[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: wake and smell the fucking coffee

Okay, before I get into it, I just want you to realize that I am *not* as worked
up over this as you appear to be (unless I'm mis-reading you).  Note that my
message is sprinkled with smileys.  That's to imply that, while I enjoy a good
debate, I'm not sweating over my computer and angrily punching the keys.  Whether
you are or not, I don't know (I hope not), but I'm on the list to make friends,
not enemies.  Please refrain from ad hominem attacks (i.e., "my slow-witted
friend"), as they only serve to cause undue strife.

That said, to the fray!  :)

>for most cases, there is a logical conclusion that can be reached, but for
>one who is incapable of it, i would guess not.


Pretty good guess.  For one who is incapable of reaching a logical conclusion, a
logical conclusion can't be reached.  Hm.  Sooooo, what are you saying, then?

I'll disagree with your assertion that a logical conclusion can be reached,
though.  We need to understand that there's no such thing as universal logic or
common sense when dealing with relative issues.  What seems atrocious in our
country may seem natural and logical in another.  There's no universal order of
thought (which is why "Star Trek" can never happen).  Those who believe that there
is (or should be) are usually the ones who end up committing the atrocities,
aren't they?

>>>Isolationism is
>>>never the answer, if history is anything to go by.
>
>>Really?  Care to back that up with some actual history, rather than simply
>>alluding to ambiguity?  An excellent case can be (and has been) made for
>>isolationism, y'know.
>
>ok, time to put away the crack pipe, and slowly step away.

Eh?

>you accuse me of
>debating in amiguity?

No, no.  Am*b*iguity.  ;)

>what excellent case can be made for isolaitionism?  i
>haven't heard of one yet.

Then you evidently haven't looked very far.  Let's take a look at American
society/culture and it's growth (quality, not quantity) between the civil war and
WWI, as compared to the same between WWII and today.  Which world would I want to
live in?  I have to go with the self-sufficient, self-concerned, and self-governed
one.  Getting involved in the affairs of other countries puts us at the mercy of
foreign relations, and who needs that headache on top of what we already have to
deal with?

>actualy history?  how about this.  right before
>both WWs, sentiments of isolationism were running high in this country.  we
>didn't want any part of the so called european wars, but what happened?
>both times, we end up fighting the war anyway.

Uh, yeah.  Exactly.

>The european depression which in turn dragged the US economy
>into a depression

Which, of course, wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been involved in WWI.

>>Because it has nothing to do with us, and we've got our own problems to
>worry
>>about.  (Not saying that I agree with that, necessarily, but you asked why)
>
>there it is, the "we've got to fix our own problems..." line, i knew i heard
>it somewhere


Yep.  You never did rebut it, though.  Why's that?

>>Who's condoning anything?  Failure to intervene would have no reflection on
>>whether or not we *condoned* what was going on.  Good grief.
>
>so i guess that we don't condone it, but we shouldn't do anything about it
>either other than flap our collective lipps and hopefully can shame the
>combatants to the point where they see the error of their ways?

No, we should lead by example, IMO.

>excellent
>idea, why didn't i think of that.

Don't tempt me...  :)

>and if you see someone gets mugged on the street corner, you'd say" stop or
>i will say stop again" right?


Uh, persoal and political activities don't correlate all that well.

>>Why?  If you're going to make that assertion, you'll have to do better
>than...
>
>i see you've missed my point entirely, do you have a short term memory
>problem? because i just stated why we should do something if we could...


Yeah, I must have missed it.  Why was it?

>>>it is the morally RIGHT thing to do,
>
>>According to whom?  According to you?  Okay.  What about everyone else?
>What
>>about all the people who feel that it is the morally WRONG thing to do?
>Does your
>>opinion outweigh theirs?  If so, why?
>
>anyone who thinks its ok to ethnic cleanse another group, and drive people
>away from their homes into another country as refugees, please raise your
>hand.
>let's see, excellent!  mr. milosevic and mr. hussein, you can put your hands
>down now


Neatly avoided the question.  Interesting.  Is it that you don't have an answer,
or did you just want me to ask again?

>since this is an incredibly absurd assertion, here is my absurd answer.

Who made an assertion?  I must have missed that.

>And if Clinton was
>killing say all the cajuns in Lousiana and driving them into Mexico, then
>i'd say you might have a point.  but as things stand now, you are comparing
>killing hundreds if not more people to Clinton getting his dick sucked.  i
>for one, fail to see any comparison.


The question is this (since you evidently missed it): who are we to determine how
another country is going to govern itself?  How would you feel if, say, Great
Britain decided that if we didn't elect a monarch, they were going to bomb us?
Absurd, isn't it?

>if you want to know
>more detailed mechanics of power projection, i would have to explain later.
>but i doubt you would care.


You're right.  :)

>>That's ludicrous.  Failure to interfere could mean any number of things.
>
>such as we don't feel like it, we are having a bad hair day?


Precisely.

>>>Evil must be opposed, and all it takes for evil to flourish is for good
>>>people to do nothing, and ethnic cleansing fits my definition of an evil
>>>deed.
>
>I>t doesn't fit everyone's definition, though, does it?
>
>ok, once again anyone who thinks its ok to do so, please speak up now.  last
>chance..


And, once again, what makes your opinion more valid than that of those who *are*
speaking up?

>but we did contain the spread of communism on
>the SE asia sector.


Yeah, thank goodness.

>once again, politics coincide with the right thing this time, and i am not
>complaining.  the end justifies the means and the motives.

Wow. I just can't agree with that.

>and to achieve a good relationship with china is a good idea because for one
>thing, china has over 1/5 of the world's population, and that's one enemy
>you don't want to have.

Okay.  Whatever happened to "doing the right thing"?  Is it only okay to order
Milosevic around because we're bigger than him?

>secondly,  its  a hell of an underdeveloped market
>for  US companies to exploit.

Ah, yes.  The almighty dollar.  Who gives a shit what they do to their people, so
long as we can make a buck.

>meaning, my slow witted friend, is more jobs,
>and more money for china and the US.

Yippee!  More money!  Wa-hoo!

>thirdly, i lived there for 9 years,
>and i can assure you there are no ethnic cleansing and the human rights
>problem is not nearly as bad as some would have you believe.

Um, okay.  I'll just disregard all the reports and videotapes because you say it
ain't so bad.  Being (I presume) an American citizen, I can't imagine that it was
all that bad for *you*.

>i did not once
>have my rights violated by the govnerment while i was living there.

Gee, knock me down.

>so
>while china does have some room for improvement, evil it is not,

Oh-kay...

>but thank
>you for referring to it as "fucking china" though.


No problem.  I'll continue to do so, if it pleases ya.  :)

Paul Christian Glenn      |  "Besides being complicated,
trance at radiks_net         |  reality, in my experience, is
http://x-real.firinn.org  |  usually odd."  - C.S. Lewis

Now Reading: "The Fellowship of the Ring" by J.R.R. Tolkien
Follow-Ups: