Where out author tries to figure out precisely what’s going on
So, if I understand some of the fodder that’s been posted lately the following are givens:
[1] Free speech is fine: but only if you subscribe to the prevailing ideology.
[2] The US should not be beholden to the UN, but the UN should ask how high when told to jump by the US.
[3] Liberals and Demoncrats are bad because they are Liberals and Demoncrats not for any reasons that would involve logic or rational argument.
[4] Having a pissing contest is the best way to debate and as a last resort attack a person’s grammar and spelling.
[5]Contradictions in logic are acceptable, for example: US War Criminals should not be tried by a world court as the court may be suject to foreign political pressure, however, the US is allowed to try terrorists and such in their own courts…
[6] The fact that the US has players that would automatically win a world championship if they played negates the fact that they came sixth; sixth is still sixth, suck it up.
That should give people something to play with 
Democrats and Liberals often have ideas that would be great if they would only work; let’s take criminals for example. I agree that it would be the best-case-scenario to counsel them and help them to fix their problems that “made” them commit violent acts in the first place rather than killing them or putting them in prison for extended periods of time. The problems is, it most often simply doesn’t work that way. In my opinion, a good example is the current situation regarding Saddam Hussein. Yes, I agree that diplomatic pressure and dialog would be the best route to dealing with the situation if it would work; the problem is that it won’t. Having this prick whacked and installing an environment in which the Iraqi people can elect their own officials is the only way. It may be hypocritical of us, but I think that it’s the only realistric solution. Honestly, for you Liberals and Democrats out there, what do you honestly plan to do if this guy does get ahold of nuclear materials and gives them to somebody like bin Laden to use against us? Try and convince him that he shouldn’t do that because it’s not nice? Flame away…
You have it all about right.
I guess point number four was directed at least in part at me, and I agree that I really should offer the forum an apology for my “argument” with Bronx Bomber. It has gotten a bit out of hand.
However, I do think that if you’re going to call someone an idiot you should at least have the wherewithal to make sure that your own posts are spelled correctly. Call me crazy, but it just seems like a logical first step. Not doing so just makes a person sound like a second grader (an illiterate second grader) throwing a tantrum or something.
Anyway, sorry for screwing up that particular thread. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.
[2]The U.N would not exist if the U.S was not a member. The U.N can’t even enforce their own sanctions, they need the U.S to lead them around by the hand.
[3]Well, here's your chance LightandFluffy!
[5]Who are these U.S War Criminals? I'm not sure I've heard that one. It seems Americans are hated anywhere oustide of North America, so perhaps they shouldn't be tried by a world court. Alternativly, terrorists who make plans to kill thousands of Americans should be tried in U.S courts.
[6]That was pathetic and is the exact reason why I don't watch the NBA until the playoffs start. They don't give any effort until that time. College basketball is far more exciting to watch. Most college players act as if the next game they play will be their last. It shows in their effort.
Here's my two cents- yeah i know, it still doesnt buy that beautiful pink lace u wanted to buy sooooo much, but stay with me. First, what u said doesnt make any sense. none whatsoever. Heck i had to reread it over ad over and I still dont know what point ur trying to make! (i did come with a thesis that ur just indirectly immplying that ur smart as a purty rock though). Second, u seem to blab about the US not using logic in their arguments, and u dont use logic in ur arguments either! heck, u dont even use arguments! Third, The US isnt telling the UN to jump, and to jump this high so we can see that purty fur undernath their skirts. The US just told the UN that if they dont jump, WE will jump. Ur comparng the UN to a babygirl that has to do what daddy tells her. Im comparing the UN to a lazy bastard who's supposed to be ensuring world peace and is instead laying down on the grass pruning themselves up ( read - too busy with diplomacy). As I see iit we have two options. We can attempt to take saddam hussein now, before he attempts to use his weapons of mass destruction on anyone who defies him. Or we can pretend he'not defying the UN, that we dont know he has intentins of using weapons of mass destruction for miitary purposes (i.e. nuke our asses), and just sweep it all under the rug. We can then wake up late in the future and realize that iraq has aqquired such ennnormous miitary power, that COUPLED with saddam's ppsycchotic tendencies, will inevitably lead to much worse conflicts in the future than what we have now. That besides the fact that we-just-dont-like-him and want him overthrown. yeah,we can will that.
[1] Usually it’s the minority voice that tries to censor, not the majority. An explanation for the current debate would be that if we are at war, and you don’t like it, shut the fuck up or you are a traitor. End of story.
[2] The UN is a contemptable bunch of 3rd world despots and Euro-Socialists. Less focus on the West, and more on continuing human rights atrocities still being committed in Africa and Asia. UN credibility=0.
[3] The term Liberal is often misused to label a left-winger. The two are at odds. However, I tend to agree with Iscariot on this one.
[4] You forgot the “rascist” tag that also get thrown around by people who are badly losing a debate.
[5] Lots of contradictions on both sides-at the end of the day, you always act in your own interests. Only a fool tries to be objective “Oh well we shouldn’t attack Iraq because the poor innocenmt Iraqis would suffer. So we’ll just sit here on our hands and get nuked instead.”
[6] Yes, nice to see the self proclaimed ‘world champions’ go down. But at the end of the day, who cares about Basketball?
I normally steer clear of ‘contentious’ issues regarding the US and its policies but your comment about the UN was too much. If the US paid up the $1.269 BILLION it owed (as at end of July 02) it would help the UN a lot more. It is comments like yours that piss off the rest of the world. A lot of people believe that the US only gets involved when it suits them, and often then stuff it up, eg Vietnam, Iran, the Phillipines (Marcos), numerous Central American countries. Even the movie Black Hawk Down shows countless beaurecratic and tactical errors. This ‘we are the protectors of democracy’ often comes accross as an excuse to poke their univited nose in, either with guns or funding groups/leaders aimed at overthrowing a regime that they didn’t approve of eg Saddam Husssein in the early-mid 80’s. I am not anti America and admire your patriotism but some of your decisions appear too self serving and ill conceived.
