threat to anyone, whether it has a few weapons or not.  Minor detail:  27 countries have nuclear capabilities. . .simply having weapons doesn't mean you'll use them.  Saddam is in no position whatsoever to use weapons of mass destruction.

oops while I was writing this loudnotes wrote something short & sweet and undercut me. oh well. kudos loudnotes.
I have seen this same pro-colonialism argument played out far too many times. There are several problems with it. The first problem is the fact that it only examines the current state of India and pays no respect to conditions when India (or whatever other country) was actually under colonial rule. The people were cruelly oppressed under the colonial system, and much loss of life had to occur to get Britain out. Can you say that the oppression of multiple generations is worth the economic progress India is making now? This same argument can be applied to Iraq. Many Iraqis are going to have to die in order for the US to get where it wants to be in terms of regime change. Are their lives worth the change that will happen? Especially when there is no guarantee on when or what type of changes will happen? Even if Iraq eventually became democratized, would it be worth those lives? An oppressed life is better than no life at all.

Another problem with your pro-colonialism argument is that it judges countries only on economic status. It also assumes that steps toward modernization and industrialization would not have occurred without imperial presence. There was a point in history where well over half of the world's landmasses were controlled by the British empire. What about all the countries in Africa and South America that were raped by colonialism? It's both unfair and a copout to decree that the only reason they have modern problems is because they are not sufficiently westernized. There's no worse vision in my mind than all of the world emulating America. Morally, we are far superior to a nation like Iraq. On the whole though we are a very immoral nation. We are greedy, solipsistic, and have a wealth of domestic and international problems that deserve more attention than Iraq.



Why shouldn't they be representative of the US? After all, the US government is representative of them. They are the most powerful political force in this country. They are also run by US citizens. Our free market economy is running all over the world and they have full support of the government. Look at international organizations like the IMF and World Bank. Government and business are practically intertwined.


How often has this actually worked cookie? I remember quite a few failures in this policy (Latin America, anyone?) and off the top of my head can't think of a success.

Agreed. But the Bush administration has ignored the two major attempts at worldwide agreement on public goods. Kyoto and International Criminal Court were both pooh-poohed. So why are we waging a questionable war of shaky moral integrity and goals while more concrete objectives are ignored?

Yeah, but those were changes in the US were changes that the citizens agreed on and wanted to make. We think that Iraq wants democracy, but there isn't really any way to be sure. I guess we'll just have to wait and see  :o

I'd like to present the example of Tibet prior to the Chinese persecution.  They didn't have a democracy.  The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama was found and he was leader until death.  The goverment was run by the religious institution of Tibetan Buddhism.  There wasn't great economic improvement and it was largely just a agriculture based, self-sufficient nation.

By American standards there are many things wrong with what I described above.  But can you really say Tibet would be best changed to being a democracy, capitalist, globalized country?  I think what they had was perfect for them.  They were a peaceful country and were largely satisfied.  So if you see from this that the US ideals aren't always the best, why should that not be a case in other places as well?

Tasty, maybe you need to put in the "at any price" part.  Do I think that peace at any price is wrong, absolutely.  I don't think it's worth being a slave in order to have peace.  You see, the "peace at any price" people, being on an extreme, blind themselves as much as any war hawk.

Oh, and I used the word blind, not stupid Tasty.

I forgive you for not knowing a real personal attack Loudnotes.  I pointed out that Bondo makes a general statement about idiots boycotting, and how wrong that is, especially since it seems that any attempt for anyone to agree with anything the USA does seems to be idiotic (like supporting the removal of military bases, etc).  Bondo defends the peaceful demonstrations, and political pressures of the rest of the world against the USA, but not when the same tatics are used here.  It's very disgusting.  But, all that said, it's not a personal attack.  A personal attack would sound more like "Loudnotes, you are a fucking idiot.  I wish your mother had believed in abortion, and taken care of you before we ever had to put up with you."  That is a personal attack.  I, on the other hand, attaced his statement and stance.


I don't dismiss you out of hand, otherwise, that statement would be all I said.  But it is obvious that you do need to grow up.  For one, like I just said, you need to be able to tell determine what is a personal attack, vs what is an attack at a statement or stance.  That, for one, is a place you really need to grow up.  Find that offensive?  Too bad.


There you go, another good example.  There are plenty of people that I disagree with here, that I don't write off.  Abe to name one.  Why?  Because Abe makes good points, and ones that backs up what he is saying.  Because he doesn't fall into stereotypes and other weak vocabulary (like "everyone does it").  He also doesn't ignore when strong points are made against his argument.

But now you've followed the Bondo trend, of saying that I belittle anyone that doesn't agree with me.  When what I really do is belittle weak little arguments.


