posted
I can only react to people based on how they come across to me. I try to gather the best evidence that I can and make judgements off of that. If you've a better method, I'd like to hear it.
Was I wrong to find rivka dismissive and disrespectful, especially in the light of her accusing me of something that I clearly didn't do and that I've repeatedly said that I don't do (often in response to this blanket accusation)?
Was I wrong to apply the literal meaning of the word relief and consider OSC's past comments in coming up with why he chose that way of saying it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you didn't say you found her post dismissive and disrespectful, did you? You said she lacked integrity and had no shame.
And why even speculate on why OSC said what he said? You can't prove it, and there's a clear interpretation that is self-consistent and contrary to the one you made, even applying the literal meaning of the word. Why not say "here's how this can be interpreted, here's why even if he meant something else he shouldn't have said this, and here's the harm caused by such language"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that I thought that rivka had more integrity and sense of shame than to spring the "You said that all people who disagree with you are bigots." canned argument on me. I thought that she did this because it is clearly not what I said, was in fact something that I've constantly come out against, and because she was very disrespectful and dismissive.
On OSC, I thought as I did because he has made very similar statements in the past. When a person has repeatedly said that people who disagree with the Bush administration want our efforts to prevent terrorism or our soldiers in Iraq to fail and that they don't care about America and when that person makes a statement that read literally fits in snugly with that, I tend to intrepret things that way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, a Syrian hacker deleted your post because it held the key to the destruction of Syria...that's the risk in posting in international forums.
posted
Hehe. Why not post again? That'll both be passive resistance, and I'll be able to know what you had to say about the topic.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, what I think I said was that okay I was mostly speculating based on what I thought Mr Card had been implying in previous essays which I have been reading through 1 by 1 for the last... day. But nevertheless I had also said the Israel could still in any decisive military engagement against any Arab nation armed with 1970's(?) Soviet Weaponry kick the utter living cr*p out of them, occupatation and other stuff usually only occurs when I had already invaded given contry (in a game that is).
However, it is still possible to expand the current Israeli defence for in an emergancy, should say Syria begins taking it up a notch, just that Israel would be the oppurtune solution to America's porblem, the US can't possibly invade another country without a very good excuse and Syria isn't giving it, however Israel requires very little to prod them to seek actions to garantee their national security and should attacks persist or should information "conveniatly" fall into the hdans of the Israeli'[s it wouldn't be improbable that with American assurance seek to secure their borders with military means.
That is my speculation.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your entire statement that Israel should invade Syria is based on these arguments: This war would end quickly because Israel has a superb army. The US will support Israel. Israel is waiting for an excuse to go to war. You also seem to believe that Israel is like America in terms of its national security strategy and actions, but just smaller and far away.
Neither of these statements is true. Here are my arguments:
1. How this war will look like: First of all, this won’t be a regular war, it might include unconventional weapons, plus it will be a war against terrorists fighting Guerilla, so the war cannot end without having to occupy territories in which millions of Israel-hating Arabs live. Are you forgetting Vietnam? “Those sissy commies – America’ll kick their darned butts and finish the war in weeks” – and the US lost. So think Vietnam but much, much, worse. And don't forget that also Iran and other Arab countries will be involved.
2. Inability to regret and turn back: Unlike America who can always withdraw – Israel cannot. We are practically living between Arab countries, and if we flee it will only encourage them to destroy us – because they believe they are closer to achieving that goal, and rightfully so.
3. International reaction: If Israel invades Syria, the UN and the international public opinion will be against us. Perhaps you don’t know this, but Israel has never been “liked ” in the world. The world opinion will almost always be anti-Israel pro-Arab (yes, even today with world terrorism). Example: a Palestinian woman, in the disguise of a pregnant woman, hid a bomb under her dress and then turned out to be a suicide bomber and she caused many deaths. Nothing about it in the world news. However, several days later a pregnant Palestinian woman at a barrier claims to be pregnant and must see the hospital, but she has no proper certification and does not agree to expose her stomach to prove that she is indeed pregnant (there are only men soldiers in the barriers). The women was sick, hid behind the bushes while trying to give birth – and died. The world news was celebrating on the scoop and as usual portrayed Israel as a fascist conqueror, which of course we aren’t. We aren’t even occupiers. [HISTORICAL BACKGROUND] The West Bank actually belongs to us (the Gaza Strip is controversial, personally I think not), even though I believe we should disengage from parts of it some day, if the Palestinians prove that they are capable of having peace with Israel. [/HISTORICAL BACKGROUND] Also, no western leader (including Bush) wants to seem as Israel’s partner for war. From that reason, in Gulf War I the US pressed Israel not join the war – because that would give an incentive for the Arabs to be even more anti-western. Do you know how they refer to the US and Israel? The big devil and the little devil. The US doesn’t like that one bit.
