Chavez to Cut Off Oil

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…How to kill lots of you while losing relatively few of them.

You really have no idea what is going on, do you?

Of course I do.

They want you gone.

You´ll go sooner or later.

Considering they are waging war against a western power their causalities are surprisingly low, if you do not count Iraqi civilians as “them”.

You are just reinforcing your lack of knowledge.

Am I?

How so?

Do a little reading on the way is progressing. You will see that their casualties are quite high and you will see that they have almost given up on targeting US soldiers. It has been this way for quite a while.

In fact most US casualties now are as a result of aggressive action against these pricks.

Most of their targets are civilians.

Care to back that up with anything?

So far, American soldiers are dying at approximately the same rate as before and the insurgents are not running out of men.

Their causality rate is probably better than that of the Vietnamese which was good enough for them to win and infinitely better than trying to confront the US in open battle-

The claim that they mainly target civilians is unsubstantiated, though I can imagine that quite a lot of civilians die when you attack a checkpoint or ambush a convoy.

That however would be “collateral” damage which means according to your logic that they do not count.

Do a little reading of people that have actually been there and less info from Wiki. You are ill informed and frankly it is a waste of my time to try to educate you.

Bombs go off in markets and mosques and bus drivers kids are kidnapped. In your warped mind these are the people that prop up the Iraqi regime?

[/quote]

So I guess you answer to "care to back that up with anything " is no?

102

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again. [/quote]

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

103

[quote]orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I guess by your dodging the bet, you are as big a coward as your brothers-in-bomb-vests. You have yet to let me down. You keep validating my disgust at your existence.

People in bomb vests are cowards?

Bomber crews and artillery personnel are heroes?

They don’t have bombers or artillery in Europe’s arsenal?

Of course we have. We do not have the American worship of the military though.

[/quote]

No you don’t. We’ve kept you safe for 60 years now, though.

104

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again.

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

[/quote]

I’d love to see some proof of that.

105

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again.

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

I’d love to see some proof of that.

[/quote]

Well, I guess according to you it is not ok to kill.

Unless someone attacks you.

Unless he attacks you because he was seriously provoked by you or you gave him reason to fear for his life if he did not attack you.

Unless of course he misjudged your intentions or overreacted.

Only if he is seriously able to harm you of course and how many when, ifs and buts you want to introduce into a hypothetical situation.

With moral absolutes like that you are in fact a moral relativist in disguise, because few moral relativists make it as complicated as that.

106

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again.

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

I’d love to see some proof of that.

Well, I guess according to you it is not ok to kill.

Unless someone attacks you.

Unless he attacks you because he was seriously provoked by you or you gave him reason to fear for his life if he did not attack you.

Unless of course he misjudged your intentions or overreacted.

Only if he is seriously able to harm you of course and how many when, ifs and buts you want to introduce into a hypothetical situation.

With moral absolutes like that you are in fact a moral relativist in disguise, because few moral relativists make it as complicated as that.

[/quote]

OH. MY. GOD.

You’re serious, aren’t you? OK, I’ll play.

It is absolutely moral to protect the safety and sovereignty of one’s country. In fact, it’s constitutional.

I could give a shit about the motives of the towel heads that, if one were to hold them to the same standard you hold the US, would be hemorrhaging hypocrisy. I care only about my country. Like it or not - that is what we are doing. We are killing murderous thugs like lixy’s friends by the thousands in Iraq.

Why? It’s easier to round up the cattle and put them in one pen than it is to chase each one around the entire ranch individually. It is working.

Where is the relativism?

Nice try. Say, since you are over in Europe basking in the safety that the US provides you - how about at least making a fucking effort at rational thought?

I know you can do it.

107

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again.

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

I’d love to see some proof of that.

Well, I guess according to you it is not ok to kill.

Unless someone attacks you.

Unless he attacks you because he was seriously provoked by you or you gave him reason to fear for his life if he did not attack you.

Unless of course he misjudged your intentions or overreacted.

Only if he is seriously able to harm you of course and how many when, ifs and buts you want to introduce into a hypothetical situation.

