Absolutes

[Anonymous]

The North American continent was the 'new' posession of several nations; France, the Netherlands, England etc. etc.
By 1664, all the Dutch colonies in North America had been lost.
Yes? And what's your point? All I'm saying is that this 'new continent' was the aim of the game back in those days. BTW the Dutch swapped New Amsterdam (NYC) for Suriname and simply left the area ...
Back in 1812 matters still weren't settled no matter that 'declaration of independence' back in 1776.
By 1783, the independence of the US was recognized by France, England, Spain, and the Netherlands with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
Yes, if only the 'Americans' (just 13 states by that time, no more no less) weren't invading the rest of the continent. This 'expansionism' (or should I say 'imperialism') has been roaming around on that continent for quite some time, causing quite some trouble over the centuries ...
kind regards

[Jason Menard]

"Swapped"? Interesting... Most history references called it "surrendered", but anyway...
I respectfully submit that this conversation is going way off topic. Might I suggest, and this is only a suggestion, that you start a new topic with which you can air all your feelings of pent up rage towards us. I was quite enjoying watching Thomas and Map harangue each other before you went off on this tangent.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Don't compare these inter-nation wars with American aggression against centuries or even millenium old nations that were/are/going to be invaded by the American armies.

Please list all the nations that have been invaded by the US. Enquiring minds want to know.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

In general, (for the American participants here), can I just say 'hear hear'? And for you in particular, would you please be so kind to refrain from these silly personal insults?
Thank you.

Would you prefer general insults like you seem to like.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Would you prefer general insults like you seem to like.

You have to understand that the Dutch have a huge inferiority complex because they come from a seond-rate nation. Most of the Dutch are on heroin (which is why it is legal there) because they find it impossible to put up with their horribly pathetic lives.

[Mapraputa Is]

Every morning I walk into thia thread and think that I probably mistakenly hit "no war"...

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Please list all the nations that have been invaded by the US. Enquiring minds want to know.

Assignment: List direct American military intervention on other nations' soil from World War II to the present day.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/39/interventions.html
-------------------
"You know boys . . . sometimes you make it very hard for a girl to pretend that she does not know what you are talking about"
Cindy Glass

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

Map, I think you finally exhausted your common sense in this long thread.

Yes.
"Repressions" were discussed six pages before.
Quoting my old post...
"As absolute figures for the number of citizens of a country killed or caused to die by its own government, these figures are very large. They greatly exceed, for example, the number of German citizens killed by the Nazis (if one excludes German soldiers killed in wars started by the Nazis and German civilians killed by enemy action in wars started by the Nazis). On the other hand, relative to the total number of Soviet deaths in 1930–53 they were more modest. If the total number of deaths in the above mentioned categories was, say, 4 million, that would be only about 3.7% of total USSR deaths in 1930–53. Writing about the role of Gulag deaths in total Soviet mortality, Kokurin & Morukov correctly say that, ‘Contrary to widespread opinion, the share of deaths in detention rarely exceeded 2–3% of total deaths in the country and did not have a major influence on the demographic situation as a whole.
This latter conclusion may strike some as strange and counter-intuitive. This reflects a general problem in historical interpretation—attention to extreme cases may distort understanding.’.
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf
There is a substantial difference between the demographic reality of Soviet power and the popular image of it. This is mainly because released intellectual victims of repression wrote books, the organs were bureaucratic organisations which produced reports and kept records, and Ukrainians have a large diaspora, whereas Central Asian nomad or Russian peasant victims of disease, starvation or deportation, criminal or marginal victims of incarceration in the Gulag, the victims of ethnic cleansing, the long-term improvement in Russian/Soviet anthropometric indicators (height and weight) and the extra lives resulting from falling mortality rates generally interest only a few specialists."
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf
From the same paper:
… a debate is taking place between a historian who in his research bases himself on real documents of the MVD, and those whose estimates are based on the evidence of witnesses and scattered (often unreliable) data. This situation turns the question of the necessity for academic criticism of the data which entered the official departmental statistics of the MVD, Ministry of Justice and Procuracy, into a practical one.
V.P. Popov, ‘Gosudarstvennyi terror v sovetskoi Rossii, 1923–1953 gg. (istochniki i ikh interpretatsiya)’, Otechestvennye arkhivy, 1992, 2, pp. 20–21.
… the official data are clearly better than earlier outside estimates, but are they complete? They need critical scrutiny. We do not yet know the answers to many important questions, because the accounting system was chaotic and the figures lent themselves to manipulation. Bureaucratic as well as political motives led to the separate registration of various categories of prisoner … One has to … avoid leaping to conclusions. Scholars in this sensitive field need to be humble about the extent of current knowledge but ambitious in setting future goals.
J. Keep, ‘Recent writing on Stalin’s Gulag: an overview’, Crime, Histoire & Socie�te�s, 1997, 2, p. 110.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Assignment: List direct American military intervention on other nations' soil from World War II to the present day.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/39/interventions.html

