Re: Iraqi Civil War? Some Experts Say It's Arrived

In article <s8iir195f3rmp629vd2b3tr2bi3pl88j4m@xxxxxxx>, Xanence@xxxxxx ()
wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:33 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan) wrote:
>
> >In article <0r2ir159q9npa89uo971uh796orifdp8f7@xxxxxxx>, Xanence@xxxxxx ()
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 08:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> >> alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <KF2uf.10040$hI1.5138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > harinam108@xxxxxxxxx >>(Acharya) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> When Iraqis learn to love each others children more than they hate them
> >> > and >do unto each other (individual and collective) as they would have
> > > them >do >onto "you" (individual and collective) then there will be
> > > peace. >Simple but >absolute truth not understandable by those in lust
> > > and greed >for power and >wealth.
> >> >
> >> >ROFLMAO
> >> >
> >> >Having seen *you* rant about "lefties" and "liberals" raises the question
> >> "when >will Americans learn to love each others children more than they
> > hate >them and >do unto each other (individual and collective) as they
> > would have >them do onto >"you" (individual and collective)?
> >> >Alan
> >>
> >> Of course Alan, this also applies to you as a person. In your comments
> >> above, you've implied that every single one of over 250 million
> >> Americans are the same.
> >>
> >> You really don't mean that do you? If you do, then I would have to
> >> wonder what exactly your level of intelligence is.
> >
> >No! I just happen to have a couple of American women who do all my legal
> >research in America for me, and I know they both strongly oppose Bush.
>
> Opposition to President Bush's decisions now is very similar to the
> opposition that has existed against every President. There will never
> be a time when everyone agrees with what any President does or says.
> Because of many factors, the opposition to President Bush has
> polarized to what seems to be an extreme. This can be said of each of
> the wartime Presidents.
>
> Using ones intellect instead of ones emotions seems the most practical
> method of discussing this opposition. Precise meaning seldom is
> derived from anger.
>
> After reading many of your posts, I've discovered that much of the
> conflict between you and others seems to be as a result of definition.
> If one says that an American soldier purposely targeted, aimed and
> killed a wounded person lying on the ground, (as we all saw on the now
> infamous video), then one would be correct. Obviously so.
>
> However, if one were to say that this wounded man who was shot posed
> no immediate threat to anyone around him, and that he was "murdered"
> by a Bush Neo-Nazi for nothing but target practice, then that
> statement would be accurate only if several definitions were
> established between the debating persons.
>
> 1. Was the person who shot the wounded man a Neo-Nazi? What evidence
> of this can be presented?
>
> 2. Was there an "immediate danger" to anyone around the wounded man?
> If so, what precisely was the danger and could it have been
> neutralized with lesser force?
>
> 3. Was the wounded man "Killed" or "Murdered"?
>
> In most of the debates about the action I speaking of, emotions ran
> rampant! Logic and intellect were discarded for vicious attacks and
> back biting.
>
> This is what I mean when I refer to proper debating, or the lack of
> it.

Everything depends upon the viewpoint of the commentator. In the case of a
soldier on the field of battle then it comes down to the basic rule "Kill or be
killed". Who am I to pass judgement on soldiers who are doing the job they are
paid to do? The Scots hate us for Culloden, but had they continued their march
on London they would have undoubtedly took it. They marched to Leicester and
then turned back, and even gave the Duke of Cumberland time to train his men.
They went into war didn't complete the job and turned back, which is somewhat
like Operation Desert Storm. Now over 2000 allied troops are dead because the
original job wasn't completed, and of course, there was all the people in the
twin towers.


> The argument you give below is a fair start in debating the Terry
> Shiavo issue if the term "right wing preacher" were replaced with only
> his name or prefixed with "with a person I consider to be a". This
> shows a willingness to allow other opinions.
>
> >I'll give you an example of how good they are. I got into an argument with
> one >of those right wing preachers by the name of Roy Masters who was making
> claims >in regard to Terry Shiavo. One of those women searched out the case
> documents >and gave me the evidence, and I sent it on to him and he accused
> me of listening >to gossip, when in fact it was he who was listening to
> gossip and the autopsy >proved my friend and the court was right.
>
> Did you then ask him why he would not accept your evidence? His answer
> to that question would be a major turning point in the debate.

This "good Christian" then started ranting about how the President had got to
close the borders to protect him from his possessions being stolen. Now what did
Jesus say about possessions? I somehow think they are in disagreement. And
Masters gets away with posing as English, but he is not. He is the son of German
Jews who fled to England from Nazi persecution before WW2. He is lucky that we
didn't shut our borders, isn't he?

> >Do any of these right wing preachers
> >ever admit that?
>
> I am considered by most of my acquaintances, family and friends to be
> on the far right of the political spectrum and I most certainly listen
> carefully to any intellectual arguments given to my views. I have been
> accused by many of "Preaching" when supplying supporting evidence of
> my opinions. Therefore, I imagine that you would consider me a "Right
> Wing Preacher".

LOL Considering that I not only voted Conservative at the last election but that
I believe in Nemesis, the Goddess of Divine Retribution, you could call me the
same. For some reason Americans don't seem to understand that Labour is the
party of the left.

> >Do they accept scientific evidence produced in a court of law?
>
> Yes, I certainly would accept scientific evidence produced in any
> manner if that evidence was conclusively determined to be fact. If
> there was dissenting opinion concerning the evidence supplied, I would
> have to research it and make my own opinion on whether or not the
> evidence was indeed fact or not.
>
> >No! I still see web-sites who refuse to accept that evidence.
>
> This is not an all-inclusive "No". At least it shouldn't be. I'm sure
> that there are those who will insist that this poor women's body
> should be kept alive no matter what, and those who will insist that
> removing her source of nutrition was a humane method of allowing her
> body to quit functioning. The many sub-arguments that are enveloped
> within the primary argument make this decision even more difficult.
> God or no God. Murder or natural death. Alive or not. An incredible
> amount of conflicting argument can be determined by applying these
> sub-arguments, or not.
>
> Therefore, to use an absolute in reference to those who disagree with
> your evidence would boil down to the value of that evidence. I would
> have to see and investigate your evidence before I would offer my own
> opinions based on that evidence.
>
> Again, I must tell you that I am considered by many to be a far
> right-winger. Perhaps what I've said may cause you to open your mind
> in a way that will allow you to not pre-determine the values and
> intention of the right. Then again, maybe not.

Actually when Bush first became President I thought he would do a better job
than Clinton, but running your country into massive debts is not my idea of
Conservatism, and if the US economy gets screwed so does the rest of the
world's.


> >I am not against Americans. I am against people who tell, or repeat lies.
>
> Yes, I too do not like to be lied to. Sometimes there is a very fine
> line between lying and telling the truth as one sees it. Seldom is
> something either white or black when considering the cause of the
> actions of a person.
>
> Have you an answer to my question about who will fill the top two
> slots by Parliamentary decision?

I could answer that Sir, by saying that the only man who ever entered parliament
with honest intentions was a man named Guy Fawkes.

>
> I appreciate your arguments sir, and I look forward to our
> discussions.
>
> LD
>


Alan

http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/mylinks.html

http://www.adelphiasophism.com/warandpropaganda/03Propaganda.html
.

Relevant Pages