Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:31 PM
176 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Meddle, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (8 members, 168 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,581 Year: 2,618/19,786 Month: 700/1,918 Week: 288/266 Day: 25/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   I hate being right
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3876
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 91 of 119 (74795)
12-23-2003 12:49 AM


A 'Great Debate'???
Sure looks to me, that a NoniNeal / Holmes 1 on 1 "Great Debate" has the potential of being a great epic battle.

Neil, it's very, very, very rarely done, but the "Great Debate" forum is designated as being for 1 on 1 debates, with each party taking a turn posting a message. In concept, it would be judged by a 3rd party moderator, but I would think we could do away with that.

Neil, Holmes - Interested in a "Great Debate"?

One of you make the proposal, in a "Suggestions" topic, if interesed. If it is to be, we can set up the ground rules in that topic. The starting of "Great Debate" topics is by admin only.

Adminnnemooseus
(full disclosure - the "non-admin" mode, minnemooseus, is very much on the side of the holmes perspective on this)

ps - For newcomers - Most of the "Great Debate" topics are from the pre-1 on 1 days, and shouldn't be viewed as examples of the "modern" "Great Debate" concept.


Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 12-23-2003 7:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2003 2:21 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3915 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 92 of 119 (74818)
12-23-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Adminnemooseus
12-23-2003 12:49 AM


Re: A 'Great Debate'???
Mighty Moose -

Having debated our good holmes on a (vaguely) related topic in the not too distant past, and agreeing entirely with neither he nor our newly installed poster NoniNeal, I would be happy to moderate that debate if it were to take place.

Besides, beyond overspending my income for the next few weeks, I've got nothing better to do. When WILL USAID make a decision on that contract???????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2003 12:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 3:40 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 119 (74873)
12-23-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 12:26 AM


Re: Iraq War
What do you suggest? to Pray?

While we watched Saddass, his sons and his regime imprison, beat, rape and kill more children?

Then why does Bush stand by and watch thousands upon thousands of Africans die because of brutal rulers?

We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration claimed they were a threat to the US, not to other Iraqi's. Saddam had been killing his own people for 20 years or more, why invade now? Because it is politically advantageous due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11, it was only after the attacks that he could muster the support he wanted, and then only among the American public. If you want to really help people under brutal dictators, you should be screaming for US intervention in Africa, many more have died and are dying there than in Iraq. This whole conflict stinks of political positioning, not national security or altruism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 12:26 AM NoniNeil has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 119 (74877)
12-23-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Adminnemooseus
12-23-2003 12:49 AM


Ahhhh, someone once criticized a debate I was having as generating more heat than light. With regards to a debate with NoniNeal I really think it would be 90% heat, 5% light, and 5% wasted energy.

The guy attacked me in two different threads at once, using very little substance in both and in the other thread never actually read (or understood) my post or the link I had in it to a more in depth article. He seems more intent on antagonizing me than delivering cogent debate.

However, I LOVE the idea of the Great Debate forum, and if this guy wants to spend the time and energy debating this issue with me, I won't decline... I just think it won't end up being that "great" (other than the amounts of steam available to power some turbine engines).

Since Quetzal volunteered to moderate on this topic, stating that he didn't exactly agree with my opinion, and I thoroughly enjoyed debating him (and hey what happened to that thread Q?) a Great Debate between he and I on the Iraq War might be more fruitful.

------------------
holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2003 12:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 12-24-2003 8:17 AM Silent H has responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 95 of 119 (74878)
12-23-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
09-29-2003 5:35 PM


quote:
based on no real intelligence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone

What about all the Democrats (including Clinton and Gore) that told us Saddam had WMD? Remember, Clinton even brought us to the brink of war with Iraq in '98.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2003 5:35 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2003 5:28 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 96 of 119 (74880)
12-23-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by wj
10-02-2003 7:32 PM


quote:
Never mind. Isn't North Korea next onthe list? Or maybe its Iran.

That's another good point. If we *had* to invade somebody shouldn't it have been Iran?

Still glad Saddam is out of power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by wj, posted 10-02-2003 7:32 PM wj has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 97 of 119 (74887)
12-23-2003 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
07-15-2003 8:57 AM


I have decided that Schraf is correct on the lack of WMD. If we had known there were no WMD's I would probably not have favored the war.

I was wrong, but am in good company.

Bush was wrong, as were a host of Dems like Clinton himself. We will see if any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda pan out. If Bush lied to us so did Clinton and Gore.

Bush and Clinton reacted to the perceived threat differently. Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq and called it a day. Bush invaded and now has Saddam in a brig somewhere.

Both leaders apparently believed that Saddam had WMD ambitions. Both leaders recognized or at least claimed that Saddam must not obtain WMDs. Which leader was more decisive?