[1] Usually it’s the minority voice that tries to censor, not the majority. An explanation for the current debate would be that if we are at war, and you don’t like it, shut the fuck up or you are a traitor. End of story.
Point one: I can’t be a traitor to the US if I am not a US citizen, but that is also an assumption that many is the US make that if you don’t agree, you’re against.
Point two: I said free speech, not censorship. What is considered the socially legitimate adn acceptable forms of actions/ word are determined by the majority. In order to control adn propagate their social form they have to control forms of mass communication. Also, the majority censor through assimilation, not necessarily censorship, and such assimilation is ALWAYS culture specific
[2] The UN is a contemptable bunch of 3rd world despots and Euro-Socialists. Less focus on the West, and more on continuing human rights atrocities still being committed in Africa and Asia. UN credibility=0.
OK, so that includes, in no order of precedence:New Zealand, Australia, Japan, South Africa, and don’t forget your major economic partners in the G8 like Britain and Germany …hmmmm so much for the first argument.
The concept of a UN would involve interests in all nations not just the West, although it does seem to be the thing for the first world countries that they are really the only on’es that matter. Also, as hyphNZ said, maybe if some countries actually paid their membership the UN would be able to be a bit more effective.
[5] Lots of contradictions on both sides-at the end of the day, you always act in your own interests. Only a fool tries to be objective
It’s not so much objectivity as it is consistency, you don’t really have any moral hghground to stand on when telling everyone else what to do if you don’t act in a similar fashion.
Tony, I really want to visit your planet one day…
First, what u said doesnt make any sense. none whatsoever. Heck i had to reread it over ad over and I still dont know what point ur trying to make!
[Q]DO you know what inference is?
[A]NO
[Q]Can you read context
[A]No
[Q] Did you really read it over and over or just pick on the random words you understood?
[A] Unknown, since you obviously didn’t read the second sentence, which clearly stated
that [points 1-6] are accepted as standard facts on the T-Mag Forum, and referring back to you inability to infer, it obviously offered people the chance to accept or challenge those points.
Everyone else got it…what does that tell you??
Second, u seem to blab about the US not using logic in their arguments, and u dont use logic in ur arguments either! heck, u dont even use arguments!
Remarkable, I didn’t make any arguments; true. HintThat’s why there’s no logic That you managed to pick that up, but not the actual point of the post is relatively scary.
Did I mention I wanted to visit your planet?
Third, The US isnt telling the UN to jump, and to jump this high
OK, explain this: US Grant US soldiers immunity from world court prosecution for War Crimes or we’ll pull all support for peace efforts in Bosnia…
I await your response.
First of all, good post Iscariot.
The points I was trying to make was that in a state of war,everyone must show solidarity. If not, then you ARE against your own. I didn’t assume you were a US citizen, as I’m not one myself. I’m a NZ’er who lives in Australia. I don’t think I was disagreeing with you on the free speech issue, just making the point that it is usually the minority voice that spouts off about free speech, and then calls anyone who disagrees with them a “rascist”, “nazi” or “bigot”. And I still maintain my view on the UN. Why don’t they fuck off and cure all the poison in Africa , Asia, South America and the Middle East before they whinge about the West. Notice how eager they were to punish the Serbs for defending their OWN land (Kosovo) against a mutiny by poxy Albanian immigrants? Yet they won’t go in and stop the murder that’s occurring in Rhodesia. I say we give the UN the flick, and burn their 'little red book’s while we’re at it. Also, what does consistency matter? We are protecting our interests, not our morals. Lets be strictly Utilitarian about this for god’s sake and less dogmatic.
“If the US paid up the $1.269 BILLION it owed (as at end of July 02) it would help the UN a lot more.”
How exactly would it help them? Is another billion dollars going to keep Saddam from doing what ever he pleases? He's been doing this crap for years and the U.N just sits there and does nothing.
"It is comments like yours that piss off the rest of the world."
Exactly! But what I said is the truth. I think sometimes the U.S. cares too much about what the rest of the world thinks. Not to be over-dramatic but it's this attitude that's going to get American civilians killed if we don't act soon.
The point I was trying to make was that since Saddam has been in power he has told the U.N to fuck off. He doesn't comply to any rules other than his own. Naturally, the U.N backs down from him. If the U.S didn't stick their noses in the business of others I'd hate to think what Saddam would be doing to other nations around him, especially Israel.
By not paying the UN the US and other countries are stopping many aid programs, remember there is more to the UN than just peace keeping, also by not paying up the US loses a lot of credibility. You will get no argument from me that the UN is disjointed and lacks teeth but it is not the role of one or two countries to go off on a tangent, if it were the Russians or someone else wanting to attack somewhere the US would be screaming from the rooftops about it. I have no doubt that Saddam has chemical and possibly nuclear weapons but so do many other countries, if every country that could attack Israel were invaded then the Middle East would be oblivion.
[2] The UN has many anti=American and Anti-Semetic members. Since every country gets an anounymus and equal vote, they US frequently gets screwed.
[3] The major democrats are bad people. 2 examples: 1. Instead of setting up private airport security overseen by federal guidelines, just like Israel does it and similar to the way drug manufacturers work, they went with a government ran union member security. 2. The Democrats have control of the Senate and are holding up the Homeland Security Bill because they won’t all the positions that open up to be filled by union members. Why? Union members tend to vote democrat. By the way, I don’t think that Republicans are good but I seen them as the lesser of 2 evils.
Yes, I agree with each and every one of those.