1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
CsG got awfully quiet all of a sudden.

No, CsG was busy at home with kids who won't stay in bed.

However - you didn't seem to read what I said and then proceeded to post a bunch of irrelevant BS. You claimed it was the "sole justification" -but that is incorrect like I said. There were many justifications - many of which would stand on their own.

CsG

Again, you are 100% wrong:

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

See that part right there, CsG? There it is in that black and white you love to obfuscate so much.



Want to see it again from a different viewpoint?

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

Alright then - the condescending and idiotic rhetoric of the actual definition laid aside, you've found a reference to neo-socialism (I like Kibbo's better though).

Now if only that had anything to do with Conjur's post, you would be well justified in using the term.

Edit: You love to edit!

EDIT:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

Alright then - the condescending and idiotic rhetoric of the actual definition laid aside, you've found a reference to neo-socialism (I like Kibbo's better though).

Now if only that had anything to do with Conjur's post, you would be well justified in using the term.

Edit: You love to edit!

Sorry, I don't want or deserve a cookie here, but I'll refrain from offering it back to you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

What a load of crap.

BTW, this portion: "history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy" fits the neocons' ideology to a 't'! And it fits the Bush administration exactly, too.

I am not an ideologue. I am not a socialist. I am not a liberal. Get it? Got it? Good.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

What a load of crap.

BTW, this portion: "history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy" fits the neocons' ideology to a 't'! And it fits the Bush administration exactly, too.

I am not an ideologue. I am not a socialist. I am not a liberal. Get it? Got it? Good.

 

[conjur]

Ah, you've met your match and have capitulated.

I accept your surrender.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

What a load of crap.

BTW, this portion: "history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy" fits the neocons' ideology to a 't'! And it fits the Bush administration exactly, too.

I am an ideologue. I am not a socialist. I am a liberal. Get it? Got it? Good.

fixed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
<bleating snipped>

conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
<bleating snipped>

conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

That's right conjur. Sir Cad's unsupported partisan assertions trump your facts. Now bow before him and say ten Hail Dubya's.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, you are 100% wrong:

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

See that part right there, CsG? There it is in that black and white you love to obfuscate so much.



Want to see it again from a different viewpoint?

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"

conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, you've met your match and have capitulated.

I accept your surrender.

More like a detente...some people can't stay on here making 30 posts a day.
So accept your d@mn like a good neosocialist. :beer:

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kibbo: "Those things were not threatened by Iraq."

Well that's pretty debatable. I, along with millions of others, think we were.

I don't really understand the rest of your post. Let me just repeat that a dictatorship can claim no national rights and no such recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries. Dictatorship states are outlaws, and any free nation has the RIGHT -though not the DUTY- to destroy it. Whether it is destroyed would depend on the context, ie, the threat to one's interests (which are morally superior to the interests of a slave-state).

I'm disappointed you didn't get it. You seemed like such a bright lad.

First of all, the idea of the nation-state, and the rights of sovereignty granted therin, were created in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648(IIRTDC) after the 30 years war, designed for absolute monarchies. The rights of statehood precede the rights of man historically. So you can't just say that without strong backup.

This treaty ended the 30 years war, when kingdom's rulers USED MORAL DIFFERENCES AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR SELF-INTERESTED WAR!!! Protestants waged war on Catholic fiefdoms if they had a self-interested reason to do so, and vice-versa, with the side goal of bringing the people in those contries salvation. Which is more important than freedom, if you beleive in it. Do you beleive in salvation? Is it justification to wage war? History shows time and again that war in pursuit of lofty truths ends very badly. The evil of the ends outweigh the good of the "goods" more often than not. There are exceptions, but if you had ever actually tried to learn what a "liberal" foreign policy was, you would know what current thoughts are regarding how to tell the difference. I'll try to find one of my many previous posts that have outlined some of these.

Second of all, you do not have the right to kill people in order to liberate them.

Third of all, you must admit that having the US government being the final arbitator of all the decisions needed to justify these international actions is unacceptable. Why do the moral decisions of the United States weigh more (ethically) than those of Canada? Or the UK? Or France? We are all free countries. You don't have a monopoly on democracy. Why not let New Zealand decide the moral grounds for war? A western, democratic country, with very few international interests. Or Norway? They don't even need oil. You must at least see that it is a rediculous situation for the country that holds the strategic or economic interest is also the country that makes the moral judgement. That's like having the insurance companies decide medial malpractice suits. Or the trial attorney's association.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, you are 100% wrong:

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

See that part right there, CsG? There it is in that black and white you love to obfuscate so much.



Want to see it again from a different viewpoint?

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"

conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

You just listed several reasons that were given to the American people for the invasion. WMD was never a sole reason. Before the invasion every intel agency in the world was convinced iraq had WMD(as no reasonable proof of their destruction had been given), Iraq was without a doubt a state sponsor of terror.

These are facts you cannot change.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, you've met your match and have capitulated.

I accept your surrender.

More like a detente...some people can't stay on here making 30 posts a day.
So accept your d@mn like a good neosocialist. :beer:

I'd have to be a "neo-socialist" first. There's not one aspect of my opinions and beliefs that remotely makes me one based on your tenuous definition.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, you've met your match and have capitulated.

I accept your surrender.