Which leader has absolutely removed any possible threat Saddam posed to the United States? The brunt of the argument against the war is that Saddam never posed a legitimate threat in the first place. IE, the best that they can do is point out (correctly) that we chose the wrong target, not that we failed to remove the alleged threat.

Clinton told us Saddam was an imminent threat and promised to do something about it:

quote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

( http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html )

I want to note that although WMD's have not been found, forbidden missiles have been found. Clinton's attempts(?) to deny these delivery systems to Saddam failed. And, for those who favored UN inspections, when some of those missiles were found Saddam threatened to defy the UN orders to destroy them even as war loomed.

Now look at it from a practical perspective. The assumption in both political parties was that Saddam will covet WMDs for the rest of his time in power. The entire argument was over how to deny Saddam those weapons. The doves favored continued UN inspections, the hawks invasion. Leading up to the war Saddam suddenly decided it might be in his best interest to bring in the inspectors---and what do they find? Illegal missile technology. To top that off, Saddam has the gall (see above) to announce that he doesn't want to give that up, effectively demonstrating to all the world that inspections are a joke without Bush breathing down his back.

What would we do? Continue the sanctions indefinately? Maintain permanent troop buildup outside Iraq so we can invade at a moment's notice? Knowing that despite these methods Saddam might *still* be working on his bombs?

Or we could solve it permanently, which we did. Saddam is safely tucked away watching home movies of his reign as CIA operatives try to make him crack on things like Scott Speicher, WMD, and the insurgency. Bush removed the man who reigned as the "villain" in American life from 1991-2001 and the voters just might remember that next year. If only we had bin Laden.

And a closing farce:

quote:
"WHAT?! You're sh!!!!ng me! You HAVE to be sh!!!ng me. You'd BETTER be sh!!!!ng me!" -- Howard Dean on Saddam's capture, according to The Daily Show (Comedy Central)

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 07-15-2003 8:57 AM nator has not yet responded

  
NoniNeil
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 119 (74892)
12-23-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Quetzal
12-23-2003 7:21 AM


Re: A 'Great Debate'???
Hi,

thanks for your offer.

Some people just like to debate (argue) so much they will take the opposite side of an issue to do so.

I have never done that and never will as I consider it to be a waste of time.

While I do not like to debate (or argue) I also do not like to read things which are, to put it bluntly, total BS!

So I reply to them.

So thanks again only I have not interest in continuing this "debate"
as it would be nothing other than a total waste of my time. Time I would rather use learning new things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 12-23-2003 7:21 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 4:36 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 119 (74904)
12-23-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 12:26 AM


Whew, that must have been real easy cutting to one of my questions and hinging your entire argument on the weakness of that one issue.

Too bad real life was not just that one issue. It came with all of those others. Answer ALL the questions in my post.

But here is my reply to your criticism of my saying there were alternatives...

quote:
What do you suggest? to Pray?

How ironic that our televangelist President never thought of that angle. Or maybe he did and when his prayers weren't answered overnight he jumped to the opposite side of the stock dilemma he built.

Not being a religious person I don't think prayer would help much. Most assuredly the prayers of the devout Iraqis didn't do much against Saddam's reign of terror.

My own thought was that containment was doing just fine preventing Saddam from threatening other countries militarily. Iraq was also not in much of a position to enact terrorist actions outside the mideast region, and according to all intelligence was unlikely to start any. Thus there was no imminent threat to the US and so should have taken a back seat to other priorities.

Which is not to say we couldn't have done anything else... just that an invasion at this time and under these conditions was putting way too much priority on a sideline figure when we have REAL threats to deal with.

quote:
While we watched Saddass, his sons and his regime imprison, beat, rape and kill more children? To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?

Yes, quite a tragedy. I am curious as to why it was good to let this occur for over a decade, and NOW it suddenly became a top priority. If it were to be stopped, there were much better moments in the past, and there will certainly be better moments in the future.

Where are your tears for the people of Uzbhekistan who are also suffering under the same conditions? Apparently they are not as high a priority as Iraq? How about Africa (damn loudmouth for beating me to the punch on this)?

There are many dictatorships out there crying for overturn. Many are supported by the US, just as Saddam was at the HEIGHT of his slaughter. Why was this the right time and invasion the method for Iraq?

quote:
To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?

Other than the purge directly after Iraq War 1, Saddam did most of his killing (including Iraqi citizens) with the support of the US. He had not been killing people in mass numbers in more recent years. He was unlikely to start again.

Unless of course you are talking about the Iraqi's dying of neglect, by the combo of Saddam being a terrible leader (misappropriating resources) and economic sanctions (which hit the regular guy more than the superbillionaire living on top).

quote:
People like you crack me up as you are aways talking about "some other way' yet you NEVER give a viable and workable "other way"

People like you crack me up, buying into whatever stock dilemma your leader hands you without question.