4. You’re always forgetting that the Israeli army is just too busy!!! The forces will have to leave Israel, none will be left (there just aren’t enough), and the Palestinians will destroy Israel country from the inside!
So yes, Israel’s army is superb, well equipped and very experienced in combat in the Middle East. That is why Syria, despite supporting terrorism, fears us and will never, ever dare attack Israel directly. The power of threat is much stronger than a real war, plus casualties = zero. We attacked a Syrian military base with a missile because Syria started to hint taking slightly more aggressive actions towards Israel. Assad kissed Sharon’s arse for months after that. Don’t you think that’s a way better than losing men over a useless war? I am sure that if nations who don’t have the same problems unite together and decide to invade Syria, Israel will support them and allow them to set bases on its territory. But Israel will not be the US’s “opportunity” at the cost of Israeli lives. Don’t forget this – war will not solve everything. We (the west) need Arabs that truly object terrorism, from the bottom of their hearts – who are brave enough to fight it themselves. Even moderate Arabs don’t like the western intervention; it makes them feel like in the Colonial era.
[MORE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – not related to our debate] – did you know that there was no such thing as a Palestinian nation until the end of WWII, when France and Britain divided the middle east between them and Israel was not a part of Syria (which then included Lebanon and other areas). Those Arabs who lived in where Israel is today, who wanted to be part of “the great Syria” – were now isolated, and they resorted to hoping that the Arabs living in what was once called Palestine will gain control of it. In 1947, the UN decided on dividing Palestine to two states – an Arab one (45% of the lands) and a Jewish one (55% of the lands). The Arabs living in Palestine claimed: “we will have everything or nothing”, and started the war which turned into Israel’s war of Independence, against seven Arab countries. They ended with nothing. During the war of Israel’s independence, 1948, many Palestinians fled to other Arab countries. Those countries did not accept them and allow them to become citizens, but kept them in refugee camps for decades – on purpose, because they didn’t want them and they preferred that Israel would have to deal with them. The Palestinians realized that they belong nowhere, the hatred was deepened, and their goal became to destroy Israel and to establish an autonomic Palestinian state. [/HISTORICAL BACKGROUND]
posted
Alright, as I said just speculation. Either way I very do much respect and admire Israel and its detemrination to mantain its freedoms, though I don't know about you but I don't like or trust Sharon, since I'm pretty damn sure he's responsible for what are easily war crimes at worst sever negligence at best in lebanon.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sharon cannot be trusted on the long run. But sometimes, in dark times, and situations of difficult decision-making you need a strong leader to bend democracy a little, to get things done. For an example, the Disengagement Plan. If a true democrat were the Prime Minister, it would have taken forever until Israel rid of those territories. To fight terrorism you need a strong leader – which is exactly why Bush was elected. I don’t think that his socio-economic views and beliefs are the source of the support in him, but people were driven by fear that Kerry won’t be strong enough to deal with today’s hard-core terrorism.
The question is – after we achieve that goal, who will be PM? I’ve set my mind on two people. In my first priority – Ami Ayalon, a former Brigadier-General and Chief of the Israeli navy, the former head of the Shabac (like the American FBI), and an initiator of many leftist projects, some of them very famous. Until now he refused to join politics due to the corruption and terrible bureaucracy of the Israeli parliament and government. But now he’s slowly shifting towards politics, and I’m hoping that he’ll run for the headship of the labor party. Another guy is Ofir Paz-Pines, currently Israel’s minister of internal affairs, who is very sincere, intelligent, a leftist, “for the people” kind of guy – only he has no military experience and that’s a problem in Israel’s situation today.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S I think Syrian hacker left. You can tell me all about your secret plan to overthrow the Syrian government.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'ld go for the former KGB guy, Navy people I tend to think are quite rational considering naval warfare. The other guy would be better if not for terrorism.
As for my plan to overthrow the Syrian government, what you need is to gather a large bunch of Syriannationals (100,000 would be nice) indoctrinate them in democracy or communism or whatever trian them to use "people's war" geurrilla tactics, arm them with AA, AT, and AI weapons plus lend them some hackers so that they can slowly infiltrate the Syrian computer system, infiltrate across the border and cause mayham.
