quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We've spoken before on the limitations of the inspections as they were, in spite of their justified confidence in their findings so far as they went. The case didn't only rest on dissident testimony (though to some it seems human rights violations does *shrug*), but also on years and years of intransigence. It's hardly unnatural to believe he was hiding something, and to think it was likely, given the situation.
Yet there was no actual evidence that he had what we said he had. His bad attitude and hyperbole weren't good enough reasons for invasion. Our own intelligence organs didn't have anything on him. The actual evidence we were going on was vapor thin, and most of the things we claimed at the UN and other venues were proven wrong before we even invaded.
Plus, when we sent in inspectors, their mission was to find evidence of the destruction of WMDs that never existed. It was an impossible burden of proof designed to give us a pretext for invasion.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Hey Blayne, could you keep doing that 'substantiate or concede' thing in bold, please? I'm running a little wager as to how many times you'll say it, and that makes it easier to spot.
Are you going to keep harping on the style of my arguments or are you ever going to deal with the substance of them? The substance of which other posters have also raised.
quote: The reason why you end up just having to get told to shut up is because you act like this and make claims like this which have absolutely nothing to do with other people's actual "contribution" or lack of thereof.
The claim that I have not participated in this thread is you being completely bankrupt. This post ups the ante on your last one, and is the largest and most flagrant deflection by you yet.
So, again. Thanks for effectively giving up the ghost on this one, and leaving only your frustration and your half-hearted, hypocritical insults in its place, like "do you ever get tired of talking?" If you'd like to round up a moderator to 'arbitrate' this, since you seem intent on hiding behind that excuse, go right ahead.
So you are just petty and spiteful empty shell of an adult then?
Again, how is a single post, from which you have not substantiated or built up upon, or in any way engaged the actual argument of other posters, contributing to the thread? So far you are only in this thread it seems because of a perverse partially sexual obsession. I suspect some combination of bestiality and necrophilia considering how often you beat off to a dead horse.
quote: As for you, Blayne, you're hardly one to complain of derailing the conversation, given the dishonest and hysterical way you've been trying to talk with (at) me about this from the start. But hey, get all victim s'more, would?
Again more deflection tactics and ad hominem, are you ever going to address the arguments I raised or are you going to keep hiding behind your weak willed rationalizations?
quote: Well, I'm not disputing it in the case of Blayne because it's actually true in his case. But I read it in the sense that he was painting kmbboots and myself with the same brush.
Mucus please do explain, how this is true. And how even if it is supposedly true, why does it matter to the arguments at hand? Why are you feeding into Rakeesh's proven inability to argue by allowing him to hide behind his fallacious arguments? Him saying that is 1) poisoning the well, 2) an argument through generalization, and 3) ad hominem and completely ignores the actual arguments made.
quote: As for the tolerance quote, I was speaking to Blayne about having a high tolerance for that, not you or kmbboots. I thought that was clear, but I can see how you might not have.
Considering its ad hominem nature I ignored it for now, but I cannot no longer, you are a filthy liar and this reduces your value as a poster.
posted
Really Blayne, you're in no position to comment on my hygiene! Goodness, tone it down, man!
Heh. Hey, if people from all sorts of political opinions suggest you've got a high tolerance of totalitarian governments, you should not pause to consider the idea and instead reject it outta hand;)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are just petty and spiteful empty shell of an adult then?
So, you type this, and then you fill most of the rest of your post with the mantra-like chant of "ad hominem" and "deflection tactic" and you really literally do not have the faculty necessary to determine why this is amazingly silly. Do you think you're scoring points?
quote:Again, how is a single post, from which you have not substantiated or built up upon, or in any way engaged the actual argument of other posters, contributing to the thread?
A single post, eh? Hey, Blayne. Go back and count the number of posts I presented regarding the subject matter of the thread before I at all addressed you. Go on. Do this. Count them and tell me how many you see.
I'll wait.
quote:So far you are only in this thread it seems because of a perverse partially sexual obsession. I suspect some combination of bestiality and necrophilia considering how often you beat off to a dead horse.
Looks like you really, really desperately desire that moderator intervention, huh?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knock what off? Are you going to be the latest to describe calling blayne out for his horrid argumentative behavior as "egging him on?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of whether or not anybody's remarks meet some sort of apropos criteria, I have to ask that if posters cannot address each other with respect that they refrain from doing so.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Really Blayne, you're in no position to comment on my hygiene! Goodness, tone it down, man!
Heh. Hey, if people from all sorts of political opinions suggest you've got a high tolerance of totalitarian governments, you should not pause to consider the idea and instead reject it outta hand;)
This is simply a continuation of your habitual argumentation from strawmen, ad hominem and generalizations, I *did* tone it done, some 2-3 posts were in fact much more reserved than the previous ones but you didn't notice or didn't care.
Are you going to bother to substantiate how my tolerance for totalitarian dictatorships is high and how it is relevant to Iraq?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Knock what off? Are you going to be the latest to describe calling blayne out for his horrid argumentative behavior as "egging him on?"
posted
Heh, Blayne I didn't mean 'tone it down' literally-I was joking. I thought that was clear when I appeared to take your remark as a comment on my cleanliness. Anyway, though, that you characterize a post where you call someone a filthy liar as 'toned down' is kind of the *point* behind why I'm making fun of you rather than 'substantiate or concede' as you so stridently command: you cannot discuss this in a calm, adult, honest way, right from the start. I described how way back in the beginning, and my reasons still stand-your by now constant resort to name calling while simultaneously (and really, it's just WEIRD how hypocritical this is) claiming to be a victim of ad hominem attacks illustrate it.
I really object to the way you have around here of getting hysterical and start tantruming, and then when people call you directly on it you get WORSE, and somehow people interpret that as some sort of mutual thing. I guess it's mostly because people *expect* hysterical childish tantrums from you periodically, and so the responsibility shifts away from you not flipping out to others not to set you off. The onky relief is that it used to be worse.
posted
There are several substantive posts up addressing the actual topic of the thread. I'm not sure why you'd rather reply to Blayne than to Lyrhawn and me.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, Blayne I didn't mean 'tone it down' literally-I was joking. I thought that was clear when I appeared to take your remark as a comment on my cleanliness. Anyway, though, that you characterize a post where you call someone a filthy liar as 'toned down' is kind of the *point* behind why I'm making fun of you rather than 'substantiate or concede' as you so stridently command: you cannot discuss this in a calm, adult, honest way, right from the start. I described how way back in the beginning, and my reasons still stand-your by now constant resort to name calling while simultaneously (and really, it's just WEIRD how hypocritical this is) claiming to be a victim of ad hominem attacks illustrate it.
I really object to the way you have around here of getting hysterical and start tantruming, and then when people call you directly on it you get WORSE, and somehow people interpret that as some sort of mutual thing. I guess it's mostly because people *expect* hysterical childish tantrums from you periodically, and so the responsibility shifts away from you not flipping out to others not to set you off. The onky relief is that it used to be worse.
First of all I called you a liar only after you continued to make snide sideway generalized implications into what positions I may or may not have without providing even a lick of evidence or substantiative comment. Second of all I am the target of ad hominem attacks is a fact, if you feel you've been the target as such then its even worse because you are now pulling a false equivilence argument of "if you do it so can I"; thirdly the claims that you've been the target of ad hominem is plainly ridiculous considering just about every time you complained of such is from only if you egregiously misread the posts in question with absolutist interpretation.
Fourth I demand that you substantiate or concede because you have done neither and continuously refuse to engage with the substantiated points that I have brought up that others have either also raised or otherwise built upon.
So do you withdraw the blanket statement that I have a "high tolerance" for totalitarian governments? If not then I strongly expect you to damn well substantiate it.
This line of reasoning does you no credit, in no way does appealing to the supposed hypocrisy of the opposition free you from the obligation to answer those questions.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There are several substantive posts up addressing the actual topic of the thread. I'm not sure why you'd rather reply to Blayne than to Lyrhawn and me.
*shrug* I will, but I'm rather couple-minutes-at-a-time right now, and I've found that I'm pretty not-good at writing a post that'd normally take 10m over the course of six hours. Ends up all disjointed and hard to follow even for me when I look over it.
Also, winding Blayne up is a bit fun too. One never knows when one will be called a filthy liar while also being accused of personal attacks;) ------- Blayne, your complaints that I'm not talking about the topic are funny and probably untrue. I'm not talking about it *with you* which is different.
As for totalitarian regimes, naw. I think I'll just make mention of your well known attitudes regarding the USSR, PRC, and now even Iraq under Saddam, as not so bad or even virtuous and maligned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Also, winding Blayne up is a bit fun too. One never knows when one will be called a filthy liar while also being accused of personal attacks;)
So you are a troll then? Can you remove yourself from the thread then if you do not wish to discuss it with the seriousness it is due?
quote: Blayne, your complaints that I'm not talking about the topic are funny and probably untrue. I'm not talking about it *with you* which is different.
So you are just woefully immature then. "Nyah nya I'm not listening"
quote: As for totalitarian regimes, naw. I think I'll just make mention of your well known attitudes regarding the USSR, PRC, and now even Iraq under Saddam, as not so bad or even virtuous and maligned.
How are these "well known" how are they "totalitarian" also how is this not a massive strawman? Do you have not an ounce of self respect regarding the topic you are discussing that you would submerge yourself in mediocrity?
Also how, even if true are they relevant to the arguments composed? Surely you should be able to look at the arguments themselves and see, on their own merits if they have particular flaws, resorting instead to blatant ad hominem attacks at this point I believe reacts poorly on your character.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, I've ascended to mediocrity from the pits of I'll-washed deceivers and jingoists? Well, that's nice to know! Happy New Year to you, too! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Knock what off? Are you going to be the latest to describe calling blayne out for his horrid argumentative behavior as "egging him on?"
What Destineer said. By all means, call people on their BS, but do you really find it productive to bring threads to a grinding halt just to exhaust yourselves argumentatively with no productive results over and over again?
It might not feel fair to have to ignore some of his more objectionable posts, but is it worth derailing thread after thread just to feel like you've done your due diligence with calling him out?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Testimony by one of the UN weapons inspectors regarding Iraq, not sure if posted.
quote: Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections.
posted
Wait, we're back to listening to the UN now, Blayne? Not long ago you were pointing out how Iraq quote:
quote:Actually I know a few people who've been to Iraq during Saddam's regime, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as people believe, it wasn't totalitarian.
The UN didn't seem to think it wasn't 'anywhere near as bad' or 'not totalitarian'. It's almost like you're willing to speak as though the UN hasn't spoken when it's inconvenient to your global politics, or something.
It's almost as if that was one of my points for quite some time now: not that we should ignore the UN as we see fit, but by all means we need to *stop* speaking as though a) UN approval equates to morality, and lack or disapproval equates to immorality, b) the UN is itself a just and honorable organization (behold, to use the contemporary and famous example, its mighty and effective intervention in Rwanda) as opposed to an organization with great goals made up of largely self-interested governments, and c) as though we all listen to the UN as a rule, except when bad old 'merica decided to go it alone.
(As for suggesting you have a high tolerance of brutal, totalitarian regimes, well, that quote above illustrates my point well enough I think, Blayne. I eagerly await and not at all doubt I'll be hearing an, "Ok, I can see why you'd say that, Rak."
------
As for ignoring Blayne, there are some people who have the credibility to make that case. Others, at least two in this discussion, don't, not when they say, "He's making some great points," or, "He's rude but right." If we're to ignore him when he behaves like this, we have to actually ignore him. Not just ignore him but then chime in, "Well he makes a good point every now and then!" and later chide people for reacting to him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: The UN didn't seem to think it wasn't 'anywhere near as bad' or 'not totalitarian'. It's almost like you're willing to speak as though the UN hasn't spoken when it's inconvenient to your global politics, or something.
I have no idea where you get this.
quote: It's almost as if that was one of my points for quite some time now: not that we should ignore the UN as we see fit, but by all means we need to *stop* speaking as though a) UN approval equates to morality, and lack or disapproval equates to immorality,
Your point has been entirely by implication indeed to in fact ignore the United Nations, otherwise there is no point to your nitpicking that the United Nations is or is not some paragon of international law and virtue. Because in the end the ICJ and the UNSC *are* the de facto and de jure final voice on what constitutes what is legal or illegal, which by political philosophy is whats moral or immoral.