It's called demonstrating support, not protesting for a war.  And it's no more or less ridiculous as the people demonstrating their protest.  Think about it.  If you support what the president is doing and saying, why in the hell would it be ridiculous to show your public support of that, in the face of public demonstrations of protest?  

What you don't seem to get, Loud, is some people seem to think it's time for the last resort.  You don't have to agree with them, but you just dismissed them out of hand.  Hmmm.  What does that say?

And, btw, some people are pissed at France because of how they shit on Turkey Loudnotes.  Stop putting this into simple "us vs them" terms Loud.  I'm not upset at all about France's stance in the UN.  I'm upset only in the way they vetoed Turkey's request for planning.  What bothers me even more is the people that support that kind political game, while blasting the USA for any political pressure they apply.  It's childish.  The whole "it's ok for them to do it because they are on the right side" argument.  

So, loudnotes, what is it?  Does everyone have the right to voice their opinions in demonstration and boycott, or just the ones that agree with you?  Because you seem to be falling into the "it's ok for them" camp.

Just one thing Bucc, I don't think the Turks minded all that much about the French veto, they don't seem to want the Americans there now anyway do they?

Bucc, you've not paid any attention to my reasons for having my views.  You can't determine anything by just looking at the views without looking at the reason.  I've laid out exactly why I think those boycotting French goods are idiots.

You say my support of protesting the war but not supporting boycotting French goods is because of being completely stuck on one side.  Look at the two though.  I would have no problem with people protesting the French politics just like I support protesting the war.  But I don't support the boycott because it hurts French citizens for the action of the government which is no more justified than like I said, terrorists killing American citizens because they dislike the US government.  You continue to claim that I don't support my points or that they are blindly one way, yet you are the one who is blind in ignoring the support I provide.  That is why Loud and I have an issue with your quoting.  You don't respons to the whole commentary you reply to a point and don't realize that the point is not something that is to stand on its own but only as part of the whole argument.  And so by picking quotes rather than replying to the whole argument you aren't able to make any worthwhile objection to our stance.

You claim you are belittling weak arguments not those that you don't agree with.  An argument is like a house, it has support as a house has walls.  Taken by themseleves the walls are not a house, but when together they make a solid house.  What you are doing it taking the individual walls and telling us it is not a house.  What you need to do is look at the walls together and see the house and tell us if you think it is a nice house.  We are providing houses for you, you need to stop looking only at the walls.

Here's a quote from a couple weeks ago (the patriot act argument I believe):

So yes, apparently you think people with strong moral convictions are stupid. And I don't really think they are blind either, it's merely a value judgment. Some would rather die than kill. And unlike the beliefs of "war hawks", their values aren't intentionally harmful.

Buccaneer, I suppose I'm responding to the same sentiment Tasty just expressed.  When you are belittling these so-called "weak" arguments, you do so without respect for the poster, and the argument as a whole.  I have nothing against creative us of language, but reread your last post and tell me you DON'T sound impossibly condescending.  

Tasty, you again take a quote out of it's full context.  Do you write for the liberal media?  Cause you could.  Notice the "just as much".  As in, there was more too it.  

And there you go putting in "strong moral convictions".  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  There are plenty of "strong moral convictions" besides peace at any price, aren't there?  So if you want the "for dummies" version, I'll say it very clear.  

People that believe in peace at any price are just as stupid as people that believe war is always the best answer.

And peace at any price doesn't just mean your own life.  The price could mean things I'd find even worse.  Anyone that thinks violence is never necessary in our world is just as wrong as the person that thinks it's always a good answer.

Kami, the Turks are still upset by it, or haven't you read anything from them.  Btw, the veto that France (and other) did had absolutely nothing to do with Americans being there.

On top of that, the Turkish government has said they want Americans there, they have just been backing down to some of the demonstrations.  Look at both sides of it Kami.


And that right there is where you are wrong Bondo.  They are nothing alike.

Americans don't owe anything to the French.  So, our purchasing of their goods is boost to them.  By us choosing not to, it's applying public pressure, just like their demonstrations.  It's not even really political pressure yet, because it's not like the government has raised tariffs or anything.  Not only that, but how many countries out there tax incoming American products fair (compared to our tariffs)?  So, it's not the responsibility of the USA or it's citizens to support any other countries economy.  And by "protesting with my wallet", I'm showing France the same thing it has shown me.

It's very justified.  And it's peaceful.

And to use your wall analogy, your house can't stand if the walls are weak.  Doesn't matter how many of them there are, if they are too week, the house just wont stand.