Should they need help send in the Panzers. (though realistically what you would do in that situation would be to slowly increase the political pressure on Syria and then once they commnit some sort of atrocity against civilian targets preferably refugees, commence sanctions on Syria to up the stakes.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(The conversation has moved past this, but I did want to mention one itty-bitty thang...)
Squick said:
quote:the pattern OSC has established on Hatrack is that he'll post some untenable and often insulting thing, people will call him on it, and he'll never post on that thread again.
This is contrary to my perception of these events. The pattern I see is this:
OSC will post his thoughts on sometimes controversial threads because those are the subjects he thinks are important and worthy of debate. He submits his opinions to the mix because he thinks he has something to add and his views are worth considering, and people might take something useful from them. People who disagree with his opinions sometimes take offense and sometimes rebut his opinions with their own. OSC, who cares about many other things and has many more responsibilities than this forum (which he pays to keep alive even when he is not present) leaves the conversation to tend to his life, and by the time he comes back to Hatrack the thread is days behind the new and just as controversial issues of the present day, where OSC might again post another bit of his opinions. On those occasions when the original thread lingers long enough to catch his eye again (such as that "redefining beauty" thread awhile back), he sometimes returns and clarifies his position if needed.
But I don't think he's trying to ignore anyone or is scared off by someone's rebuttals. For instance, I don't think he ever responded again to that thread Icarus started about handicapped children when Icarus was hurt by (what I think was) a misunderstanding. I don't think OSC meant to hurt Icarus, but I think hurt can nevertheless happen unintentionally. It's nobody's fault; it's the fact that communication is imperfect, and sometimes OSC chooses to value other things besides Hatrack. I don't think it's a huge deal, and I don't think it means he has no integrity or whatever.
The positions OSC asserts are sometimes "untenable" and "offensive" to you, Squick. They are usually not to me, and I think my opinions are just as valid. But I think that what I quoted you as saying up there is inaccurate, because you seem to think that OSC (a person I admire) is purposely avoiding conversations because he thinks his word as the be-all-end-all of opinions and when someone refutes his claims, he hides. It doesn't mesh with his character as I see it, and is needlessly simplistic.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC stops posting when the thread degenerates into either random postings or people attacking each other for no reason.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to Squick, OSC's also been known to stop posting in a thread well before that point, too. In fact, I've seen more than a few threads in which the last post was a fairly erudite, non-hostile rebuttal of his opinion -- with no reply. I don't necessarily think he's "scared off," but I do think he tends to avoid being drawn into serious debate. He also never posts just to apologize for a misunderstanding.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two sides minimum in a misunderstanding.
(For instance: Mr. Squicky's responses in this thread hardly are erudite and polite. Nutjob, shameless, liar, etc.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Immediately following the Iraq invasion, the nations I most worried about taking a stance on the acceptability of pre-emptive war were not China and Taiwan, but India and Pakistan... Both of which have had cause to label their neighbors as supporting "terrorist activities", and both of which possess nuclear weapons.
I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq; I'm very angry that our leadership has whimsically re-written our motivation for the act in mid-stream, I find the business relationships we've created for the purpose of launching and supporting operations in Iraq questionable at best, and the money and manpower being used to keep Iraq could have better been used elsewhere. Consider the recent military base closures: does the declaration that these closures will save something like $52 billion over ten years seem mocked by the fact that we spend over $82 billion a year in the Iraqi operation?
But worse... We can't get out. As frustrating as it is to say it, if we leave now, Iraq as a democracy has a life expectancy that could probably be measured in single digits. And whatever the truth may have been _before_ we invaded, what takes the place of the democratic government almost certainly _will_ be a breeding ground for terrorism.
Syria? I don't know. I fear a continued policy of taking out Middle Eastern governments with ties to Islam is just asking for a certain portion of the people of those nations to feel the U.S. is at war with Islam. Remember that these nations do not have a tradition of free press; however well-intentioned our troops may be, that's not the news that gets to the chanting crowds. Whatever the case, the notion of invading Syria is largely moot right now. The godawful planning involved in both the Iraq and the Afghanistan invasions is coming back to haunt us. Afghanistan is once again becoming a major producer of opium, and there are suggestions the Taliban may be re-emerging. Iraq, as I said, defies escape, and the continued bombing of the oil pipelines begs the question of how long it might be before Iraq is economically self-sufficient, never mind militarily so. If we decided to invade, or, God help us, needed our troops for defense, from where would we pull the manpower?
I felt neither relief nor vindication when I heard about the London bombings. I only felt sorry for the British people, and for Tony Blair. I think following Bush is going to cost him more than he ever imagined, and I'm not remotely happy to see it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said... And who suggested China & Taiwan? That is militarily stupid in the extreme and economically disasterous for the United States of America!
