OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.


However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

---

Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:15: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[Phoenix-D]

[quote]Originally posted by CNCRaymond:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
[qb]I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.


However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

No, it wasn't. I fully understood what you were going for, and frankly insults are entirely perception. Which means that yes, he was responding to an insult, meant or not..

The second post was just to provide the proof without making people dig for it.

[Will]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering. [/QB]

So by not supporting a specific action to stop "human suffering" (not necessarily of the Iraqis), a person is therefore guilty of not supporting any action to stop "human suffering"? That is flawed logic, I'm afraid. It is quite possible for someone to believe that war is not the way to end "human suffering", and that another path can be found.

To attempt a horrible analogy that takes things to extremes (and borrowing from all the wife-beating occuring earlier in the thread):
If I do not support vivisecting the husband for beating his wife, and thus removing the threat of the husband beating his wife, then I must support the continued beatings -- even if I merely support putting him in a small concrete room for a period of time, and restricting his activities after release from said room (ie, no alcohol, counseling, curfews, community service, whatever...).

Hmm, hope that made sense...

[President_Elect_Shang]

Gees Roanon, didn’t you and I just have this song and dance. Now you are on the floor with someone else? I feel jealous, point is there had to be around a half dozen ways to put your opinion of CNCRaymond’s comments in a manner that was not insulting. Don’t start jumping on me (happy face) I am only pointing this out because I thought we had reached an agreement. I am sure being as eloquent and insightful as you are, you could soften the blow so that it does not look like you want to start a fight. Anyway, I still feel that you are cheating on me. Didn't I argue enough for you Last time dear?

Just a joke,
don't stroke.

Let me also add CNC that you did come across wrong.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:41: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Fyron]

Guys... stop. Seriously. Mud has been slung on both sides. Let it die. This thread is heading nowhere but to a lockdown.