Bucc, please explain how I took anything you said out of context. Because I don't think I did. You say notice the "just as" part, as if this is indicative of me taking your quotes out of context. So here is the entire thing:


How again does this change the meaning of what you said? Is it somehow supposed to make your assertions about the stupidity of those "assholes" who support "peace at any price" more acceptable because you said the same about those who like war? And as if you didn't already have enough generalizations in your post, you threw in the liberal media schtick.

Yes, I also asserted that that pacifists had strong moral convictions. How is this putting words in your mouth? I never wrote anything about you saying they had strong moral convictions. Yes, there are plenty of strong moral convictions besides those of pacifists. But that doesn't change the fact that pacifists have strong moral convictions. Then you give the "for dummies" version, since I must have been too stupid to understand what you said. You proceed to repeat the same thing you said before.

Although I oppose violence to solve problems in almost every situation, I recognize that occasionally force must be used. Some people believe in different philosophies, religions, or moral frameworks than I do and believe that violence is never the answer. This does not make them stupid. I'm sure there are pacifists out there that have higher IQs than either of us. I admire them, you don't; that's fine. You can think they are wrong without insulting them or their intelligence though, and that's the point.

Bucc, you can't say my point is weak when you miss it so badly.

Tell me how exactly boycotting French goods doesn't hurt French citizens?  Tell me exactly how the boycott isn't based on actions of the French government.  Seeing as you won't be able to tell me either since depriving money from the citizens does hurt them, and the boycott is because of actions of the government, tell me how my statement that it is an action that punishes the citizens for actions of the government isn't correct?

And if that is correct which I'm sure it is, how is punishing of citizens for actions of the government different from punishing citizens for the actions of the government?  Obviously they aren't different since they are the exact same thing.

You also completely missed the wall analogy Bucc.  It was about not being able to judge the house based on its parts, it is more than a sum of its parts.  Thus when you take one line of the argument and critisize the argument based on it, you are judging the house based on one of its parts.  The point is, look at the whole fucking argument and not just one line.  The point I've tried to tell you numerous times, the point that Loud has tried to tell you numerous times, the point you just seem to fail to grasp.

The NATO forces that would have been sent to reinforce their defence (that was never under threat anyway) would probably have been mostly American...

And then, the Turkish government backed down to the will of the parliament (the people), not because of the demonstrations.

I suppose if you fail to quote a statement, that means you agree with it Buccaneer?  

Try responding to me or anyone else without quoting anything, just once Bucc.  And don't refer to exact statements either.  Just attack the "house" as a whole. . .if it didn't stand alone you wouldn't have the need to pick apart the walls.

Those boycotting french goods reserve that right however I will not be excercising it. To boycott people who stand up for peace is simply....idiotic (for lack of a better word). At any rate The turks have reason not to let us through, they would be attacked by other middle east countries if they let us through and thus subject to terror.


Sorry if i post this twice i have an add on.

CLASHING VIEW OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

<>iraq is not cooperating with the UN but if the UN doesnt agree with war we will attack anyway, NOW whose not co operating

Yes, it is.  Also, I was talking about in your first post, you quoted me, and then said I called them stupid, but in the quote you posted, I called them blind.  So you used one quote, while commenting from another.  Catching on yet?


Tasty, here's you putting words in my mouth:
     Bucc - People that believe in peace at any price are just as blind as people who think war is always the answer.
     Tasty - So you are saying that anyone with strong moral convictions is blind?

I wasn't talking about all people with "strong moral convictions", you were.  You were throwing my context into general categories while I was being specific about them.  And you continue here.  I'm not talking about all pacifists either.  After all, Sgt York (you know, most decorated US soldier from WW1) was a pacifist.  Pacifist doesn't mean peace at any price.  Pacifist is subjective, with levels.  After all, there are physical pacifists that believe in verbal abuse like you wouldn't believe.  There are pacifists that think violence is ok, but not killing.  Some that believe all killing, of even a tiny bug is wrong.  So, don't twist what I'm saying.  

I'm saying that some people believe in peace at any price.  They are every bit as wrong (call it blind, call it asshole, call it anything, doesn't matter, just call them the same) as the war mongers.  

What's the difference between peace at any price and others?  

"There is no excuse, ever for going to war.  No matter what they do, you can't let the people suffer."

"I don't believe that Iraq is a threat yet, we shouldn't risk war and the after effects until we have exhausted every effort to solve this peacefully."

Big difference between the two.  The second quote, the person is actually thinking about the costs, to EVERYONE, and understands that sometimes violence, while bad, is necessary.  The first quote has blinded themselves to any other options.  Not looking, listening or reasoning.  They have made up their mind that peace at any price is the answer.

The world isn't a non-violent place.  And sometimes, violence is required to stop greater violence.  Otherwise, we go back to anarchy, with whoever is the biggest and strongest takes what they want, because nobody thinks it's worth stopping them.