If you cannot claim the support of the United Nations that US invasion of Iraq was moral then it puts a greater burden of proof on your to prove it is moral.
quote: b) the UN is itself a just and honorable organization (behold, to use the contemporary and famous example, its mighty and effective intervention in Rwanda) as opposed to an organization with great goals made up of largely self-interested governments, and
Strawman. I certainly never made this claim, as we can see by analogy that it is false, national governments can be just as corrupt with the enforcement of national laws and justice is never flawless but we still follow those laws anyways.
For better or worse the United Nations is the final authority, every nation signed its charter regarding the non use of force to settle international disputes. That the UN Security Council is primarily composed of self interested nations isn't important, just as how the government of any national government can be made out to be comprised of self interested politicians.
quote: c) as though we all listen to the UN as a rule, except when bad old 'merica decided to go it alone.
This is essentially what happened. The United States has been consistently side lining the United Nations on substantiative policy since the late 1970's when the General Assembly became no longer a willing tool of US foreign policy. See for example the USA pulling out from the ICJ when it ruled against the US in The United States vs. Nicaragua.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: (As for suggesting you have a high tolerance of brutal, totalitarian regimes, well, that quote above illustrates my point well enough I think, Blayne.
How?
Remember the burden of proof is on yourself to prove that I a) have a high tolerance of totalitarian regimes and b) That it is relevant to the discussion at hand.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I never said *you* put much stock in the UN, Blayne. The UN reports repeatedly (less than a quarter minute of Google will find many links, or the one I listed above) on the terrible human rights conditions in Iraq, and they do so repeatedly over years...but you know some guys who told you it wasn't so bad, it wasn't totalitarian. As for where I got it, why, I got that from you! Not an especially prestigious source of anything but your own opinions, it's true...
As for adhering to the UN, I *specifically stated* that we should have used what diplomatic, economic, political, and rhetorical means necessary to gain consensus. So when you moan at me that I am saying we should ignore the UN, that is *another* lie you're telling about what I've said. I've lost count now.
And as for a high tolerance, clearly I'm not going to be able to prove that to you, since you've shown a remarkable ability to believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. We need to respect the UN, the UN didn't want such and such so it was immoral. But when the UN says, "Geeze, Saddam's government is just plain awful," how quickly the tune changes to, "Hey, I know some guys who say it wasn't so bad!"
You say I'm a jingoist, my country right or wrong even though I've said more than once that our execution of the war was terribly bad and negligent, and because of that members of the Bush Administration were likely guilty of war crimes.
You say I'm 'whiteknighting' my country (and goodness, it does you no credit, this use of Internet slang like this) and that I don't care about civilian deaths, in spite of over years now many complaints about the awful injustice and stupidity of it.
Now I don't know if you're a liar or if you're stupid or if you're confused. I don't actually think you're a liar, or that you're stupid, even though you're saying many clearly untrue and stupid things about my remarks on this topic, lver and over again. So I'm left to think you're confused-as with several topics of international politics (and anime, for that matter), if you get heated up about it...well you just don't have to listen anymore. As you clearly aren't listening now.
And since we've been around this racetrack more than once, and since it isn't peachy to be called a jingoist and blithely unconcerned about war crimes and civilian deaths and have people around here generally keep quiet-or even point out that you're making good points, or that you're just 'rude'- because you're you, and you get to throw these ridiculous hysterical self-pitying tantrums sometimes, just because people expect it from you...yeah. What the hell. I'll poke fun at you as I like, and smile at your change-ups, your boldings and your italicization, until I get tired of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It might not feel fair to have to ignore some of his more objectionable posts, but is it worth derailing thread after thread just to feel like you've done your due diligence with calling him out?
Is it worth giving him free reign to act exactly the way he does that causes him to be called out in the first place?
Nobody should act the way blayne is acting in this forum.
Your position is inadvertently proposing that because blayne passes a specific threshold of hopelessly bad behavior that it makes it wrong to tell him he shouldn't aggressively misrepresent and insult people. You are allowing yourself to confuse and then ultimately forget who really derailed the thread (blayne) and then blame the people who are telling a derogatory poster that he should not be derogatory. You are allowing Blayne to not only have exhausted you into leaving him alone when he's insulting others and blatantly violating "the TOS," still ostensibly the rules of this forum, but to blame others for his TOS-violating behavior because they're not similarly exhausted into ignoring and tacitly permitting his immaturity just in the hopes of keeping it minimized.
To answer your qusestion though: no, it is not fair to have to ignore his objectionable posts. I do not have to, in fact, so I don't have to worry about that. The fact that it is a repeating cycle does not make it wrong. It means that Blayne should not be allowed to make objectionable posts in the first place.
And if pointing it out every time encourages people to report blayne quickly next time because I am empowered to guarantee this to be the outcome, and/or if it encourages official action to prevent what happens when he is fairly called out on his bad behavior, all the better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Knock what off? Are you going to be the latest to describe calling blayne out for his horrid argumentative behavior as "egging him on?"
Yes, we did! Involving Katharina, of all people. It's an edifyingly vindicating comparison (though I don't think that's what you intended) because she couldn't be ignored for the sake of 'saving threads' either.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: You say I'm 'whiteknighting' my country (and goodness, it does you no credit, this use of Internet slang like this) and that I don't care about civilian deaths, in spite of over years now many complaints about the awful injustice and stupidity of it.
This isn't reconciliable with the belief that the US should have invaded anyways, only the implementation was bad.
quote: on the terrible human rights conditions in Iraq
Which isn't a justifiable reason for invasion on its own. Or even in conjunction with the other reasons presented.
quote: but you know some guys who told you it wasn't so bad, it wasn't totalitarian.
Well it isn't, under nor circumstances can it reasonable be considered totalitarian.
quote: As for where I got it, why, I got that from you! Not an especially prestigious source of anything but your own opinions, it's true...
What doesn't make sense is how any of this a contradiction with anything I've said.
You presented the case that Iraq had given the US "ample" reason to invade, so of course it is only reasonable to provide counter examples as to why it isn't. I presented the anectdotal evidence that it wasn't bad enough to justify it. I don't recall you putting forth a UN resolution or white paper that posits circa 2003 that it is bad enough to warrant it. That human rights abuses happen is obvious, they are in fact happening right now in Iraq, previous by US soldiers and now by the nominal puppet government we put in Saddam's place.