I started writing up some alternatives and realized I didn't want to go on about what could have been done in some hypothetical past. Whatever I said could just as easily be dismissed with "how would we know that would work?"

I had alternative ideas before the war (which to make very brief added carrots to encourage procedural changes, while maintaing a very strong stick if he did not comply), and if you want me to explore them, open a thread.

To be more practical, let us look at the statement "this war was the right thing to do", because we did it and now we can look at the results.

1) Was it necessary for US national security? No. This became evident as the war progressed and ended so quickly. Iraq posed no military threat to its own neighbors much less to the US. Ironically this was given as reason number one to go to war.

2) Was it necessary to fight terrorism or the spread of WMD technology? No. Although I myself figured he still had remnants of his earlier chem/bio programs, they were not really useful to terrorists (Homeland Security announced after the war had started that most terrorists would just make the same chem/bio weapons where they were). It is pretty obvious he had no active or "real" WMD programs going on. He also had less ties to terrorist groups than the CIA. This was #2 on the list of reasons to go to war.

3) Did we need to invade when we did? No. The only thing we accomplished by launching our invasion in the manner we did, was to divide the international community and violate international law. The damage done to Europe alone was not worth invading in the manner we did. It was Bush's claim that we simply had to go in at that time, but this has been proven false.

4) Did we free the Iraqi people? Now that's an interesting one. Certainly we removed Saddam from the picture. Clap clap clap. It is also arguable that the only way we were going to get him and his sons out of power was violent force. That deserves a thread all on its own.

But did we really free the Iraqi people of all those problems of having their money stolen by robber barons, use of torture on prisoners, propaganda as a form of state control, and no true democratic form of government?

The governing council was appointed by the US and it is now being said that the Iraqis may not be allowed to have a true democratic nation, which is to say they vote for who they want. This is because the end result of a true democracy will be the rise of fundmenatalist Islam. So now US officials have begun saying as long as the government is representative of all people (hmmm wonder if that will include gays, and athiests) it doesn't have to be elected.

One member of the council by the name of Chalabi, essentially the head of the council, is a convicted criminal along the lines of Ken Lay (of Enron fame). Not sure if you know this but he now owns the main press in Iraq, and swamped the media with photos of a captures Saddam sitting beneath Chalabi. Guess regime change is in place huh? Trust Chalabi everyone, he won't steal any money... he's only guilty of bilking millions to get to the position he is in now: running Iraq. After all, his own newspaper won't lie will it?

While a constitution gets firmed up there is no reality being set up on the ground for adequate resource "rearrangement" to make up for the years of getting screwed at the hands of Saddam. If they follow the US model, they may even lose health and welfare coverage.

There is also no sense that humanitarian rights will be followed in the coming regime. They are already being violated in order to crack down on insurgents. Hmmmmm... that's exactly what Saddam was doing! We even enjoyed having people "rendered" into his hands for torture that we could not commit in the US. You think that will change?

And if one looks at the past, this really does not look good. Britain did this very thing almost 100 years ago. It was from the ashes of the wonderful government they installed (which was supposed to become the example for great governments in the region) that Saddam appeared.

I grant that with Saddam gone there is an opportunity for a better Iraq. I really do believe this. But we are not helping this possibility become a reality as we continue to follow the failed policies of the past (installing a government we like), and knowingly put into power a ruthless man who is without question a criminal. The latter is exactly what we did with Saddam.

I am unsure if this opportunity was worth the price we paid, and forced Iraqis to pay. Many Iraqis are stating this themselves, and may raise there voices louder when the final government has been installed. We'll have to see.

quote:
I'll bet you were against us freeing Kuwiat or stopping the killing in Bosina, Crosia and Kosovo.

What a maroon. We freed Kuwait? When did we do that? Sure I was for freeing Kuwait (so you lost that bet), but all we did was free Kuwait and then turn it back over to its original dictatorship. You really think they have a free government and no torture?

All we freed was oil fields for the emirate and ourselves. When confronted with this fact (Kuwaitis are not free, only the oil was freed) Cheney admitted this was our goal and said there was no moral problem with that position. Yeah.

You also lose your bet with Bosnia and Croatia. Feel like an idiot yet? I am against INVASIONS which break INTERNATIONAL LAW. It just so happens that's what we did in Iraq. What that makes me is consistent.

Your only correct guess was Kosovo. Ironically Milosevic was actually fighting a real menace in that region... Islamic terrorist groups. He had a heavy hand, but just as ruthless as his opposition. His only mistake it appears was timing. If he had waited till after 9-11 he could have waved the "war on terrorism" banner and did all he wanted. That would put him on par with that guy in Uzbekistan, who is just as ruthless as Saddam, but our best bud.

quote:
Guys like you sit around wringing your hands and talking while people are being tortured and killed by the thousands while people like me take action to stop it.

This is material for a standup act you're working on right?

Uhhhhh... It was Rumsfeld, Reagan, Cheney, and Bush (both jr and sr) that wrang their hands and talked while Saddam killed. All but Jr even gave him materials and intelligence to do so. That's why he was in a position that when he finally turned on us, we had to resort to force to get him out.

But mr action hero, do tell what you did for the Iraqi people to try and oust Saddam during his reign of terror under the Reagan administration (and so were a traitor to our country at that time)? Or how about under Bush Sr when he was still our pal? Or after he was our enemy? How's about during this last war? What action did you personally take to stop it?

And why are you relaxing? Uzbekistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Israel (which is to say Palestinian children tortured in Israeli jails) and the people of many impoverished nations of Africa and South/Central America are crying for your help!

Tell us very clearly what you are doing for them tough guy.

------------------
holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 12:26 AM NoniNeil has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 4:28 PM Silent H has responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 100 of 119 (74906)
12-23-2003 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
12-23-2003 4:11 PM


Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan break international law?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2003 4:11 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2003 5:38 PM gene90 has responded

  
NoniNeil
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 119 (74908)
12-23-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 3:40 PM


Re: A 'Great Debate'???
As for the WMD, I am sure glad that some people here know more about it than the intelligence agencies of MANY countries, the UN, the people who worked on them in Iraq and the people killed by them.

(And that they do not care that segments of the Italian intelligence agencies who were against our actions in Iraq forged papers about the uranium buying in Africa. And that it done so in an effort to discredit both the American & British governments.)

With all the brilliant knowledge available from some on here, I am sure all of the worlds problems will be quickly solved.

And the logic used!!!

My my, of course Saddam would rather be invaded, his family killed and thrown out of power rather than allowing the UN the free access for the inspections they had been after for 12 years.

Rather than letting the UN inspection teams talk to people who were not building things which were not there.

(Yea, Right!)

It is MUCH better to LOSE EVERYTHING than it would be to let others in to see what you do not have!

DUH!

As I have said for MANY MANY years, it seems about the ONLY thing MOST Atheists use logic on is their non-
belief in a god or gods.

(Any of the more than 30,000 gods we humans have invented so far.)

While Saddam as a very bad person, he is still an intelligent person. Anyone who really thinks that he would suffer a total defeat over something he does not have, most certainly suffers from a LACK of logical thinking skills.

Anyone who thinks ALL of those various intelligence agencies were wrong and all those who worked on WMD are liars, all those killed by a WMD (poison gas) are not dead, and that the Israeli air force did not take out an atomic research/bomb making facility are either totally ignorant of the facts or they are just too dumb to comprehend facts!

As to the comments on Clinton, he could not have taken more serious action than he did as he would not have had e support in Congress necessary to support it.

He did what he could do and MOST of you have NO clue as to the behind the scenes things he was doing in trying to solve the problem.

Of course, the money some of the idiot Republicans (and no I am not a Democrate either) spent (more than $40,000,000) the wasted hours and hours and hours trying to find some REAL crime Clinton suppostedly committed, could have been better spent on intelligence gathering so we could do more than launch a few cruise missles!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 3:40 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 5:15 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded
 Message 105 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 5:15 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2003 5:53 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 102 of 119 (74912)
12-23-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mammuthus
07-16-2003 4:03 AM


As for the gasmasks, it is also possible that some of the Iraqi military believed/were told Saddam had WMDs. Who cares anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 07-16-2003 4:03 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 119 (74916)
12-23-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 12:46 AM


It is so FAR from being a rational and logical reply, it is not worth my time to responed to any further than
this.

Why, because I don't agree with you? Well, that's fine, old-timer. Talk to yourself then if you can't handle reasoned disagreement. In the meantime you might ask yourself: if Bush will start a war to appease his war-profiteering corporate buddies, what else will he do for them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 12:46 AM NoniNeil has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 104 of 119 (74917)
12-23-2003 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 4:36 PM


Re: A 'Great Debate'???
quote:
REAL crime Clinton suppostedly committed

It's only perjury, my gosh. Could I get away with it like he did?

What is your definition of a "real crime"?

And when the head of the Executive Branch, who is ultimately tasked with law enforcement in this nation, cannot himself abide by the nation's laws he is supposed to be upholding, you don't see a problem with that?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 4:36 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2003 5:37 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1866 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 105 of 119 (74918)
12-23-2003 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 4:36 PM


Re: A 'Great Debate'???
Double post, please delete.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 4:36 PM NoniNeil has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019