Fuck 'em.  I insult their lack of common sense openly.  High IQ doesn't always mean wisdom, does it?  

First, anyone that blinds themselves to the other side of the argument isn't that intelligent.  If you can't look at both sides, and accept that your side may not be right, you just aren't that smart.  

You'd be very interested to know that people that are extreme pacifists test very much like people that are terrorists.  They both have their faith, their strong convictions, and are unwilling to see the other side.  Look up studies about how much cops and criminals have in common.  They are opposite sides of the same coin in so many ways.  

Second, I know PhD's that are smart as all get out, that can't keep their checkbook balanced.  That have no common sense at all.  High IQ, low Wisdom.  They aren't the same thing.

So I see your point, and my point is, I can disagree, and insult them =D.  

Kami, you are confusing more then one thing there.

The NATO Veto we are talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with sending troops into Turkey.  NOT A DAMN THING.  It was a call for planning in case of invasion BY IRAQ.  Not a call for preperations.  Not a call for aid.  Not a call for anything but PLANNING.

That's what pisses me, and many other off about it.  

Nope, and fuck off.

To say that is to ignore what the people protesting are talking about Zaitsev.  It's not France's want for peace that has pissed me off.  They can stay the hell out of it all they want, and it doesn't matter to me one wit.  It was France, Germany and Belgium that stopped Turkey's request for planning that pissed off many people.  They used their position in NATO against another member's request to jab at the US.  That was very very wrong in my opinion.  And many others.  

So the only think idiotic is not listening to what they are bitching about Zaitsev.  

Bondo, I didn't miss the point you were trying to make.  I completely, wholeheartedly disagreed with it.  What part of my post didn't you understand?


Bondo, I made that very clear.  I'll try a different way.  There's a store down the street from me.  The owner is convicted of child molestation.  He's out on bail, pending appeal.  Now, I can:

A) Continue to shop there and support the bastards legal fees.
B) Protest with my wallet, and take my business elsewhere.
C) Take my shotgun in the store, blow away the place, including the clerks that work there.

B would be my answer.  I chose to no longer support them.  Peaceful.  Easy.  Yes, the clerks may hurt because many customers are lost, and it's not directly their fault, but they do still work for the bastard, and in this case, support his little sickness that he just needs help with.

C, that would be the terrorist response.  

Don't keep trying to make B and C sound alike Bondo.  Because that's what you are doing.  Implying that the rational is the same, while ignoring the level of response.  

Get it yet?


LOL.  Because you and Loud are WRONG.  That's why.

I know that logic isn't your strong suit, but try to follow.  If you make a false premise, then your conclusion is not supported.  Just one false premise in a whole argument is all it takes.  

And yes, I got your house analogy, but you still don't see where it tracks.  If there was a need for a load bearing wall in the plans, and that wall isn't there (or is in the wrong place, not to spec, whatever, if it's WRONG), then the house will fall down.  The analogy fits, and so does my use of it.  

One last thing, I usually take many, many lines of your arguments apart Bondo, not just one.  Don't flatter yourself.

Ok, I probably misunderstood the situation but still, why would they want to plan for defense against a nation that has no invasion forces? It would also have been seen as a step in the direction of war anyway. I don't understand why this would piss so many people off, it's just logical imo.

Bucc, your analogy to put it gently sucks ass.  I am talking about the punishing of people for the actions of a government and you suggest the example of punishing a shopowner for the actions of the shopowner.  In my example you punish one person for the actions of another, in your example you punish the person for the actions by that person.  Since the examples are completely different, I'd be fine with you choosing to punish the shopowner.

Also, I never said the actions of killing vs. boycotting were the same.  But the target of punishing some for the actions of the government ARE the same in both cases, even if one is a worse action to result from it.  Sorry, but you haven't disproven anything about my stance Bucc, you continue to skirt the issue without providing anything.

Bucc, you STILL don't get my house example.  It has nothing to do with the strength of the walls.  It simply has to do with a wall not being a house.  I'm not talking about strength of arguments, I'm saying that you can only judge a house based on the house, not on its parts.

Anyway, I guess I'm just wrong, Loud is just wrong, Zait is just wrong, kami is just wrong, and tasty is just wrong.  We are all completely mistaken in our statements because you disagree, and of course you hold all the knowledge in the world.  Sorry, but I won't hold back from being absolute, you DO piss on anybody that disagrees with you.

Hmm.  Does your latest 1000-words not reinforce the point I've been trying to get across Bucc?  I simply don't have the time or energy to itemize a response of what is wrong with each sentence you said.  I'll take it that "fuck off" was part of a whole. . .it doesn't exactly stand well on it's own does it?

