User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 110

  1. #71
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.
    Well that maybe true from the American perspective; although the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean one can be a staunch American patriot and still be concerned about the rest of humanity as well.

  2. #72
    Senior Member Tiny Army's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    EN?P
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    679

    Default

    What about your own "silent majority", those who opposed the invasion of Iraq? Did they assent, too?
    Anger is also a feeling.

  3. #73
    Senior Member Tiny Army's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    EN?P
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) If you think the regime of Saddam Hussein was preferable to what is currently in place, I would reccomend you study its history and characteristics. Also, the ineptitude of the occupation phase notwithstanding, the medium and long-term consequences of the Iraqi invasion are most likely better (in the utilitarian sense) for the Iraqis than the continuation of the previous regime (which would eventually have been followed by a civil war unrestrained by outside military intervention, anyway). Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.


    This soapbox has nothing to do with spreading hatred, but rather is a means of defending human liberty and encouraging much-needed reform within the Muslim world-reform which cannot take place so long as Shariah law, and the core beliefs which sustain it, is in place.

    What right did the Americans have to decide whether or not the Iraqi people were happy? They were enjoying economic stability and many personal freedoms. Shari'a law was not imposed in Iraq. If civil war had occurred it would have been the choice of the Iraqi people. Apparently the freedom to run one's own country doesn't apply to Iraqis.

    I will not defend Saddam's foreign policy. I think the sheer number of attacks on other nations by Iraq under Saddam's rule was unjustified and vile, but he was no better or worse a leader than George W. Bush. In fact, I see an eerie number of similarities between their regimes.

    I do not think occupation has helped Iraq out in the long run. I think the re-imposition of many aspects of Shari'a law is actually a step back. The destruction of their country by outside forces is a step back. I also don't think "rebuilding Iraq" has helped out the Iraqi people in any way other than to place them under incredible debt (by putting foreign contractors in charge of the reconstruction effort) and thereby under the thumb of America. If Saddam was to be deposed, it should have been done by the Iraqi people and not by foreigners waving guns.Who gave America the right to decide that they weren't doing it right or fast enough? It's their country not yours.


    Well I guess it's yours now.
    Anger is also a feeling.

  4. #74
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yeah I guess if one relies on grade-school history.
    Well, they rightfully refrain from discussing the problem of paedophilic priests in any book written for children.
    So by that statement, I assume that you deny that there is an endemic problem in the catholic church.
    I will admit that it must be a Sisyphean task to try to rationalize something that is patently irrational. Perhaps your faith can stand on itís own without this kind of useless and insulting grasping at straws.

  5. #75
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Well, they rightfully refrain from discussing the problem of paedophilic priests in any book written for children.
    So by that statement, I assume that you deny that there is an endemic problem in the catholic church.
    Well considering that investigations showed that at best 1.8-2% of all priests ever had pedophile accusations made against them, I guess you could say that.

    There's higher rates of pedophiles among public school teachers.

  6. #76
    The Architect Alwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    There's higher rates of pedophiles among public school teachers.
    This is true and it's a big problem. Read awhile back that administration tends to make a deal where the pedo resigns and simply goes to a different school so the admins can avoid legal issues. They found that many of these pedo's go from school to school with a trail of accusations and never get caught.

  7. #77
    Senior Member Galusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7?
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It wasn't Anglicans that murdered my fellow Australians at breakfast yesterday.

    Nor was it Baptists or even Catholics.

    It was Islamists who spread body parts over the breakfast table.

    And they have promised to keep on spreading our body parts in keeping with the teaching of the Koran.
    May I use some logic here?

    Your premise: The people who killed your fellows were Muslim. We will symbolize this by:
    Killers --> Muslim

    Your conclusion: All Muslims are killers. We will symbolize this by:
    Muslim --> Killers

    MY premise: Isaac Newton was a genius (genius being a characteristic of the individual).
    Newton --> Genius

    Conclusion: All geniuses are Isaac Newton.
    Genius --> Newton

    Notice the parallel reasoning of the two examples? Insanity- the lack of reason- is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If the example that I gave made no logical sense, how can yours make sense, if you're using the same system of logic?