However saying human rights abuses are exaggerated isn't the same thing as denying they are happening, and the nuance that Iraq isn't a totalitarian regime isn't the same thing as saying it isn't authoritarian. the point is that none of these even if true are sufficient reasons for unilateral US invasion, and since they aren't true doubly so.
quote: As for adhering to the UN, I *specifically stated* that we should have used what diplomatic, economic, political, and rhetorical means necessary to gain consensus. So when you moan at me that I am saying we should ignore the UN, that is *another* lie you're telling about what I've said. I've lost count now.
It isn't a lie because you speak of the UN's role as a pliant tool of US imperialism instead of being the de jure arbitrator of international law it is supposed to be. You are in essence ignoring the UN's proper role of an independent judicator for the sake of white washing US action.
quote: And as for a high tolerance, clearly I'm not going to be able to prove that to you, since you've shown a remarkable ability to believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. We need to respect the UN, the UN didn't want such and such so it was immoral. But when the UN says, "Geeze, Saddam's government is just plain awful," how quickly the tune changes to, "Hey, I know some guys who say it wasn't so bad!"
So says the person who has absolutely resolutely refused to even try? Oh wow, looky here, clearly the actions of the credible debator. Can't argue the facts so bang on the table more loudly.
You brought it up, so I guess this is an admission of defeat since you would rather yet again run and hide then substantiate your position? More drive by posting?
quote: You say I'm a jingoist, my country right or wrong even though I've said more than once that our execution of the war was terribly bad and negligent, and because of that members of the Bush Administration were likely guilty of war crimes.
It is cognitive dissonance to suggest that any invasion would not have been bungled so long as the reasons were not just. There is ample reasoning to show that any invasion of Iraq would have been an unjust crime against peace, meaning anywar would have been unjust, and unjsut wars are universally nearly always prone to those same war crimes and cronyism.
That is why you are jingoistic, because as long as you feel that the case can be made that the US is in the right then damn the rest of the world.
quote: You say I'm 'whiteknighting' my country (and goodness, it does you no credit, this use of Internet slang like this) and that I don't care about civilian deaths, in spite of over years now many complaints about the awful injustice and stupidity of it.
Hey look at that, where are we? Oh yes the internet.
quote: Now I don't know if you're a liar or if you're stupid or if you're confused. I don't actually think you're a liar, or that you're stupid, even though you're saying many clearly untrue and stupid things about my remarks on this topic, lver and over again. So I'm left to think you're confused-as with several topics of international politics (and anime, for that matter), if you get heated up about it...well you just don't have to listen anymore. As you clearly aren't listening now.
And anime? You are just so overwhelmingly petty empty shell of a man aintcha? I cannot believe you would descent into such petty acts of immaturity that you would feel the need to take potshots at my hobbies.
Jeez dude I have never once ever seen you participate in my anime threads so **** off.
quote: What the hell. I'll poke fun at you as I like, and smile at your change-ups, your boldings and your italicization, until I get tired of it.
I see no need for you to stop, you have already become doggedly determined to be an immature asshole taking potshots at the personal life of other posters why stop here?
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]
Words wall of text and more worthless words
Will never happen because you are ultimately a part of that problem.
IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware disagreement with world consensus equated to jingoism, Blayne. You'll have to show me where in the definition that is said, else I'll cheerfully point out you're once more telling a stupid lie: jingoists don't say, "My country has made an awful, stupid, evil, mistake."
No. What's happened here is that early on you decided that since I didn't think the correct things with respect to invasion, I simply must be a jingoist.
Iraq under Saddam could very, very easily have been called totalitarian. Look up what the UN had to say about its government, and then look up the definition of totalitarianism. It fits. This is why I correctly say you have a high tolerance of brutal, totalitarian regimes if they have the right enemies. I say it because it's simply true, and it's an amusing piece of moral cowardice on your part: you defend governments that regularly enact human rights violations on their own populations that, if your own government even considered perpetrating on you would be an outrageous obscenity. You couldn't safely make criticisms half as passionate of the Iraqi government under Saddam as you regularly do of the USA, but they are 'not totalitarian'. It's 'not that bad'.
I've never understood this kind of moral hypocrisy: it's OK to despise things like Saddam's Iraq, or Stalinism, or Mao for the awful, awful things they did. You can *still* loathe the things we've done too! They're not mutually exclusive. And yet somehow you end up being a reverse jingoist: anti-West, right!
As for anime. Hee! I enjoy anime, actually. Watched dozens and dozens of hours of it. Love the stuff! I wasnt poking fun at you for liking it, I was poking fun at you for your reactions in defense of it. And I'm not making fun of the habits of posters-just you!
(How long before I'm a racist Christian Crusader wanting to exterminate Islam, and/or a Red-hating McCarthyite?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for anime. Hee! I enjoy anime, actually. Watched dozens and dozens of hours of it. Love the stuff! I wasnt poking fun at you for liking it, I was poking fun at you for your reactions in defense of it. And I'm not making fun of the habits of posters-just you!
It is completely uncalled for and irrelevent to the thread, if you wish to discuss anime and manga and do so in one of the threads I've started or in my general purpose thread at sakeriver, don't bring it up here. It is a hobby very much dear to my heart with hundreds of hours invested and I do not appreciate you taking potshots at it out of context.
quote: Iraq under Saddam could very, very easily have been called totalitarian.
Iraq had a greater degree of personal economic freedoms that would have been unthinkable under Stalin and a political environment that was nowhere near as oppressive as Hitler's, totalitarian governments exersize a totality of control on all levels of society. As oppressive as Iraq may have been it is an exaggeration to suppose it is totalitarian.
Take it from a political science student, there's a clear difference which even so don't constitute a threat to the peace.
It isn't "moral cowardice" that is a generalization on your part, China is not Iraq, Russia is not Iraq, their actions are not relevent to Iraq, my case by case actions as an "apologist" for whichever country you suppose I 'defended' has no bearing on this discussion.
quote: I wasn't aware disagreement with world consensus equated to jingoism, Blayne. You'll have to show me where in the definition that is said, else I'll cheerfully point out you're once more telling a stupid lie: jingoists don't say, "My country has made an awful, stupid, evil, mistake."
I'm certain jingoists will make whatever rationalizations they are willing to make to save the core thought of their belief, but you have shown a dogged determined consistency in side lining inconveniences to US influence for the sake of US interests, such as supporting that the US was apparantly "right" to invade while ignoring that any invasion would have resulted in the current result because no invasion was just, you are being pedantic.