But you know what?  If you persist in debating this way - the online equivalent of shouting down your opponent - you're not going to have much of anyone to debate with.  I fully expect you to be able to respond to what I'm writing here.  But the how the hell is anyone supposed to synthesize your dissertation into a coherent argument that can be nitpicked?  It can hardly be done - how do you nitpick the nitpicking?  You haven't even come up with any original argument that anyone else could decimate - you've focused only on attacking others'.

So. . .if I were to "fuck off" then what?  You win?  Congratulations.  Personally I use this board to test my own ideas against the opinions of others.  I'm not quite sure what you use it for. . .  

It's fully possible to have debate, which involves at least two parties responding, without any one party completely silencing the other.  That's not the point of this.  Or if it is to you, you're in the wrong place.

Errr...Bondo, I think Bucc's analogy is actually quite good, and that you may have missed something...

You say that in your example, one person is being punished for the actions of another, while in Bucc's analogy no one but the offender is punished.  Did you read this sentence from Bucc's post??

Seems like that sentence addresses your problem with his analogy...someone being "punished" for the actions of another.  Might wanna revise your argument on that one.

Cobra, the issue is about who is directly hurt.  In my examples, the people not the governments are the ones directly hurt, while the goverments are the ones hurt by relation.

In Bucc's example the offender is hurt directly and the clerks are hurt indirectly.  A better example would be boycotting the store because the clerks did something wrong.

Bondo, then you must have a problem reading very deeply into both sides.  In the analogy, even when boycotting the store, the clerks suffer (because they lose money, may get laid-off, etc).  They aren't different.  Take the time to think about it.


What you said was:


Sounds like you just equated them to me.  Like I've been saying.  It's much more justified, because it's a proportional response.  What I've been saying is it's about proportionate response.  They piss us off, we stop supporting them.  Big difference between that and killing them off.  

The reason your stance is so off Bondo, is that you take the free out of free market.  The way you see it, I shouldn't organize boycotts against Pepsi Co, for their deforestation of the Amazon, because it will cause the workers of that company to lose their jobs.  

This is a free market.  If the French people are hurt by a boycott along with the government (since both will feel any effect to the economy), so be it.  They are a democratic nation too.  

So, Bondo, stop lumping boycott, embargo, and terrorism all in there together.  Hell, and I've said this before, if you really feel that way, you should be pissed at the French for their imposed trade deficit with the USA.  Right?  Charging higher tariffs on USA goods, so that less is imported, and that which is, the French still make money off.  It's not the US's job to support the economy of any other nation.  Especially when those other nations do not support ours, but hurt it.


FUCK!  And you and Loud accuse me of talking down, while you fucking do it all the time.  I know I talk down, but I don't bitch about it from others, other then to point out the hypocritical nature of their comments.  I've said it, I'll say it again.  I got you point.  I don't agree.  I think you are fucking wrong!!  What don't you get about that?

I'm judging the house based on the house.  And the house I see is a pile of rubble, because the walls (individual arguments) weren't strong enough to hold the roof up.  Your house fell down Bondo.  How am I not getting your analogy?


Bondo, you piss on more people then I do, all the fucking time.  I've proven it over and over.  Just like I've proven your absolute wrong, with my abe example.

I piss on you because you make an argument, and if I don't agree, you ignore what I write and just say "you don't get it".  So Bondo, yes, I'm both smatter and wiser then you.  Why?  Not because I have all the knowledge in the world, but because I don't ignore gaps and whole fucking holes in my own logic.  

Bondo, here's why you are wrong here.  The store owner wouldn't be the one hurt first.  He'd be ok, while cutting back on the store clerks pay, then getting rid of some, etc.  It's the way business works.  The store clerks would suffer first.  The clerks would hurt directly too in my analogy.

If you turn it around, it still works too.

Store owner hires the clerk.  We boycott because of the molester working there.  Store owner refused to fire the clerk.  Store can't afford to pay as much.  Both suffer.  Worst case, store goes out of business, owner is bankrupt, clerk out of work.  Both got hurt because they are connected through economy.  No two ways about it.  Doesn't matter which side you take.  

Connect it to the French.  It's up to them to decide if they support their government actions, and don't mind pissing us off and losing our business (which seems to be the case) or if they push their government to play nice.

First analogy was better though, but Bondo doesn't see that the clerks get hurt too in it.

Fine, then fuck off and don't debate with me.  Doesn't matter to me either way Loudnotes.  You don't like my style, fine.  You've said it, I've said in other threads that I wont be changing it, and why.  Now get over it or stop debating with me.  Or, fuck off.  Does that not reinforce the point I've been trying to get across Loud?  