    What you're using is an emotional appeal, which is never a good argument because it's just assaulting the facts and ignoring the real issue. Come back when you've finished your survey that says all Muslims want to kill you-- or rather, stay in your safety bunker, where you belong. Here's hoping it has padded walls.

  8. #78
    Pronounced eye-ee-dee Eiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    DEAD
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galusha View Post
    May I use some logic here?

    Your premise: The people who killed your fellows were Muslim. We will symbolize this by:
    Killers --> Muslim

    Your conclusion: All Muslims are killers. We will symbolize this by:
    Muslim --> Killers

    MY premise: Isaac Newton was a genius (genius being a characteristic of the individual).
    Newton --> Genius

    Conclusion: All geniuses are Isaac Newton.
    Genius --> Newton

    Notice the parallel reasoning of the two examples? Insanity- the lack of reason- is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If the example that I gave made no logical sense, how can yours make sense, if you're using the same system of logic?

    What you're using is an emotional appeal, which is never a good argument because it's just assaulting the facts and ignoring the real issue. Come back when you've finished your survey that says all Muslims want to kill you-- or rather, stay in your safety bunker, where you belong. Here's hoping it has padded walls.
    Nice examples.
    Johari / Nohari

    Enneagram 1w2/Lifepath 1/first zodiac sign Aries/first Chinese zodiac sign RAT/first born in my siblings of 3. Did I forget to mention first?

    Independent Director

  9. #79
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well that maybe true from the American perspective; although the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean one can be a staunch American patriot and still be concerned about the rest of humanity as well.
    I think you misunderstood my point-it is my contention that American intervention in Iraq benifited the Iraqis in the medium to long-term, so opposition to the Iraq war (by American patriots) on humanitarian grounds should not be an issue, except insofar that A.) it wasted resources which could be put to more effective ends (humanitarian and otherwise) elsewhere, and B.) the occupation phase was FUBAR, largely because of terrible intelligence and even worse executive judgement. I assure you, I was not trying to say that Americans should be unconcerned with the rest of humanity.

    To Tiny Army:
    The war was undertaken due to a combination of Iraq violating the terms of surrender (intended to contain the threat it posed), terrible intelligence combined with deliberate misinformation by the Hussein regime (his own fucking Generals believed they still had WMD's), a failure to realistically access the cost versus benifits of an invasion without UN approval, and unrealistic "the mouse that roared" fantasies (in that sense we were the victoms of our own post-war successes in Japan and Germany). My point (regarding a topic that has nothing to do with the OP) is that the Iraq war is an example of well-intentioned American naivity, arrogance, stupidity, and yes, even percieved national interests-but not American perfidity.

    Also, GWB was well-intentioned, stubborn, and incompetent, not a hilteresque embodiment of evil :rolleyes2: As for the Hussein regime, it was bitterly opposed by about three-quarters of the population, for the past decade preceeding the war it had brought about economic disaster as a result of Hussein's policies, and if Hussein had not decided to play a self-defeating game of misinformation and deceptive defiance of arms inspectors we (i.e. Americans) would have been content not to militarily intervene in Iraq. As for Shariah law, you are right that that is a short-term downgrade from the previous regime (outside of Iraqi Kurdistan), but anything better is unsustainable under current cultural conditions. Secular despotisms tend to further radicalize the population in an Islamist direction over time, while democracy within orthodox Muslim countries tends to result in the implementation of Shariah law in the short to medium term, absent sufficient protections from an imposed constitution (even those are insufficient for some populations)-its a dilemma.

  10. #80
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny Army View Post
    What right did the Americans have to decide whether or not the Iraqi people were happy?
    Because we are stronger than them, and therefore know better.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Sex the Primary Motive for Islamic Terrorism?
    By Crabs in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11-25-2015, 11:57 AM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-09-2015, 05:46 PM
  3. The Role of Law and the Idea of Majority Rules
    By ByMySword in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 07:01 PM
  4. Silent Victor and the Therapy Thread
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 10:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO