Letter of Apology

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX

Skeptic,

You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel.

Yes. They prefer to demonize the messenger, rather than rationally address the message.

They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it.

So I've noticed.

In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.

It's a sad time in America.

Indeed! :noid:

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by PureX

Yes, they are a perfect example of the extremism of absolutists - particularly of religious absolutists. The only solution they can see to any problem is "kill it".

The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by dotcom

OK, now identify the complexity both the terrorists and Bush were/was trying to avoid respectively.

What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

What? Have you not been reading "commie" posts for the past few years? If you had, you would have some sense of the complex issues at hand.

Translation: "I have no idea, I just keep repeating the demo-commie talking points hoping I won't actually have to explain them"

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.

Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so. In fact, Saddam was complying with such resolutions in the months leading up to March 2003. Just because Saddam didn't step down from power when Bush asked him to, it does not follow that there was no other ways to eventually remove him from power. Bush's invasion was unnecessary and immoral.

We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work.

We DID NOT exhaust our options by any means.

Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq.

Saddam was NOT a threat. And there is no clear hard evidence that shows otherwise. One does NOT invade a country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, because of hardships a dictator inflicts on his people. If Saddam had been in the middle of mass exterminations, in March 2003, this would have been a different story. Saddam was boxed in and monitored 24/7. He was unlikely to pull such crap.

Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left.

As most people now agree, invading Iraq was HARDLY the best option! And it was FAR from the only option left.

I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what?

How many innocent men, women and children do you think really died during and since Bush's invasion of March 2003?

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because Saddam had not previously met UN resolutions, it does not follow that would continue to do so.

:darwinsm:


My sides are hurting, that was hilarious!

 

[BillyBob]

Thanks for the laugh, Skeptic! :darwinsm:

::still laughing::

 

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

 

[drbrumley]

Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

If not,why?

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Question, if the United States had sactions placed upon us, would we not break them?

If so, why?

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Of course we would break them. Screw the rest of the world, we are the LONE SUPERPOWER!

WE DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANYBODY! :banana:

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have?

They have no rights at all, unless they can defend and maintain them.

No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

Any sovereign nation can break sanctions if it has the military stregnth to do so. Saddam gambled and lost. So is the way of the world.

Are you suggesting we have Global Laws that the US should submit to?

 

[drbrumley]

Global laws? Of course not. That infringes upon the right of EVERY nation.

EVEN IRAQ!

So I submit to you, that the United Nations has no juristidiction in any nations affairs, whether they are weak or powerful. And if the United Nations cant be allowed to sanction us, then the United Nations cant sanction anyone.

Iraq pre Kuwait, had our blessing and approval to do what they did. Let me quote the ambassodor to Iraq in the transcript to a meeting held with Saddam Hussein:

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

And if I may, your reasoning begs the question. If we can do whatever we so please when it comes to other nations and the world body of the U.N., what did Iraq do that was so different from us? Nothing. Kuwait was infringing on the borders, everyone knows this, including Bush 1 and he gave tasit approval. Until the U.N. freaked out, nothing was going to be done. As our ambassodor said and rightfully so..... "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

It is pretty self evident where the facts take us and the facts take us we had NO business over there in the first place.

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude. England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation. You are much worse than a communist. You are a globalists neo con and I don't care if you get angry. I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Can I have a civilized discussion without all the negativity for once?

 

[drbrumley]

OEJ says

Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.

Who gave us that right?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The current war between Muslim extremist absolutists and Right-wing Christian absolutists (fundies and the Bush Administration) can only result in an endless battle, just like what has been happening for years between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since absolutism is irrational, I feel that, unless absolutists give up their absolutism, there is little hope for progress. Perhaps the best we can do is try to unite the voices of reason in the hope that they will someday be heard.

Yes, the attacks happening in Iraq are not going to stop, now, until we leave. And we aren't going to leave until they stop, because that would make us look like losers. So the Iraqi absolutists (insurgents) and the american absolutists (Bush conservatives) are now locked in battle by their own willful ignorance, costing many lives and billions of dollars and with no end in sight.

Basically what's going to happen is that the Bush administration will have to tell ever more outrageous lies about how Iraq has been "freed from tyrany" until they can begin to pull out while pretending that they have succeeded. Meanwhile the anti-american forces in Iraq will claim that they have "beat" the americans and will try to use their "victory" to gain them popular influence and ultimately political control of Iraq. And they may well succeed. But by then all the participants in this fiasco will be retired from public office, and will just ignore the incredible damage they've done through their willful ignorance and hubris. And the american people will be paying for this mess for decades to come. No one will think about the many thousands that have died, except those who knew and loved them personally.

 

[elected4ever]

I deleted the last post that I made at the request of doc. I do not apologize for my indignation at those who flaunt the US Constitution and treat it as though it were toilet paper. I Have no respect for communist, neocons, liberals or progressives. I believe you all are enemies of this country and of the constitution whether you are citizens or not.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by elected4ever

BB, I'm surprised. you have a might makes right attitude.

Why? That is the only way to enforce your will?

England had an embargo on us and the French broke that embargo and we became a nation.

Yep, we became mightier than England!

You are much worse than a communist.

I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...

You are a globalists

You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.

neo con

I'm not Jewish,

and I don't care if you get angry.

Obviously.

I will refrain from further comment as anything else I might say is for worse than what I have already said.

Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto?

 

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Why? That is the only way to enforce your will?

Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.

Yep, we became mightier than England!

How is that when we pay tribute to the English.

I can't wait to hear your explanation of this...

How is overtly destroying a nation from within in order to justify global expansion.

You are a liar, I am anything BUT a globalist.

How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.

I'm not Jewish,

Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?

Why stop now, you've already demonstrated a total incomprehension of reality, why not go for the gusto?

I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by elected4ever

How am I a lier.

No, no, no....he called you a "liar."