[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Loser:

I will only try this once.

Thank you.

[rextorres]

Loooser,

I'm sorry we live in a Democracy. When I vote I like to be informed. I don't take it for granted that the leaders know something that I don't need to know. I suppose the reason us naive young people don't know things is because our leaders have been lying to us. If they told the truth maybe we wouldn't be having these debates.

As far as Republicanism?

If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish then it is a fish. A Libertarian for instance is just a Republican without Religion.

WMD?

Shrub said in his state of the Union that they had proof already!!? Powell showed us pictures of the "Winebagoes of Death": just produce ONE. Bush said that Iraq was producing Nuclear Weapons: I'd like to see one centrifuge! Where is the lab to produce Toxins: no "The College Student of Death" doesn't count. I still don't know why it's a proble to ask for some proof. They had the proof BEFORE they attacked - at least that's what they said. Why don't they just go where they KNEW the stuff was.

Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11?

By attacking me instead of my points you obviously don't have a response to my points. O.k. sorry for using the word "duped". Anyone who believes Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked is just ignorant.

Nation Building?

I guess I should assume that Shrub was a hypocrite on this point.

NK?

Your point speaks to mine - that IS a problem. Shouldn't Shrub have spent all that time he spent playing war games coming up with some sort of solution to the REAL problem. I guess your right why ask Shrub to try to solve something difficult.

Oil?

You say that that the reason we attacked Iraq is that it's one of the "most strategically placed countries in the world." Are you saying this because of it's Antiquities!!!? Umm . . . where was the first place the U.S. went when we invaded? Now. . .who is being naive?

Anyway

I guess some old people should question more.

BTW: What's the definition of Ironic?

[ April 25, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Cyrien]

I don't think he was reffering to antiquities with strategically placed country. I think it has more to do with maybe the US placing military bases there or some such.

I don't even see what antiquities has to do with strategic anything?

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
I don't think he was reffering to antiquities with strategically placed country. I think it has more to do with maybe the US placing military bases there or some such.

I don't even see what antiquities has to do with strategic anything?

I was being Ironic.

[Cyrien]

i·ro·ny
n.
pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

Sorry. I just don't see the Irony in that statement.

[Fyron]

it seems you label everything you don't agree with as "propaganda".

I already explained that nearly everything posted in this thread is base propaganda, even the things that I agree with. Propaganda is not necessarily things that you do not agree with.

Also I don't understand how you consistantly deny your a Republican even though every position I've read from you is consistant with a Republican position; are you being Devil's Advocate?

There is a huge difference between being a Republican and agreeing with a few "Republican" positions (in quotes because almost no positions are wholely Republican, Democratic, or whatever). Also, supporting the war most certainly does not make one a Republican any more than opposing it makes one a Democrat. Nothing is that black and white.

And yes, I often (to use an unfairly biased Christian term) play Devil's Advocate. My attempts to get people to actually sit down and think about their positions instead of just spouting off what other people have told them often go unnoticed, but that won't stop me from trying.

If it looks like fish and smells like a fish then it is a fish. A Libertarian for instance is just a Republican without Religion.

Actually, you could not be any more wrong than that. Try looking at other countries than the US where they have more than 2 major political parties. Their parties overlap on some areas, but differ greatly in others. They do not just have 2 positions, and all parties are one or the other. Now, lets look back at Libertarians. Once you remove yourself from the hype you have duped* yourself into believing, you will be able to see that they are most certainly not Republicans, any more than Green party members are Democrats. The real world is not as black and white as you see it. You see everything as being polarized into 2 camps (as supported by the content of nearly every one of your Posts), when this is certainly not true. Very few people are fully a Republican or a Democrat. Most people support "Repulican" positions on some issues, and "Democratic" issues on others. Party affiliation is basically just a result of your parents and those other people that you idolized (or demonized) as you were growing up.

*Term picked specifically for connotations in relation to this discussion.

===

While Loser's post was written in a fairly offensive manner, it did have several good points in it. It is tiring to see so many people with the belief that they are 100% right, and anyone else that thinks differently is obviously an idiot (maybe not so harsh, but it is the same idea). It isn't possible that other people could be just as right as you are, with equally valid lines of reasoning leading them to their conclusion.

Sorry. I just don't see the Irony in that statement.

Neither do I...

[ April 25, 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[rextorres]

Hrrr. . . I was going to joke about diagraming my irony, but I didn't. I suppose the joke was on me.

Here goes:

"It's ironic that the only reason for the war - it turns out - has been nation building. The cynical me thinks why were the Republicans so opposed to it almost 2 years ago?"

The irony here is that Shrub ran AGAINST nation building. Now he is nation building. It's arguable that this is situational irony. I was trying to be poetic.

Asking "Are we there for the Antiquities?" Is ironic because I am asking a question that I know to be false to point out Losers' rediculous statement. Obviously we are not there for the antiquities, but the only reason Iraq is strategic is because of the oil.

From Websters:

"a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning - called also Socratic Irony."

I guess I wasn't adroit, but again arguably I was being Ironic (at least according to webster).

[Loser]

Sigh. Well, I'll not try that again.

I would like to point out that the only party of which I have ever been a member is the Democratic, and that I've not ever heard a Republican use the word 'disenfranchise'.

Additionally, to avoid confusion, my age is readily available from my Profile. I believe has always been there.

I think, for personal defense, that covers everything I'd like covered.

[Cyrien]

But that irony fails because his strategic sense wasn't in the antiquities or the oil. I got the sense he was refering to military strategic situations. IE: It would be real nice to have military bases there.

In that sense your irony has no holding whatsoever. The strategic importance or lack of importance of antiquities is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is focused on other strategic elements than oil and antiquities.

By saying that antiquities isn't of strategic importance and oil is you still haven't countered the arguments for other forms of strategic importance. IE: Military Strategic importance.

Thus I don't see the Irony as the implied irony is irrelevant and thus not ironic.

[rextorres]

What other forms of strategic importance could the middle east have besides oil!!? You think maybe biblical importance? - I don't know.

Anyway -

The U.S. is a two party system - Fyron your right other countries have multiple parties that can make a difference. The U.S. doesn't except to take votes away from the middle right or left. Jusk ask Perot, Nader, or T. Roosevelt. Unfortunately, unless we change the constitution it will be that way. The only time (i am going out on a limb here) that a third party broke through was Lincoln.

Both parties consistantly pole 40% of the voters so whoever believes that most voters aren't DEMS. or REPS. is wrong - even Mondale got 40% of the vote. It's the wishy washy 20% that's at stake. You can call them what you like.

Alright guys -

I'm a rube because I use the word ironic loosely and yes Fyron I'm intransigent.

So to get back to my original points:

Where are WMD that we knew they where there and how come we can't find them if we had proof of their existance?

Where's the proof that Al Qaeda and Saddam are linked?

Why are we nation building with my tax dollars when Shrub said he wouldn't do that?

Why was Iraq - especially in retrospect now that it's admitted that the U.S. knew NK had Nuclear Weapons - more important that NK?

What's the strategic importance of Iraq if it's not oil (or its antiquities)?

Why did we just make Iraq more dangerous by handing it to the Shiites?

[ April 25, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: rextorres ]