That wasn't the question. The issue was to list countries that America invaded. Or is this one of those European things and I don't understand the meaning of "invaded"?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

You have to understand that the Dutch have a huge inferiority complex because they come from a seond-rate nation. Most of the Dutch are on heroin (which is why it is legal there) because they find it impossible to put up with their horribly pathetic lives.

I do beg your pardon? Elaborate on the 'horrible' and 'pathetic' lives here please? I'm very interested on what you, an american redneck, has to say about the Dutch. And please include some sensible remarks (for a change) about the 'inferiority complex'.
Pathetic idiot.

[Jim Yingst]

[TP]: You have to understand that the Dutch have a huge inferiority complex...
Heh. OK, I found this pretty funny, understanding that it's not serious. But let's remember that other people won't always read things in the light they were intended, especially when more seriously-meant insults have been exchanged in the same thread. So let's try to watch out for this sort of thing.
[Updated - Jos, it's not meant to be taken seriously. It's examples of general insults such as Paul Stevens mentioned, which you seem to have found to be OK in some of your previous "US has no civilization" remarks. I don't approve of either (your comments or Thomas'), but at least I can tell Thomas intended his comments as a joke.]
[JH]: You folks still don't get it, do you?
We've been responding to your questions as you phrased them. And then rephrased them, changing the rules each time.
I'd suggest that your probable intended point about American experience of invasion would probably be more effective if you limited it to discussion of things that happened in the lifetime of people currently alive - or perhaps, that they heard about secondhand from people who experienced it (e.g. family members). It seems reasonable to suggest that these more recent experiences are generally more significant to the present than things that happened a hundred years ago and more. Though you might find some people in the deep South (US) who still feel pretty strongly about Sherman's march through Georgia (a Northern US campaign against the South. - the feeling of being invaded by outsiders isn't as forgotten or irrelevant as you might think. If you try to include all of US history and then have to keep redefining what you're talking about to eliminate the things that don't support your point, you end up undermining your credibility quite a bit.
[JH]: And for you in particular, would you please be so kind to refrain from these silly personal insults?
Agreed - with the caveat that I'd switch it back to the general case too (not just Michael), and include both personal and general insults (as Paul Stevens noted). I mean, I appreciate that Michael didn't quite say "you are snotty" but rather "I would think" you were snotty - but come on, the personal insult is there nonetheless. Everyone tossing around "snotty", "arrogant", "idiot", etc. is just asking for trouble, even when these are phrased so they aren't quite directly targeted at the opponent. E.g. "I didn't say you were an idiot, I said your arguments sound like they could have been made by an idiot." No one actually said that I know, it's just representative of the type of intent I perceive in a lot of these posts. There are a lot of implied insults going about that people are pretending aren't really intended as unfriendly personal (or general) insults. They are unfriendly. Knock it off, people. If you opponent is being an ass, let him be the only one doing so, and it will be that much more obvious to everyone.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I agree with Jim.
To add to what he already said, it may look that you opponent is an idiot, but more likely he/she is honestly mistaken. To show evidences that *your* POV is right, is enough, no need to throw "idiots" around. The same about all other insults... When people become emotional, no search for truth can be done, and as Eugene said, Russians are "stubborn in their attempts to find the truth at all costs". If you will persist in your attempts to disrupt truth finding process, you will be sent to Gulag! Just wanted you to have honest warning.
Disclaimer: Last two sentences were intended as a joke.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[TP]: You have to understand that the Dutch have a huge inferiority complex...
Heh. OK, I found this pretty funny, understanding that it's not serious. But let's remember that other people won't always read things in the light they were intended, especially when more seriously-meant insults have been exchanged in the same thread. So let's try to watch out for this sort of thing.
[Updated - Jos, it's not meant to be taken seriously. It's examples of general insults such as Paul Stevens mentioned, which you seem to have found to be OK in some of your previous "US has no civilization" remarks. I don't approve of either (your comments or Thomas'), but at least I can tell Thomas intended his comments as a joke.]
[JH]: You folks still don't get it, do you?
We've been responding to your questions as you phrased them. And then rephrased them, changing the rules each time.
I'd suggest that your probable intended point about American experience of invasion would probably be more effective if you limited it to discussion of things that happened in the lifetime of people currently alive - or perhaps, that they heard about secondhand from people who experienced it (e.g. family members). It seems reasonable to suggest that these more recent experiences are generally more significant to the present than things that happened a hundred years ago and more. Though you might find some people in the deep South (US) who still feel pretty strongly about Sherman's march through Georgia (a Northern US campaign against the South. - the feeling of being invaded by outsiders isn't as forgotten or irrelevant as you might think. If you try to include all of US history and then have to keep redefining what you're talking about to eliminate the things that don't support your point, you end up undermining your credibility quite a bit.
[JH]: And for you in particular, would you please be so kind to refrain from these silly personal insults?
Agreed - with the caveat that I'd switch it back to the general case too (not just Michael), and include both personal and general insults (as Paul Stevens noted). I mean, I appreciate that Michael didn't quite say "you are snotty" but rather "I would think" you were snotty - but come on, the personal insult is there nonetheless. Everyone tossing around "snotty", "arrogant", "idiot", etc. is just asking for trouble, even when these are phrased so they aren't quite directly targeted at the opponent. E.g. "I didn't say you were an idiot, I said your arguments sound like they could have been made by an idiot." No one actually said that I know, it's just representative of the type of intent I perceive in a lot of these posts. There are a lot of implied insults going about that people are pretending aren't really intended as unfriendly personal (or general) insults. They are unfriendly. Knock it off, people. If you opponent is being an ass, let him be the only one doing so, and it will be that much more obvious to everyone.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