So much of your economy is tied into China and Chinese manpower that despite obviously getting screwed job wise America still spends a vaste amount of money investing in China that the government just reinvests into the state/semi-private enterprises what will become America's competition. Do you even know how much we import from them??? I only had to look 30 seconds to find out my SPEAKERS were made in China, and forget aout anything from Taiwan since any war with China will ensure Taiwan will get dragged into it.
And unlike Tom Clany's dellusional little world the US will not get a spy in the Politburo able to give the CIA all of the info they need, you'll not be able to wipe out their airforce without losing a single plane, nor sink the PLAN wihout loses either. Now come's the idea of the PLA itself, 3 Million soldiers, well trained, okay led (similar to the Soviet Army in 1945), now tell me, invading a country with 350 million someodd possible recruits how the hell are you going to be able to invade China? Who is stupid enough to suggest it? You'ld need either Russia's coop or south east Asia's and none of them are ever gonna give it, Russia is still in its little economic sink hole and south east asia is somewhat Communist as well.
Then the Cultural thing, They are the freakin Middle Kingdom! With practically the oldest culture around with a history of being picked on by western powers and then there's the hostility to the US for supporting Chiang Kai Shek Pre and Post Liberation which America in my mind had no right to interfear with at that time Chiang was a ruthless Generalissimo who had to be COERICED into allying with Communist China against the Japanese. The Chinese people won't suddenly revolt against Beijing, in fact they'll revolt against the US and quite frankly the Chinese have mastered geurilla warfare and the principles of the People's War.
Without a really large army which America just doesn't have America will be unable to keep their troops supplied, and the Chinese don't hae an outmoded army their newest tank I hear could go head to head with the M1 Abrams the T-98 Main Battle Tank.
IMHO of course....
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, To be clear, OSC said that the anti-war people reacted to the London bombings with palpable relief and gloating. In the past, he has claimed that the people who oppose President Bush's plans don't care about America and want our efforts to prevent terrorism and the war in Iraq to fail. I find these comments to be awful. I was not looking for a respectful discussion of why I and people like me responded to the London bombings with a gleeful sense of "I'm glad that finally happened." Given OSC's past behavior, I certainly didn't expect any response to a post, no matter how worded, that disagreed with his terribly insulting mischaracterization of people who disagree with him.
The fight against terrorism isn't some sort of game, at least to me. It's not a political football that should be used to try and make the other side look bad. The people in London are real, living, breathing people like you and me, as are the people in Iraq, and those in the Pentagon and New York. The threat that terrorists pose to me and mine (not to mention all the people I don't actually know) is likewise very real.
I disagree with the administration's policies because I think that they are bad ones and that the administration has been extremely untrustworthy, dishonest, and simple-minded, not because I hate the President. I don't treat the success or failure of the President's policies as a sports team I don't like winning or losing. I don't feel relief nor do I gloat when people get blown up in a demonstration that shows that, despite the administration's claims, the terrorist groups they are fighting are still going strong and are able to operate in other countries besides Iraq.
edit:If, in what would to me be something surpassing reason and logic, Donald Rumsfeld statement that al Queda was on the ropes were actually accurate or if the insurgency in Iraq were, as the administration repeatedly claimed long after it was clear this was not true, just a some holdouts from Saddam's deposed regime, I would be greatful and would admit I was wrong. It's already happened at least once in this whole thing. I had to apologize to the people I argued with about going into Iraq for saying that I thought they were paranoid for saying that administration's claims that they knew that Iraq had WMD and that they were nearly confident that they were actively trying to hide them from the inspectors would turn out to be fabrications. I'm willing to apologize when I'm wrong, as in this case where I trusted my government not to baldfacedly lie to me. My concern is about achieving the safest world possible. Were the President's policies shown to bring this about, I'd apologize for saying I thought that they were very wrong. But can anyone show me reasons why I should think that this is the case or why I should trust the government that has repeatedly shown themselves to either be lying or poor at their jobs?/edit
The most positive emotion I felt was hope that possibly this would be a catalyst to change the way we are addressing terrorism. Of course, that's not going to happen if the debate is about why people who disagree with the Bush administration care much more about the administration looking bad than the very real threat of terrorism. I'm not a child. I felt no relief and no cause for gloating at yet more clear proof the either Donald Rumsfeld was lying or just incompetent. And it was awful to suggest that I and the other people like me did.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Leave me alone! I did nothing wrong just babling thats all! No, NOOO, not that please anything but that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO ARGH!!!......![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