Jingoism is a spectrum, I'm certain Republican jingoists are constantly condemning Obama for advancing US interests that they praised under Bush, doesn't make them any less of jingoists.
IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, still waiting on your reply to our other points. Might as well comment on some of these tangents, I suppose...
quote: As for ignoring Blayne, there are some people who have the credibility to make that case. Others, at least two in this discussion, don't, not when they say, "He's making some great points," or, "He's rude but right." If we're to ignore him when he behaves like this, we have to actually ignore him. Not just ignore him but then chime in, "Well he makes a good point every now and then!" and later chide people for reacting to him.
I disagree. Acknowledge the posts selectively. Answer the good points. Ignore the insults and let them drop.
That's what I've been saying the whole time.
quote:Yes, we did! Involving Katharina, of all people. It's an edifyingly vindicating comparison (though I don't think that's what you intended) because she couldn't be ignored for the sake of 'saving threads' either.
Not sure why you say that. I have ignored rudeness from Kat for the purpose of pursuing actual reasoned argument, and God didn't somehow descend from on high and force me to pay attention to her.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how in your mind, specific repeated statements made that are completely at odds with jingoism can serve as evidence that I'm even more clearly a jingoist. God, what is this, Orwell?
----
You didn't ignore Blayne. But it's easy to say 'ignore the bad, reply to the valid' when we're talking about an extremist angle of your own outlook. I am, to be honest, left wondering if you don't-like him-feel I'm a lying, jingoistic, war-criminal-loving, Iraqi civilian despising jerk like he does, and if you do, why you won't simply say so. To be clear, I think that's pretty unlikely, that you think that, but when your remarks on his outbursts are to say, 'He makes good points' and then to chastise *me* for replying...well.
I'll get back to your (you say 'our') points. You can believe that or not, as you like. But I hope you'll understand why I'm not just racing to get back to discussing it with you on a holiday weekend.
When someone from the extreme on my end of things says nonsense like, "Nuke the Middle East!" or "War on Islam!" or "No Ground Zero Mosque!" or "Make them pay for the war with oil!" I don't say, "Hey, they make some good points-just ignore that hysterical racist bul*#hit they're spouting." No, I throw their words back in their faces and point out what a harm they're doing to their own position, and what a*#=oles they look like.
Maybe you don't want to do that, that's fine, Destineer. I can see why you wouldn't and will admit it very possibly could be a better method. But please don't on the one hand own the guy when he says things you like, and disavow him when he doesn't, then criticize me for not ignoring him too.
quote:Not sure why you say that. I have ignored rudeness from Kat for the purpose of pursuing actual reasoned argument, and God didn't somehow descend from on high and force me to pay attention to her.
Because ignoring rudeness from katharina didn't help the problem of katharina, despite a group of people eventually adopting the habit of just giving katharina a free pass for rudeness most of the time just in the hopes of minimalizing her conflagrations or protecting themselves from her hatred. There is still no problem with people deciding that rules-breaking should be met with calls for the rule-breaking to stop. If it, as you say, 'wastes your time,' then you are still at liberty to ignore it; don't insist in any way that others are wrong not to ignore it as well.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Maybe its because people think you do it for the sake of personal pleasure from however justified you think you are, from putting other people down?
IP: Logged |
posted
Do what you want, but I don't see the point of spending hours and hours arguing with someone about their bad internet citizenship when you could just whistle the offending posts and proceed to have an actual interesting conversation with someone else. Except if (as you said in the other thread) you enjoy the high of getting sanctimonious.
For me, that high feels pretty empty unless there's an important question at issue. Whether someone is being nice on Hatrack doesn't qualify.
Obviously I can't 'insist' that you do anything except follow the TOS, but you can't blame me for trying to convince you to stop posting in a way that detracts from the things I enjoy about the forum. And I don't see why the 'problem' of katharina or Blayne needs to be anyone's problem but their own.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's easy to say 'ignore the bad, reply to the valid' when we're talking about an extremist angle of your own outlook.
If you want to do a search for some of my old conversations with Lisa, you'll see that I follow the same policy with ideological enemies.
quote:I am, to be honest, left wondering if you don't-like him-feel I'm a lying, jingoistic, war-criminal-loving, Iraqi civilian despising jerk like he does, and if you do, why you won't simply say so. To be clear, I think that's pretty unlikely, that you think that, but when your remarks on his outbursts are to say, 'He makes good points' and then to chastise *me* for replying...well.
Dude, no, I don't think you're evil. I'm just getting bored with the thread and would like to get on with the part of it that I was actually enjoying.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: And I don't see why the 'problem' of katharina or Blayne needs to be anyone's problem but their own.
You don't understand why a poster violating rules and refusing to end this habit should not be anyone else's problem? Even if we exclude moderators? Of course, by the same logic, if the 'problem' of a rules-violating poster can't or shouldn't be anybody else's problem, it is equally invalid that my response be anyone else's 'problem.'
So, that kind of shoots that in the foot!
A community that says that the 'problem' of posters violating rules shouldn't be anyone else's problem has no rules. Just a desperate hope that there's not too many people who refuse to drag the entire place down into the mud. Which, to be fair, is what this place got mentally habituated into for years.
And it's an odd way to phrase the limits of insistence, ... well, because much of what I do is an insistence that people do not act in a way which is flagrantly at odds with the TOS. So if you can insist it, so could I. :>
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're quoting that one sentence outside the context of the rest of my post, in which I said exactly how I think TOS violators should be dealt with. Report the violating posts and don't waste any more time on them.
This is nothing more than my recipe for having interesting discussions on this particular forum, given its current adversarial culture and the inevitably high volume of ad hominem noise from certain posters. I've recommended it to you before, and you decided it wasn't for you, which I suppose is your choice to make. Now I'm recommending it to Rakeesh.
Maybe you can provide a contrary point of view by laying out some of the advantages of your own posting approach. Improving other people's adherence to the TOS? Your posts don't seem to be having that effect. Seeing to it that those who've violated the TOS get their just punishment, in the form of a strongly worded admonishing post? If that's what floats your boat, fine, but maybe you can at least understand why those of us who are instead interested in discussing Books, Films, Food and Culture don't see the appeal.
quote:but maybe you can at least understand why those of us who are instead interested in discussing Books, Films, Food and Culture don't see the appeal.