Go to a debate sometime Loud.  Join the debate club at your school.  This isn't shouting down your opponent.  If you think it is, then you don't really understand the concept.  Shouting down your opponent is what Rapid does, when he keeps repeating the same thing, over and over, without any regard to what anyone else has said.  Not addressing any point.  

On the other hand, what you are doing is going after the person, not the argument.  You make it personal.  You don't like the way I debate, so you attack that, and not the points I make.


Really?  All I ever say is "you are wrong".  I never, in my posts, say why, then express what I think is right?  If you think that, you obviously need to read more slowly, getting deeper into it.  

It can hardly be done?  Again I say bullshit.  I can do it.  Others can do it to me.  You may have trouble doing it, but it's not hard, and not even close to the herculean task you make it out to be.


Loudnotes, if you fuck off, it means I don't have to listen to a whiney voice bitching about they way I debate, instead of about the issues and opinions.  


I've not asked, nor tired to silence anyone.  You have been the one trying to curtail the way I debate, not the other way around Loudnotes.  And it's an old Bondo argument that I've been through before.  I use a style of debate, recognized by many philosophers.  You don't like it, ok, good for you.  I'm not changing it because you don't.  If you want to talk about it, it's good points and bad, go back and read the thread where I discussed it with Bondo, so we can start where we left off, and I'm not repeating myself.

But it's up to you.  You want to convince me my method of debate is wrong (instead of telling me like you are an expert on it), then try.  You want to just whine about it, and ignore the issues at hand, then fuck off.  Because your bitching about it isn't adding anything to the actual topics anyway.  

Or is that why you come here?  

*Looks at his comment...then Bucc's, then back at his, then back at Bucc's...scratches head*

Anyway, I don't deny the right to boycott French goods, I'm just saying it is no better reasoning than the terrorists reasoning for 9/11.  Saying that neither action is more justified doesn't mean the actions are equal just that the motives are.  So I'm not failing to understand free market...I am giving the freedom to take that action, I just am saying it is idiotic to do so with the reasoning that they do.

As for France, they aren't putting the tarrifs because the US disagrees with them or to punish the US.  You do realize that motive is a big issue here right Bucc?

About my house being rubble...you CANNOT use opinion as a proof of a weak argument.  That is what you do...that and use misreading/misinterpreting.  In essance what you are doing is not seeing my house as rubble but actually driving your bulldozer of differing opinion, misreading, and misunderstanding into my house and wrecking it.  What I'm providing is a solidly built house but you are only looking at it after you've destroyed it.

I'm with Loud, if you don't change your arguing style, you aren't going to have many people left who argue with.  I for one won't be acknowledging your posts that you use your point by point manner anymore.  If you want me to read what you write and have a debate, then you will need to act appropriately.

I think what the UN needs to do is remove everyone's veto right.  I think whether a resolution passes should purely be on account of it winning a majority (or perhaps 2/3 majority) of the votes.  As such, I don't think France should veto, I think they should simply vote against any resolution that says there will be war.  Add Russia, China, Germany, etc in.  If the resolution gets the 9 votes then go with it, if they don't which I suspect they wouldn't if they weren't bribing every country, then the US has to just accept it.  No country should have more say or rights than any other in the UN.

I think that the large numbers of other countries that are opposed to the war show that France isn't merely trying to show that they have power when they really don't, they merely are using the power that they do have in the form of the ability to veto to push their case, just like the US is using its power (money and bombs) to push its case.  It is a fault of the UN setup that should be reformed and the French shouldn't be blamed for it.

And I'm saying you are wrong.  I'm saying one is an appropriate response of removing my support.  The other is an inappropriate response.  And you can't separate motive from action.  The people of France seem to be backing their government, and why should I support them economically when I don't agree with them?  Tell me that??  


Sure Bondo, and what is the motive for unfair trade policies?  Is it an acceptable motive, or idiotic in your book?


Nope Bondo.  First little breeze and your house of cards comes falling down.  See, what you can not use is OPINION to build an OPINION on, which is what you do.  You are supposed to use facts to form opinions, not build opinions upon opinions.  And anytime anyone brings up facts (aka, the bulldozer) that don't agree with your opinions, you ignore them.  And it's not misreading.  We have a whole thread showing how you bring weak arguments, that you redefine words to make them fit.  


And I say, fuck you.  I don't care.  Seeing as I do have an undergraduate degree which covers debate like a jimmy hat, I do think that my method is appropriate.  You don't like my style, too bad.  I sure as hell am not going to change it for you.  To use your own words against you once again, I know my professors are better judges on the topic then you or Loudnotes.  And I also know what my GPA was for both my degrees.  You may not like my style, but it is completely recognized and used in debate and philosophy, and has been since the time of Plato.  So it is very appropriate.