With moral absolutes like that you are in fact a moral relativist in disguise, because few moral relativists make it as complicated as that.

OH. MY. GOD.

You’re serious, aren’t you? OK, I’ll play.

It is absolutely moral to protect the safety and sovereignty of one’s country. In fact, it’s constitutional.

I could give a shit about the motives of the towel heads that, if one were to hold them to the same standard you hold the US, would be hemorrhaging hypocrisy. I care only about my country. Like it or not - that is what we are doing. We are killing murderous thugs like lixy’s friends by the thousands in Iraq.

Why? It’s easier to round up the cattle and put them in one pen than it is to chase each one around the entire ranch individually. It is working.

Where is the relativism?

Nice try. Say, since you are over in Europe basking in the safety that the US provides you - how about at least making a fucking effort at rational thought?

I know you can do it. [/quote]

A) You do not garantue our safety-

We do not need you.

Get that.

B) If you only care about your country your claim to moral absolutism is gone anyway.

If “good or bad my country” is your credo you have to accept it from anyone else.

108

[quote]orion wrote:

A) You do not garantue our safety-

We do not need you.

Get that.[/quote]

Wrong Euro-boy. You have not lived a day without our protection - unless you are 60 years old.

You can pretend all you want, that’s fine with me. But at the end of the day, the truth is that we are there at your request.

Get that.

[quote]B) If you only care about your country your claim to moral absolutism is gone anyway.

If “good or bad my country” is your credo you have to accept it from anyone else.
[/quote]

Good or bad is not the issue. Protection of my country is. That is an absolute.

Try harder. You are boring me.

109

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Protection of my country is. [/quote]

How exactly does turning Iraq into a terrorist haven serve that purpose?

110

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Protection of my country is.

How exactly does turning Iraq into a terrorist haven serve that purpose?[/quote]

Read dumbass. I spelled it out.

111

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

A) You do not garantue our safety-

We do not need you.

Get that.

Wrong Euro-boy. You have not lived a day without our protection - unless you are 60 years old.

You can pretend all you want, that’s fine with me. But at the end of the day, the truth is that we are there at your request.

Get that.

B) If you only care about your country your claim to moral absolutism is gone anyway.

If “good or bad my country” is your credo you have to accept it from anyone else.

Good or bad is not the issue. Protection of my country is. That is an absolute.

Try harder. You are boring me.

[/quote]

And again.

We do not need your protection.

If the defense of your country is a moral absolute, so was Nazi Germanies, Sowjet Russias and Khmer Rouges Kambodia.

Which makes it a moral relative in the extreme. All that matters is where you are born.

112

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Protection of my country is.

How exactly does turning Iraq into a terrorist haven serve that purpose?[/quote]

Haven? More like death trap.

113

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I love it when people argue over personal value judgments.

Will someone please tell me what shade of red to call this…?

coward red or heroic red?

I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.

Try again.

Enough of the moral relativism humbug, you are a moral relativist like the rest of us.

Deal with it.

I’d love to see some proof of that.

Well, I guess according to you it is not ok to kill.

Unless someone attacks you.

Unless he attacks you because he was seriously provoked by you or you gave him reason to fear for his life if he did not attack you.

Unless of course he misjudged your intentions or overreacted.

Only if he is seriously able to harm you of course and how many when, ifs and buts you want to introduce into a hypothetical situation.

With moral absolutes like that you are in fact a moral relativist in disguise, because few moral relativists make it as complicated as that.

OH. MY. GOD.

You’re serious, aren’t you? OK, I’ll play.
[/quote]

Yes I am.

Would beating around the bush score any points with you?

114

[quote]orion wrote:
And again.

We do not need your protection.[/quote]

That’s say to say when you are saying it in the shadow of the very protection you say you don’t need.

A crack whore doesn’t need cocaine, either. But they usually only say that when they are stoned.

[quote]If the defense of your country is a moral absolute, so was Nazi Germanies, Sowjet Russias and Khmer Rouges Kambodia.