Jim, I appreciate your reply, but you have turned your elaborate reply into an oxymoron; why would my rephrasing of my questions or claims deteriorate my credibility while at the same time your rephrasing of your fellow Americans' absolute opininions would increase their credibility, absolute 'truthness' or whatever?
Think about it, it will clarify some of this 'absoluteness' we're all talking about.
kind regards
ps. the Dutch legalize heroin now for a very select group of addicts; it keeps them off the streets and it reduces criminal acts by far more than any restricting action taken so far. The Dutch legalized prostitution for the same reason; it reduces criminal activity. The Dutch don't legalize weapons (fire arms et al.) at all, that's why death by firearms statistics are so low overhere. The Dutch got rid of military services in the early 1990's, that's why the Dutch army is so small, because people actually *think* overhere instead of just 'following' an administration that doesn't represent sensible human beings. Think about it. Really, think about it. It's worth the effort.

[Jim Yingst]

[JM]: You haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you? When we were talking about absolutes we are talking about the existance of moral absolutes, not absolute statements.
Not entirely I think. Map seemed to think that the "absolutist" mentality she perceived was examplified by us-vs.-them "if you're not with us you're against us" and the like, as well as by statements about the exiastence of moral absolutes. They're different things, true, but it's not unreasonable to suggest there are some linkages here.
[JM]: I respectfully submit that this conversation is going way off topic. Might I suggest, and this is only a suggestion, that you start a new topic
I think this is good advice in general (I say immediatedly after I have followed up on off-topic stuff myself). But we don't all perceive connections between topics the same way. And this is MD after all; topic drift is our way of life.
But particularly for these "serious" (and more potentially inflammatory topics), starting separate topics and attempting to limit their scope is probably a good practice. The more different topics are covered in a single thread, them more likely one of them will lead to an ugly confrontation that will cause the closure of the entire thread. And if a thread is about topic A, and then someone butts in with inflammatory remarks about related topic B, we can just delete the inflammatory stuff and let A continue. If instead B is started as a separate thread, we might be able to cull inflammatory stuff from B while keeping the more polite B stuff. But if the thread was already about A, B, C, and D, and eventually B turns inflammatory, then it's much harder to sort things out, and we just close the thread. So people who want to discuss B are better off doing so in a separate thread in most cases. That's my theory anyway.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

I do beg your pardon? Elaborate on the 'horrible' and 'pathetic' lives here please?

Goodness, you are pathetic. Didn't you notice the little winking smiley at the end. It was supposed to be a joke. Since you always insult "Americans" I figured I would turn it around and throw out a general insult at the Dutch. I think you need to switch to the decaf and take a deep breath. Go outside and smell some tulips. Go play with a windmill. Just stay away from the heroin!!!

[Jim Yingst]

[TP]: Goodness, you are pathetic
Pot. Kettle. Black. :roll: Is it so very difficult to set some sort of example here? Or is insulting people OK as long as you personally feel justified?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I was quite enjoying watching Thomas and Map harangue each other before you went off on this tangent.

This topic got intermingled with the 'no war' topic, and rightly so. We're not talking fun discussions here, we're talking serious bizniz here, causing death for numerous human beings. This is no fun, no enjoyment whatsoever. Think about that.
kind regards

[Mapraputa Is]

Cannot stop agreeing with Jim!
(is there such word: "agreeing"?)
Is it so very difficult to set some sort of example here? Or is insulting people OK as long as you personally feel justified?
Just wanted to repeat in case somebody missed it...

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
That wasn't the question. The issue was to list countries that America invaded.

I counted the word "invaded" or its derivatives 6 times in the text above.
Or is this one of those European things and I don't understand the meaning of "invaded"?
That's possible. I understand "invasion" as foreign troops entering some sovereign land without legitimate invitation from this state's government. Here already the issue can get complicated, because of what to consider "legitimate invitation", or which government is legitimate and which not, but this should work as a general definition.
What is your meaning of "invaded"?

[Jim Yingst]

Jim, I appreciate your reply, but you have turned your elaborate reply into an oxymoron;
OK, I see your point and will try to rephrase.
If you rephrase and act as if others were supposed to have understand your intended position in the first place, you undermine your credibility, or make yourself look foolish, or just irriate people and make them less interested in hearing what you have to say. This was my reaction to "you just don't get it." If I conveyed a similar effect in my own rephrasings, I apoligize. If an argument has flaws, by all means, point them out. When I rephrase something I usually intend it as either "I acknowledge the flaws in my previous argument and retract it; here's a modified version" or "I'm not sure what this other person really meant, and don't necessarily defend it, but here's a similar argument I believe has merit." Of course this intent is probably not always made clear. But I'll try.
Note that I'm not just rephrasing the arguments of my absolutist countrymen; I've also tried doing so to remove perceived weak points in your own arguments. Dunno if I've changed them too much for you; sorry if I did.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Paul Stevens]

Jos you just can't stop with the insults can you. Right after Jim's post you post this.

because people actually *think* overhere

You sure seem very close minded and arrogant. If someone doesn't think and believe like you, you insult them. If someone shows you are wrong, you change the rules.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I counted the word "invaded" or its derivatives 6 times in the text above.

I got 4:
Dominican Republic 1964
Grenada 1983
Panama 1989
Afghanistan 2001

[John Dunn]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Thread convergence alert!
This belongs to "no war"!

Guilty as charged. My sub-conscious must have been working overtime...

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I got 4:
Dominican Republic 1964
Grenada 1983
Panama 1989
Afghanistan 2001

One more, Haiti 1994
"Thousands of protesters Monday and Tuesday (11/25-11/26/02) demonstrated against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Several demonstrators were shot.
Student leader Roland Laguerre said "We're demonstrating against our unendurable living conditions. Aristide should go, to give Haitian youth a chance to have a future in their country."
In Gonaives, demonstrators on Monday called for Aristide to step down. At least nine people were injured, including Ronald Jesse, a high school student shot twice in the head when 200 heavily armed Aristide partisans disrupted the Gonaives protests.
"In what kind of country are we living in if children can be shot at as though it means nothing," said a declaration signed by Haiti's foremost novelist Gary Victor and 14 other writers.
Aristide's government is widely blamed for deepening despair in the impoverished nation.
<...>
Aristide was returned to power in Haiti through a 1994 invasion launched by Bill Clinton while US negotiators were working out a peace proposal with Haiti officials."
"A week long of protests rocked the tiny poverty stricken all last week. Aristide had once been ousted by the Haiti military on the claim that he had advocated violence against his political opponents, and was returned to power in a 1994 invasion of Haiti by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Since then, Haiti has remained in a state of near civil war."
http://www.liberty-ca.org/international/haiti200212compilation.htm