More like a detente...some people can't stay on here making 30 posts a day.
So accept your d@mn like a good neosocialist. ( :beer

Freak, we've already determined what a good neosocialist is, and it's not conjur. The meaning would describe the economic policies of West Germany in the 50s. Since this thread is about international affairs, we will extend that to WGs foreign policy then, which was pretty much support the US in whatever they do. Conjur does not supprt that, so he is not a neosocialist. If you use words in a way which is different than they have ever been used before, you're not actually communicating your ideas, or even trying to. Are you in marketing?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison<blather snipped>

ah heck off, Mr. Snipe-and-run. Your vapid input is unwanted.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison<blather snipped>

ah heck off, Mr. Snipe-and-run. Your vapid input is unwanted.

How about a "FOAD" for old times sakes...


CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, you are 100% wrong:

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

See that part right there, CsG? There it is in that black and white you love to obfuscate so much.



Want to see it again from a different viewpoint?

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"

conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

How about you start accepting some truth for a change, CsG, and stop with your incessant, unproven bleating?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison<blather snipped>

ah heck off, Mr. Snipe-and-run. Your vapid input is unwanted.

Only a liar would find the truth vapid.


And please point out any instance where I have committed a snipe and run.

 

[cwjerome]

Kibbo, I can argue until the sun comes up that dictatorships hold no rights, based on logical, philosophical reasoning. And I really don't think they had a solid notion of western universals in 1648 :roll: Are we supposed to recognize some treaty that occured 150 years before the USA was even born, and use that as our basis for understanding the nature of man, rights, and nations? Ummm..... I'm gonna have to say "no."

Having the right to kill people in order to liberate them? That's a goofy statement that has no bearing. There is no such thing as killing someone to "liberate" them, it's a contradiction in terms. The US is not killing anyone to liberate them... that's just sloppy reasoning in a vain attempt to paint a bogus argument.

Third of all, I must admit that the United States should be the ONLY arbitator of what the United State's policies should be (just as Canada should be the arbitator of what Canada's polciies should be). It is ridiculous to advocate putting a nation's interests in the hands of a 3rd party, unless there was some extremely peculiar circumstances like Germany circa 1945. What a seriously deluded thing to say... NO country does what you advocate. It's just dumb man.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Dub hadn't of presented untruthful BS about Iraq being in possession of Mas Quantities of WMD's he would never had been able to sell his excellent adventure in Iraq to the American Public.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kibbo, I can argue until the sun comes up that dictatorships hold no rights, based on logical, philosophical reasoning. And I really don't think they had a solid notion of western universals in 1648 :roll: Are we supposed to recognize some treaty that occured 150 years before the USA was even born, and use that as our basis for understanding the nature of man, rights, and nations? Ummm..... I'm gonna have to say "no."

Having the right to kill people in order to liberate them? That's a goofy statement that has no bearing. There is no such thing as killing someone to "liberate" them, it's a contradiction in terms. The US is not killing anyone to liberate them... that's just sloppy reasoning in a vain attempt to paint a bogus argument.

Third of all, I must admit that the United States should be the ONLY arbitator of what the United State's policies should be (just as Canada should be the arbitator of what Canada's polciies should be). It is ridiculous to advocate putting a nation's interests in the hands of a 3rd party, unless there was some extremely peculiar circumstances like Germany circa 1945. What a seriously deluded thing to say... NO country does what you advocate. It's just dumb man.

You can't argue that you have a moral imperative to attack another nation, while simultaneously arguing that other nations have a similar moral imperative.

You have the ABILITY to attack a nation; which is not remotely the same thing.

Thousands of Iraqis have died in the alleged attempt to liberate them, including many before the first hint of 'insurgency' so, in fact the US is indeed killing people in order to liberate them. It's not sloppy reasoning, it's a legitimate question that needs a serious answer.

And 'western universals'???? Now you believe that the western world has a historical monopoly on being morally perfect and complete?

Wow.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Dub hadn't of presented untruthful BS about Iraq being in possession of Mas Quantities of WMD's he would never had been able to sell his excellent adventure in Iraq to the American Public.

Well, he thinks he's keeping his hands free from the blood of the 1,200 dead and several thousand wounded as he let the PNAC pricks put together the justification. After all, Bush can't be expected to read anything more than 3-page memo. All of those objections and doubts and caveats were just taking up valuable space in the reports.

 

[Kibbo]

1. Lemme hear it. You can stop at purple. I put forth a historical argument, that the rights of nations preceded the rights of the individual. Prove to me that a democratic country is in a moral position to determine the future of all or any non-democratic country. Try to do so in such a manner that doesn't work for a Catholic Pope who wants to get his grubby hands on Bohemia. Do you actually think that morality was defined out of the blue with the US constitution? That history has no bearing on it? And that the birth of the US was the beginning of the enlightenment? And that they got everything right? That the morals expressed in the Constitution are finished? That they will never be superceded? That they didn't miss anything? That history is finished? And philosophy is too?

2. THEN WHY ARE YOU KILLING THEM?!?!?!?!

3. I wasn't actually serious about the New Zealand thing. If the morality of the questin is a simple and logical as you think it is, you should be able to figure out a disinterested system to make the moral decisions for us. Multiproccessing is just around the corner for the average person. Can you code it?

 

[cwjerome]

That's not what I said Charlie. I said a free nation has a imperative to protect its morally superior principles and way of life against a dictatorship.

We are not killing people so we can liberate them. We are killing people because we're trying to destroy an enemy. Don't put the cart before the horse... it's ugly (and doesn't work).

I believe that the widely held western universals, best emboddied by the USA, are the best and most moral principles and beliefs known to man. Your paraphrasing of my thoughts sucks.