Funny how often I've seen that lately.  I'm not going to get into whether that's an effective tactic or not, but we are debating questions of opinion - there's very little hard fact.  And as much as I dislike your arguments, the only thing that has been "wrong" has been your interpretation of others' comments.  Otherwise, we're all just as right as another, though some of us may be a little misguided.

Bondo, I agree with you that the VETO is too powerful and easy to use, giving too much power to some nations within the UN.  However, I think equal rights come with equal responsibilities.

What I mean is, if every nation wants the same rights and weight in the UN, they have to support it equally.  That means, when the UN decides to act in say, Africa (to stay off the current issues), then every country in the UN should have to send supplies and forces for the peace keeping troops.  The burden shouldn't be just with largest countries, should it?

Why should a country that never puts it's lives, or even money on the line, have as much say as those that do?

I'm not saying that they have to send as many people, or spend as much money as the USA (though, that would be nice too).  I'm saying that every country, to be equal, has to share the burden equally as well.  

Until that happens, I think some countries should have more say and power in the UN, since they risk more, spend more, and shoulder more of the responsibility.  To me, they go hand in hand.


Bondo, for France to vote down action against Iraq is all good with me.  It's their right, and if that's the way they feel, their duty to vote that way.  It's not anything I hold against them.  Many others feel the same was as I do.

I do think that the veto is more an abuse of power then the use of it.  That goes for anyone using it, including the USA.  

I also think that if Bush doesn't go before Congress, and get it's approval before actually attacking Iraq, he's abusing his powers too.  He has the right to do it, but there is no reason for him to not go before Congress, unless he thinks they wont support the war.

I think that each country should be obligated to commit troops and money as it is proportionally able. For example, if the US GDP is 8 times bigger and the US military is 20 times bigger (figures made up just for the sake of this example) than a country like Angola, the US should be obligated to commit forces and money in that proportion to Angola.

Does anyone know if Bush plans to take the war to congress? I'm sure it will pass, but with what proportion of votes? Some political weasels on the democratic side have changed their opinion on the war now that the midterm elections are over and now say that they will oppose a war. I'm thinking maybe a 65-35 vote in the senate?

I would actually like to see it completely equal (think about it, if every nation put up, they woudn't need many from any one nation).  

I'll make up easy numbers for the math.  If there are 100 countries in the UN, then if it calls for 100,000 peace keeping troops and $10,000,000 to enforce a resolution, then each nation should have to send 1000 troops and $100,000.  If you can't afford one, you have to make it up in the other.  This is very simplified, of course.  Rotation or any other method would be acceptable.  But when you spread the burden out over all the nations, they should all be able to shoulder an equal amount.

I look at it like a flat tax.  I'd be much happier with a flat % tax rate in the USA, then the graduated rates we have now.  I don't think it's actually fair or equal that just because someone has more, they owe more.  

That would be the perfect solution in my opinion.  But I'd even accept the graduated one if it came about.


I haven't heard a whisper of it.  And knowing Bush, I doubt he'll do it.  He is the bull in the china shop.

Yeah, I'd expect it to pass, maybe more like 75-25.  Even though public opinion is closer then that, only in areas where public opinion is strongly anti-war would Congress dare to vote against it (IMO).  

I'd like to say that by withdrawing from having a vote on the new resolution...the US proves that it wasn't going to get a majority of votes.  French veto aside, it wouldn't pass.  Now some say that the French threat made people waver on their support, but that is as much a sign of how much the US was doing to bribe votes as anything.  They wouldn't have reason to oppose the US just because of a French veto unless they truly were in opposition to the US.  Seeing as the French veto is in essance not mattering, I think it is time we get off their case.  They have a different view and in the run of things the US wasn't supported by the UN as a whole.  This war is thus unjustified as all international conflict needs to be covered by UN law to be justified.  And people who say 1441 covered the war and that we didn't need to get another, that is untrue, it was vague so that it does not give justification to the war.

Anyway, seeing as Saddam is stating that he won't leave, expect the war to start tomorrow, when it is nighttime in Iraq.

You got it.  You take it out of context.  Again.  You are the undesputed king of that so far.

And, btw asshole, you still changed it.  You took it from the middle of a sentence, and changed the Y so it looks like it is the whole of the sentence.  Or was that another simple typo?

Want to continue to escilate this asshole, no problem.  But that's on you.  I've told you I'm not changing my style for you.  You've demanded it.  I've told you fine, ignore my posts, you can't seem to find it in you to do that.  Too bad.  What you haven't done is shown me any good reason on why I should change.  So you and Bondo don't like it.  Not a very good reason in my book.  So you are a moderator.  Another not so good reason.  So some people may find it hard to follow.  Again, not a great reason.  They can ask questions if that's the case.  So it makes it hard for you to respond.  To that I say "so what".  If it's too hard for you, don't.

What's your problem?  You're pretending to be better then this, but can't stay on a topic without bitching.  Guess you just aren't what you pretend to be.

I'm not really sure where all of that came from, nor why exactly you're so angry.  However, I just made 5 posts in your style in the other thread, which I suggest you read.  Capitalizing the Y was an editorialization, which did not change the substance of the quote.  Anyway, as I stated in my text about the quote, it was an example of taking something out of context.  Which, up until now, you have been the only one to do.

Why exactly are my reasons bad ones?  What are you trying to prove?  Why am I an asshole for wanting to have reasonable conversations?  What am I pretending to do?  When have I ever bitched about anything except for this?  Haven't I told you what my problem is?

When your posts attack me, I don't want to ignore them.
When your posts are on subject, I don't want to ignore them.
When you have something to say, I never wanted to ignore it.
When your posts are 3 pages long, I have to ignore at least part of them.

Do you care at all if people can read what you're saying?  If you don't, why are you bothering?  3 of the primary posters on this board have expressed a problem with your current style.  Who else are you talking to?

Oh for Christ's sake, have a sense of humor.  It was clearly not meant to be taken literally as the absolute connotation.  You ask if fake quotes are against the rules, I haven't heard that rule and certainly they shouldn't be when clearly for the sake of humor as Loud has done before or in this case where it makes a real point despite being taken out of context.  If he can't take something you did say and take it however he pleases, why should you be able to as you do constantly?

Loud, to his credit, has been on this forum as long as anyone and I have never seen him get in any grudges until now...in essance he is the polar opposite of me.  Mauti alone has a better record of being non-confrontational.

The simple fact of the matter is, is that Iraq, no matter how you look at it has violated treaties, it signed in 1991. That's 12 years of getting away with whatever they were doing in that time. I think that we should have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago during the Gulf War. I read today that after World War 1, Germany was forced to sign many treaties and as soon as Hitler came to power all those treaties (Am I spelling that right ?) were broken, and look at the result. World War 2. No one thought that Hitler was a dangerous as he turned out to be, look at the result. Millios upon Millions dead. The point is, is that we study history to learn from our mistakes. Saddam should not be underestimated and removed as soon as possible. As for the changing the name of Frech Fries to "Freedom Fires" I find that absolutly retarted in almost everysense of the word. I was enjoying my fries today at lunch when I heard about it and I smiply laughed. People have been calling fried "French Fries" for far to long now and this is a blantly stupid method of tryin to change their name.

Anyway, French Fries refers entirely to the manner in which they are made and in no way denote origin.  To french is to cut lengthwise and obviously we know what frying is since we are fat americans who like to max the fat ;)

Aww come on not a flat tax. Poor people in America already have extreme difficulty paying their rent and buying food at their current low tax rates? how would they possibly be able to survive if the tax rate was flat? This will probably make anger you, but I supported Nader's tax plan in 2000. He said that everything above 250,000 should go to the government. That's pretty extreme and I realize nothing like that will ever happen. Socialism, yes basically. Does it infringe on people's economic freedom? Yep. But honestly, who needs more than 250 grand a year?

I'd even let them have a little more than that tasty - maybe some people really do NEED a couple yachts and a jumbo jet.  But why not have an assets cap at around $100 million or so?  Or a tax of all annual income over $1 million.  Just an idea. . .

Afterall, is there really any practical objection to that other than the idealogical desire for as much money as can possibly be amassed?

Rather than taxing incomes down to a certain point (flat or graduated), I'd suggest we just gain control over the outrageous salaries some people get.

I would suggest something like Ben and Jerry's has which is based on something more like a Swedish system.  It has a 7:1 ratio of pay to the top employee (the CEO most likely) and the lowest paid employee.  So if the person is working for minimum wage (for the sake of math I'll lower it to $5/hr) that person would be earning just over 10k per year.  In that case the CEO would only get 75k per year.  Now obviously that is really low so the CEO would want more...lets say he wants 280k (again picked for simple math)...well, he can do that, he just has to pay the lowest paid employee 40k per year.

Now perhaps we don't do 7:1 but are a bit more generous and do 10:1.  And don't say they couldn't afford it.  Cutting the top employee from 200 million to 200 thousand provides plenty of money to trickle down through the ranks.  It would thus not impact the bottom line, but would raise general pay levels and make for better quality of life among the poorest but still provide incentive to move up.

Then you just cut out the income tax all together and use the Value Added Sales tax and get income that way which will not cause to great a loss in taxes as more people have spending power.  CEO salaries are a big part of the corruption that has been seen lately.  Paying a CEO hundreds of millions when the company is losing money and firing low pay employees right and left is just immoral.