To answer that question, let's go back to my first post in this thread, and let's pretend that it was the catalyst that gives people the recurring tendency to see people who confront the bad posters as an equal-time 'partner' in derailing the thread.
Why, specifically, should that response to blayne be something you wish had not happened?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, one day I'm going to lie on my deathbed and consider whether the time I spent on internet forums was worthwhile. When that day comes, I'd like to be able to tell myself that at least I was discussing weighty questions like the morality of the Iraq war, rather than the finer points of how and how not to post.
I've already spent way more time on that topic than I intended, so I'm going to leave it be. I have great respect for your intellect, as I hope you know, but I'm just not interested in talking any further about the issue you want to discuss.
I'll be back when there's more I want to say about the war.
ETA: I meant to say, your first post in this thread was an excellent post.
quote:It might not feel fair to have to ignore some of his more objectionable posts, but is it worth derailing thread after thread just to feel like you've done your due diligence with calling him out?
Is it worth giving him free reign to act exactly the way he does that causes him to be called out in the first place?
Nobody should act the way blayne is acting in this forum.
Your position is inadvertently proposing that because blayne passes a specific threshold of hopelessly bad behavior that it makes it wrong to tell him he shouldn't aggressively misrepresent and insult people. You are allowing yourself to confuse and then ultimately forget who really derailed the thread (blayne) and then blame the people who are telling a derogatory poster that he should not be derogatory. You are allowing Blayne to not only have exhausted you into leaving him alone when he's insulting others and blatantly violating "the TOS," still ostensibly the rules of this forum, but to blame others for his TOS-violating behavior because they're not similarly exhausted into ignoring and tacitly permitting his immaturity just in the hopes of keeping it minimized.
To answer your qusestion though: no, it is not fair to have to ignore his objectionable posts. I do not have to, in fact, so I don't have to worry about that. The fact that it is a repeating cycle does not make it wrong. It means that Blayne should not be allowed to make objectionable posts in the first place.
And if pointing it out every time encourages people to report blayne quickly next time because I am empowered to guarantee this to be the outcome, and/or if it encourages official action to prevent what happens when he is fairly called out on his bad behavior, all the better.
If these discussions or if reporting led to an actual change in behavior, then I wouldn't be complaining. But clearly it's not working, or he wouldn't continue to do it, and you all wouldn't react the way you do. And obviously you aren't just reporting him for TOS violations and going about your business, you guys are constructing long posts that dissect his posts line by line to point out his errors, and it just leads to an unproductive back and forth.
You answered the wrong question. The question wasn't about ignoring his posts, I already stipulated that it was unfair and sucks. The question was whether taking all this time to do so was really worth clogging up all these threads with incredibly unproductive activity.
Besides, Blayne thrives on attention. Poking the bear is fun from time to time, but if you stop leaving out picnic baskets, he'll stop coming around. You think that by engaging the bad behavior you are in some way thwarting it, but you're only egging him on, something Rakeesh tacitly admitted when he said that goading Blayne can be fun. So if you know this doesn't lead anywhere, why continue doing it? Clearly you guys aren't expecting an actual behavioral change, so unless BlackBlade is willing to take concrete action against Blayne, you're just continually leaving out picnic baskets for him to gorge on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for totalitarian regimes, naw. I think I'll just make mention of your well known attitudes regarding the USSR, PRC, and now even Iraq under Saddam, as not so bad or even virtuous and maligned.
How are these "well known" how are they "totalitarian" also how is this not a massive strawman?
I know there's a big discussion over whether or not to respond to Blayne or whatever but I just had to say I did a huge double-take here. Even coming from Blayne, this was shocking.
Blayne were you genuinely asking how someone might characterize the USSR or the PRC as "totalitarian?"
Truly? Really truly? I know you're a huge fan of communism, but this takes a really staggering level of willful blindness even for a staunch communist.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Besides, Blayne thrives on attention. Poking the bear is fun from time to time, but if you stop leaving out picnic baskets, he'll stop coming around. You think that by engaging the bad behavior you are in some way thwarting it, but you're only egging him on, something Rakeesh tacitly admitted when he said that goading Blayne can be fun. So if you know this doesn't lead anywhere, why continue doing it?
Because this is all totally wrong. I'm not 'only egging him on,' and if challenging his unacceptable behavior counts as 'egging him on,' that is only a further problem of his that will invariably force a challenge. Someone finding it fun to challenge his insulting behavior doesn't change that (but it does help with the diligence of a community to not being permissive of this sort of behavior). Lastly, how can I "know this doesn't lead anywhere" when this forum's last two or three years has been repeated demonstrations of how it not only DOES work, but that it's foolish to expect that 'starving the beast,' in whichever form the maxim comes in, is ever going to happen or work out as ideally planned?
Hatrack had already tried the prevailing "don't feed the trolls/poke the bears/whichever bad creature analogy is being used for this useless advice, and we won't have this problem" mentality, and it failed, and the environment here was extremely grim.
I explained in great detail why it failed. Why something like that would fail then or now, every time, with or without me, because you're not 'removing the picnic baskets' (which, if using Blayne as an example, could be a myriad of discussions on a myriad of topics that aren't going to go away, like China or the United States), you're just living in an environment much more comfortable and unwittingly inviting to bears, resigned to bears stomping all over the picnic grounds, so let's just not respond to them in the hopes of at least getting through this individual sandwich.
Anyway, no more of the animals-in-our-picnic representations. DNFTT is useless. Always has been. I really hope a day will come where people have figured out that it doesn't ever work for communities.
I have sat here and watched the confrontation of this forum's horrid personalities work (and be unavoidable anyway, whether or not it seemed to be coming with the intending 'sacrifice' of threads like this one), either by haranguing the bad posters in question into better behavior or off the forum (because it ceased being as complacent and passive an environment for them to ply their previous established behavior), or by forcing the issue to a head and making higher action have to occur, as many times as necessary to ensure a change in the status quo. I explained in excruciating detail why this place was in such horrid shape, what perpetuated its godawful state, and what would change it. Nothing here has deviated from those assertions, and those who have followed my forum community wisdom closely enough should be able to explain why it's an unavoidable process anyway.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: As for totalitarian regimes, naw. I think I'll just make mention of your well known attitudes regarding the USSR, PRC, and now even Iraq under Saddam, as not so bad or even virtuous and maligned.