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by John Dunn:

Guilty as charged. My sub-conscious must have been working overtime...

That's Ok. We'll find use to it!

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I probably have always associated war with liberation/freedom - the 'ends' rather than the 'means'.

How the Press Slants the News
Prior to the 1994 US invasion of Haiti, White House policy was to portray Haiti leader General Raul Cedras as a ruthless dictator. Americans were subjected to a daily display of violence under his leadership through the printed and television media. When Bill Clinton overthrew Cedras in a US invasion of the island the violence suddenly stopped -- in the press, but not in Haiti. A US troop presence and lifted economic embargo reduced the amount of violence but not the chaos or brutality. Political opponents of Jean-Betrand Aristide were assassinated and spontaneous violence and unrest continued regularly. The functioning elected parliament that had been guarded by Cedras went out of existence under United States rule and Haitians went entirely without a government.
Bill Clinton's attack on Haiti was a success everywhere except in Haiti and any nation with a truthful press, because Haiti was no longer in the news. Aristide currently is the President after recently winning an election that his opponents refused to participate in, and violence has since escalated to a greater degree, and thousands of "boat people" are fleeing the island every year, most captured by the Coast Guard en route and returned..
General Raul Cedras had just one dispute with the United States to warrant the invasion. He strongly desired new internationally supervised elections to settle Haiti's problems, but the United States insisted that Aristide must be returned to his former position of Haiti president. Cedras had balked, arguing that Aristide's return would spark more violence and political unrest because Aristide was believed to have advocated violence against his opponents when he was president. The US found Cedra's position unacceptable, invaded, and banished Cedras from the country."
http://www.liberty-ca.org/international/haiti200212compilation.htm
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Dunn]

Pardon the aside, but since you're on the topic of Haiti, I really like to share the following links with you all:
IMHO Haitian Independence is one of the best and ironically one of the saddest stories of revolution and independence, when I look at where Haiti is today. The following info forced me to re-think alot of my views to the American South.
(Note the year the Haitian slaves got freedom in relation to the American Revolution. Who can say we didn't know slavery was wrong??? Their victory made many Southern excuses and the eventual Jim Crow laws into BLATANT lies!)
Toussaint L'Ouverture - Haitian George Washington
Haiti Independence from France
SORRY, NOW GET BACK TO YER ABSOLUTES!!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
One more, Haiti 1994

Ah yes, I forgot that. A true demonstration of the genius of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. What greatness can be achieved when you put two former southern governors together.
:roll:

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Jos you just can't stop with the insults can you. Right after Jim's post you post this: 'because people actually *think* overhere'

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Thinking doesn't make people arrogant and in this particular case I can't see the insultive part either. The Dutch, and other European folks too, are *required* to think instead of simply absorbing what their 'leaders' (mind the quotes here) utter in their propaganda.
I read such utter nonsense here, such as 'if the Eiffel tower would've been bombed you'd think otherwise'. To me this type of reasoning makes me seriously doubt the mental stability of the folks who think that way, no matter how horrible the 9/11 disaster was. And easy as that, Iraq is linked to that 9/11 disaster. I've thought a lot about this but I simply can't find any reason for the mere existence of this type of reasoning. Consider it an insult again, I think otherwise (sic).

You sure seem very close minded and arrogant. If someone doesn't think and believe like you, you insult them. If someone shows you are wrong, you change the rules.

Are you talking to your own government here or what?
[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Jos Horsmeier ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Thinking doesn't make people arrogant...

We know this is true since you are arrogant and you don't think.

[Jim Yingst]

OK, this has gone on long enough I think without getting noticeably better; I'm closing this thread. Sorry...