Which makes it a moral relative in the extreme. All that matters is where you are born.
[/quote]

Not my job, or responsibility to understand the why’s and wherefores of other countries’ actions. But - everyone you listed believed in mass murder as a tool of governing. But that’s what the wars are for. Winner is right. Loser goes home.

115

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

A) You do not garantue our safety-

We do not need you.

Get that.

Wrong Euro-boy. You have not lived a day without our protection - unless you are 60 years old.

You can pretend all you want, that’s fine with me. But at the end of the day, the truth is that we are there at your request.

Get that.

B) If you only care about your country your claim to moral absolutism is gone anyway.

If “good or bad my country” is your credo you have to accept it from anyone else.

Good or bad is not the issue. Protection of my country is. That is an absolute.

Try harder. You are boring me.

And again.

We do not need your protection.

If the defense of your country is a moral absolute, so was Nazi Germanies, Sowjet Russias and Khmer Rouges Kambodia.

Which makes it a moral relative in the extreme. All that matters is where you are born.
[/quote]

Actually, whether you need it or not is irrelevant. We aren’t doing it for you we do it for ourselves really. It’s a hangover from the cold war.

Austria happens to be located pretty strategically in Europe, it was imperative to be good friends during the cold war. If anybody were to fuck with you, we got your back like it or not. No I do not expect you would do the same, but that doesn’t really matter.

116

Why are you guys playing into Lixy’s little game? This thread was supposed to be about Chavez’ hollow threats to cut off oil sales to his only customer.

It is pathetic how in Europe today an entire generation has been blinded by Iraq. Europeans can’t talk about anything political without whining about Iraq.

It is so sad that Europeans today are not capable of thinking about any other issues, not even the ones that are close to home. ie The EU parliament is forcing a constitution upon the people in an undemocratic manner yet all Europeans can do is piss and moan about Iraq.

117

[quote]pat wrote:
Actually, whether you need it or not is irrelevant. We aren’t doing it for you we do it for ourselves really. It’s a hangover from the cold war.[/quote]

We are there because we are the only member of NATO with a military big and powerful enough to defend the entire continent. I don’t think our membership in NATO is warranted anymore. So now we are there because these idiots across the pond have let their own military rot.

118

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

A) You do not garantue our safety-

We do not need you.

Get that.

Wrong Euro-boy. You have not lived a day without our protection - unless you are 60 years old.

You can pretend all you want, that’s fine with me. But at the end of the day, the truth is that we are there at your request.

Get that.

B) If you only care about your country your claim to moral absolutism is gone anyway.

If “good or bad my country” is your credo you have to accept it from anyone else.

Good or bad is not the issue. Protection of my country is. That is an absolute.

Try harder. You are boring me.

And again.

We do not need your protection.

If the defense of your country is a moral absolute, so was Nazi Germanies, Sowjet Russias and Khmer Rouges Kambodia.

Which makes it a moral relative in the extreme. All that matters is where you are born.

Actually, whether you need it or not is irrelevant. We aren’t doing it for you we do it for ourselves really. It’s a hangover from the cold war.

Austria happens to be located pretty strategically in Europe, it was imperative to be good friends during the cold war. If anybody were to fuck with you, we got your back like it or not. No I do not expect you would do the same, but that doesn’t really matter.[/quote]

Excuse me, if anyone were to fuck with us you would have thrown Eastern Austria to the wolves and only have defended Western Austria which was and is mined like you would not believe anyway.

The fact is that you could only cross the Alps if Switzerland or Austria wants you too.

That corridor between Italy and Germany makes us strategically important (since Hannibal) and nothing else.

I´d rather trust geography and mines instead of American good will.

119

[quote]orion wrote:

The fact is that you could only cross the Alps if Switzerland or Austria wants you too.
[/quote]

Or what? Ya’ll gonna throw snowballs at us?

We can go anywhere we want. Whenever we want. Make no mistake about that.

120

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:

The fact is that you could only cross the Alps if Switzerland or Austria wants you too.

Or what? Ya’ll gonna throw snowballs at us?

We can go anywhere we want. Whenever we want. Make no mistake about that. [/quote]

If you can cross Alpine passes and tunnels after we blew them up, be our guest.