How are these "well known" how are they "totalitarian" also how is this not a massive strawman?
I know there's a big discussion over whether or not to respond to Blayne or whatever but I just had to say I did a huge double-take here. Even coming from Blayne, this was shocking.
Blayne were you genuinely asking how someone might characterize the USSR or the PRC as "totalitarian?"
Truly? Really truly? I know you're a huge fan of communism, but this takes a really staggering level of willful blindness even for a staunch communist.
First of all the PRC is *not* totalitarian for sure by any reasonable stretch, secondly the USSR is almost never discussed at Hatrack so I would almost never have had a "reputation" for discussing or defending it. Which is the point, that the post is a massive strawman and generalizes my positions for the sake of dismissing any and all argument from me.
Which isn't even getting to the main point is that they are completely irrelevant because no matter what I may have said about the PRC or whatever they have no bearing on our discussions regarding Iraq. If I say something that is wrong he can find a source and challenge me on it, but he hasn't done so.
The comment, or one may more likely characterize it as a "dig" is of complete irrelevance to the topic at hand and unsubstantiatable, my challenges to Rakeesh on the matter prove this.
IP: Logged |
quote:First of all the PRC is *not* totalitarian for sure by any reasonable stretch, secondly the USSR is almost never discussed at Hatrack so I would almost never have had a "reputation" for discussing or defending it.
I don't want to engage, here, but I would say that both these assertions are completely false. Namely:
1) The PRC is indeed totalitarian by any reasonable stretch; 2) You do indeed have a reputation for discussing and defending the USSR, and I have no doubt at all that if you were to ask any Hatrack regular which poster would be most likely to run around calling himself "Somebody Somebodivich" and defending Lenin's political decisions, your name would be at the top of the resulting list.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so! After two holiday weekends, two lost (and then found, hours later) dogs-on two separate days, no less, blegh-a period of post-eating Hatrack outages, and poking fun that may or may not be helping to destroy Hatrack...
Samprimary, since you're the person who I've responded to the least (well, that made it past the 'Add Reply' button anyway), I'll go ahead and head back to page one and try and reply. Anyone else...well, almost anyone else...who, if they're interested, would like me to respond to something, if you could just address it to me directly as a reminder instead of me going over four pages and trying to collate everything?
----------
Samprimary,
Having read your two links over the break (and aside from everything else, thanks for sharing them, they made very interesting reading), I'm not sure if I can reply in the spirit you perhaps think I would have. As I see it, there are several discussions going on here: should we have invaded Iraq at all, should we have invaded as the Bush Administration planned, and has the invasion been a good thing overall? You'll correct me if I'm wrong in that perception, at least with respect to you.
I've been trying to discuss the first question, because to me the second question is a slam dunk (No, we shouldn't have invaded as the Bush Administration 'planned') and the third question I suspect I'm closer to the positions of several of you than you might think (I believe the invasion has probably been an overall good, but that doesn't excuse the ways in which we ensured through sloppiness-at-best it would often be awful; part of this for me is that, unlike it seems many of you, I don't think the status quo pre-bellum if I remember the phrase correctly would necessarily have lasted).
I believe we had the right to invade, in spite of many reasonable arguments why we also shouldn't have done so. For example, morally speaking, if you shoot at us, and we're behaving legally, to me we're allowed to retaliate with our military, if we choose. Open and shut. Once someone has opened fire on us, even if they miss, well they've really just given us the decision over what to do with them. It then becomes a question of pragmatism and efficiency, to me, what we should do afterwards.
I also believe we had the right to invade thanks to years of prevarications, deceptions, posturing, and outright non-cooperation with inspections. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that those were UN inspections and the UN hadn't authorized an invasion. But I think I regard the UN differently than many people here do. I'm far from thinking the UN should be abandoned or scorned, but I'm also quite far from thinking its opinions on an invasion were reached, shall we say, in an objective and disinterested way. Furthermore, I'm also very aware that if/when (and most of the world agreed it would be a 'when') the UN did finally agree to military intervention, American contribution to that effort would have been shall we say disproportionate even if consensus had been reached.
We were even bound, by law, to put a stop to some of the things-genocide-that were going on in Iraq between the two wars. So were, by the way, a lot of nations which did nothing, or nearly nothing-that even continued to do business with Iraq. The UN is often bound by its spirit and its laws to intervene in many places throughout the world, but it doesn't, either from apathy or conflicting interests of one of its Security Council. In fact, you won't find many human rights outrages that have happened over the past generation that didn't merit a much greater UN involvement than they got, whether morally or legally. Again, this isn't to say that means the UN should be scrapped. But looking at these things, what it means to me is that the UN ought not to be regarded as a fair-minded court and arbiter. It's not there yet, and thus it strikes me as strange to treat it as though it is. (The US has, of course, benefitted from this too-I don't mean to say we're victims here.)
Iraq's open support and harboring of terrorists, Palestinian and international, also gave us moral justification to invade if we so chose. Again this is a different question of whether or not we should have invaded, or in what way, but in my mind once you decide to harbor an al Qaeda top dude, and give open support to suicide bombers, well...yeah. No playing the victim for you. You can't have it both ways: don't want military intervention from the US? Don't harbor and support terrorists. Simple.
I'm kind of rambling here, but I want to reiterate something: these things to me spell out a justification to invade-that's all. That doesn't mean I think we should have invaded the way we did, or handled the aftermath the way we did, or that once we had the justification everything that goes wrong gets put onto our enemies. I do, in fact, think the invasion itself and especially its aftermath and our plans for dealing with Iraq afterwards were simply terrible, criminally stupid and negligent, and have harmed our nation's security in many ways. But I can still think all of that and also believe we had a justification to invade. To make a comparison that I don't mean to be equivalent or even near to it, if someone punches me in the face, I have the right to punch them back. I don't have the right to punch `em, kick `em in the balls, and then smear dog poop into the cut under their eye and leave them without any way to get medical assistance.
Now, I'm not sure how much of what you were getting at I've addressed, Samprimary, or even any. But feel free to ask your questions, hell even be less than neutral (and frankly, just between us girls, I am dubious as to how neutral your questioning is, knowing something of your style;)).
-------------
Lyrhawn,
I'm not sure if I'm picking up right where we left off-please let me know if there's something before this you'd like me to address.
quote:Perhaps our different opinions come from some underlying difference in trust levels of the Bush Administration. I was okay with the pressure Bush was putting on Saddam to force inspectors into the country, and the threat of force was successful in giving inspectors much broader access to sites than they'd had before. I think more work and more pressure would have yielded better results, and a smarter invasion might have as well. But there was no way we were ever going to do this right. Even today we're forcing the Kurds to be part of Iraq when they basically have an autonomous state in everything but name. And we'll do nothing to back them up when they start fighting with the Iraqi government over oil profits as western companies begin to drill for oil in massive, massive finds in Kurdish territory in the north. Even now our legacy in that region inspires little to be proud of. If we're really installing democracy in the region, I think we should have let go of our inner imperialist cartographer and let them have the power of self-determination for the first time in centuries.
I think I would've said, back in 02-03, that I trusted the Bush Administration to screw up but still leave Iraq pretty clearly better off than it was when we went in, to the point where reasonable people couldn't argue that at least. I think I would've said I expected plenty of political shenanigans what with a Cheney VP, but again-made better, both for us and Iraqis, even with the application of our unwieldy, self-interested political machine.
What I would not have said back then was that I believed the plan was more or less, "We've got a narrative for this situation, and goddamned if we ain't sticking to it to hell with the consequences. We're liberators, we're loved, all it takes is a shot of free unsupported democracy to make things super, and we're going to do the incrementally minimum we can do to support it while also sticking to that narrative." As months passed, that increasingly surprised me. The first really big, well-publicized shocker for me was the looting. That was a striking, easy-to-predict event which we were really poorly prepared for. I never credited the Bush Administration with tons of brains and guts and integrity, but I suppose I thought the bar would be quite a bit higher than the really low setting it turned out to be on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once someone has opened fire on us, even if they miss, well they've really just given us the decision over what to do with them.
I strongly disagree with this. Think through the implications.
quote:We were even bound, by law, to put a stop to some of the things-genocide-that were going on in Iraq between the two wars.
I probably would have agreed with this if we were having this argument in the late 1980s.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:First of all the PRC is *not* totalitarian for sure by any reasonable stretch, secondly the USSR is almost never discussed at Hatrack so I would almost never have had a "reputation" for discussing or defending it.
I don't want to engage, here, but I would say that both these assertions are completely false. Namely:
1) The PRC is indeed totalitarian by any reasonable stretch; 2) You do indeed have a reputation for discussing and defending the USSR, and I have no doubt at all that if you were to ask any Hatrack regular which poster would be most likely to run around calling himself "Somebody Somebodivich" and defending Lenin's political decisions, your name would be at the top of the resulting list.
The PRC does not meet the key principles to qualify as totalitarian in anything other than colloqial "layman" use of the word to describe "authoritarian country", it is authoritarian, the state controls but doesn't specifically outlaw all forms of dissent, it regulates but doesn't otherwise repress personal economic freedoms, it allows forms of expression, protests that would have been unthinkable in the USSR, that the PRC is authoritarian doesn't make it totalitarian.
The distinction may be academic but there is one and do not begin to pretend there isn't.
As for the USSR please do come up with the most recent in depth discussion where as I am deeply involved in defending the USSR, I would be deeply surprised if the latest wasn't in fact from my previous handle as Sid Meier from more than a few years ago.
Also I express considerable doubt about the fairness of your poor excuse at methodology, since people's memories are hazy and most certainly would come from discussions more than a few years old also I'm certain you confuse a fascination with Russian and slavic culture and thinking the Soviet Union was kind of cool with having an explicit apologist stance on various Soviet issues and policies.
The whole problem here, is that it is very much gut feeling and not based on anything substantial, additionally there is little to know context in which how could it be possible to link apologist context of one discussion in a link with this discussion.
I ask you a direct question, do you honestly give a flying**** what previous discussions I have or have not been in in context of this discussion? Didn't think so.
IP: Logged |
quote:I'm certain you confuse a fascination with Russian and slavic culture and thinking the Soviet Union was kind of cool with having an explicit apologist stance on various Soviet issues and policies.
*grin* No, but you did. That said, if you're saying you've outgrown that stance, that's cool by me.
quote:I ask you a direct question, do you honestly give a flying**** what previous discussions I have or have not been in in context of this discussion?
Yes, of course I do. What sort of person wouldn't?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I strongly disagree with this. Think through the implications.
I have. Carefully. Please note I didn't say we are required to retaliate with any kind of military force if we are fired upon. Just that, morally speaking, if our soldiers are fired upon, the people firing have declared war on us. Whether we acknowledge it or not.
As to the second, our obligation doesn't change with the passage of time. We're not less obligated in 2012 than we were in 1980. Our credibility for claiming humanitarian purposes, though, is another story. And anyway, I also brought that up to point out that the world in general is totally fine with disregarding UN law when it suits us, and I'd rather we didn't have any illusions about that.
---------
Hee. The distinction is a question of whether or not the PRC is totally totalitarian or only somewhat totalitarian, with gradual progress towards other things. I feel perfectly comfortable in pointing out that if you lived under such a government, you would call it totalitarian. (Protest all you like! Heh)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Once someone has opened fire on us, even if they miss, well they've really just given us the decision over what to do with them.
I strongly disagree with this. Think through the implications.
quote:We were even bound, by law, to put a stop to some of the things-genocide-that were going on in Iraq between the two wars.
I probably would have agreed with this if we were having this argument in the late 1980s.
To #1 actually there are implicit rules called the rules of engagement that determine this, and unwritten rules regarding proportionality. Otherwise you are basically entering nuclear-wank territory of overwhelming reprisal for every and minor slight. They fire on you, you fire back at most and in proportion to the damge or lack there of done or within 1 step above. You don't respond with invasion, again:
Proportionality should be a guideline to war.
To #2 Actually the United States is NOT legally bound, the Charter of the UN and its founding principles don't explititly state that the USA or any member country has to move to stop genocide, what happens is that if a country is doing such then it is raised by petitition from the General Assembly to the UNSC as a security concern, then the UNSC can make a ruling, probably with the advisory opinion or ruling from the ICJ whether it is a war crime and something should be done.
If the UN mandated that the US invade, that would be one thing. But you had no fly zones in place, the killings had stopped well before 2003, Iraq had given full access to inspectors, proportionality had been achieved. Thus, no clear and present need for the UN to give carte blanch authority to the US to invade because there was no security concern.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
