no war

[Jim Yingst]

[Eugene]: Next, we establish the validity of induction. If transformation T(1) is moral, then transformation T(2) is also moral because T(2) is really two moral transormations T(1) done in sequence. It follows that T(N+1) is moral as long as T(N) is moral.
This iseems to be where your proof breaks, from a logic standpoint. Although we have posited that T(1) is moral if M = 100,000,000 (proposition 1), we have not done so for M = 99,999,999. So T(2) is not equivalent to two successive T(1) transformations unless you presuppose the inductive rule you are attempting to prove. Even if we add a proposition that T(1) is moral for M = 99,999,999, we have not yet agreed for M = 99,999,998, etc. Each successive T(1) may be nearly the same as the previous one, but it's not the same.
I think the more basic error here is in attempting to assign a boolean value to the morality of a given action. (C.f. Absolutism - Map, can we count Eugene as an example of Russian absolutism, or has he been corrupted by America? Since it seems to be inspired by a combination of Dostoyevsky and abstract mathematics, I'm gooing to say Russia.) A better fit would be some sort of scalar value. The morality of the action decreases slightly with each successive transformation. Of course the morality of a given action can involve a lot more than just knowing the values of M and N, and I'm sure we'd all disagree widely about how much influence various factors should have. So attempting to develop rigorous formulae for this is probably doomed to failure anyway - but at least, using a scalar rather than boolean would be a little closer to a workable system, IMO.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Cindy Glass]

Question: Is standing around watching a child killed - but doing nothing to prevent it more morally justified causing a childs death when trying to save the lives of other children?
It is a hard question, but I would choose action.

[John Dunn]

In '91 we got a Middle-Eastern coalition and promised in return to only liberate Kuwait. We achieved that AND we managed to keep Israel from getting involved, which would have made the whole situation, unfortunately, very messy. We left without annihilating Iraq. All Saddam had to do was disarm. Why has this been so difficult?? Why did the UN not help us do this??
---------------
Now fast forward to 9/11. Osama bin Laden is only one possible terrorist threat. There are many groups capable of pulling off that kind of stunt. We know that Syria, Iran and other countries have supported terrorism. So the problem is not as simple as 'find this ONE guy and go back to sleep'. Even if we get Osama we still need to prevent 9/11 happening in the future. I believe Saddam is a threat or he would not be trying to build WMD. Terrorism needs to be fought on more than one front.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I didn't realize these facts either:
The Western allied lost far less soldiers than the Soviets, who lost 7.5 MILLION!!.
It's almost hard to believe...
(The United States: 292,000 Great Britain: 397,762 Canada: 45,000 France: 210,600)

I had no idea about Poles participations in WWI either, until I found their site! It seems that every nation has its own truth that no other nation wants to know.
As for Western participation in WWII, I never realized that allies actually destroyed 1/3 of Hitler's military! Our sources painted it like Americans parashuted in German to only sign peace document.

[Cindy Glass]

Soviets, who lost 7.5 MILLION!!.
I knew that Russia lost way more than the US - but I had NO IDEA that the numbers were so HUGE.
So here is a belated thanks for that contribution to world peace . . . even if it was done by fighting a war .

[Mapraputa Is]

7.5 are probably soldiers.
total losts are about 25-28 millions.

[Mapraputa Is]

Thomas Paul asked in another thread who is responsible for more deaths, communism or fascism? How do you separate the two?
For one thing, Hitler's army was motorized, on tanks and cars, and Soviets throw divisions that walked on their two.
In case you wonder, how this war was fought -- on all the most hard parts of front "Gulag prisoners" were sent. Political or (more often) just criminals. They either die or (if not) got amnesty.
Another nice thing was "zagranotryad". Behind regular army there were people who would shoot if regular army decided to retreat.
You can blame Stalin for all his "totalitarism", but this was what it took in 1940-s.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Smith]

Jim Yingst wrote:

A better fit would be some sort of scalar value. The morality of the action decreases slightly with each successive transformation.

Ah, I saw it coming. Yes, my proof is based on the idea that the morals are absolute. The problem in considering morals as a relative, fuzzy variable is that everyone would then be free to interpret it any way he wants. Then the question "Should we go to war with Iraq" has no meaning, and there is nothing to discuss.
There are certain things that are absolute. For example, God either exists or it doesn't, and there is nothing in between. To me, morality either exists as a universal truism in a pure absolute form, or there is no such thing at all. I just can't see how it can be moral to kill 1 Iraqi child and yet immoral to kill 1000 of them.
Eugene.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Jim Yingst]

The problem in considering morals as a relative, fuzzy variable is that everyone would then be free to interpret it any way he wants. Then the question "Should we go to war with Iraq" has no meaning, and there is nothing to discuss.
No, it just means that answers are not simple, even though we wish they were. The real world is in fact quite complex - simplifying it may make it easier to discuss, but if the problem is changed too much, then the results of the discussion of the simplified problem are not really relevant to the real world problem, which still exists.

---

"He says there are no easy answers. I say - HE'S NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH!" - name that quote
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

My memory of the liberation of Kuwait and why the coalition did not march into Baghdad had several reason that seem to have been forgotten.
Somebody claimed that this was the Arab world and the Arab League was going to deal with it.
Somebody claimed that Saddam Hussein was so weakened that internal forces were going to topple his regime.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
BTW, Yugoslavia was a UN and NATO affair, please don't claim that the USA did the 'job' again ...

Once the UN finally decided to do something, they went in, screwed the pooch and got countless people killed, Bosnian Muslims mostly. Srebrenica comes to mind. Eventually NATO intervenes (but would only agree to do so if the US participated in the military action) and manages to put a halt to the genocide. Bosnia goes down as a prime example of UN ineptitude and all that is wrong in how Europe as a whole handles foeign affairs. The lesson of Bosnia was learned, so when it came time to take action in Kosovo, it was purely a NATO operation and the UN had no say on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Once the UN finally decided to do something, they went in, screwed the pooch and got countless people killed, Bosnian Muslims mostly. Srebrenica comes to mind. Eventually NATO intervenes (but would only agree to do so if the US participated in the military action) and manages to put a halt to the genocide. Bosnia goes down as a prime example of UN ineptitude and all that is wrong in how Europe as a whole handles foeign affairs. The lesson of Bosnia was learned, so when it came time to take action in Kosovo, it was purely a NATO operation and the UN had no say on the matter.

Oh puh-leaze, don't give me that all-American-white-teeth-Rambo-talk. The USA acted on behalf of being a NATO and UN partner there, no more no less. And they blew up just like the rest of that non-motivated bunch of military nono's there.
When, oh when do the US learn not to seggragate themselves from the rest (the majority) of the world?
FYI I'm a pacifist, I refused to be drafted when I was 18 years old back in '63 and I still, after all these years wonder why people still don't understand that war is by no means a solution to anything at all. It never has been, it isn't now and it never will be. After-war periods simply show total devastation, no matter what those administrations tell you, read some history books for the simple proofs of it. And still people think they can think (sic) with their testosterone-pill-built-muscles instead of their brains (if still present 'I wanna be your drill instructor', yeah, cute, cool). Please don't spew anymore crap like this. And please think of all the innocent folks that really don't know where to go to, don't know where to continue their lives if possible at all and please don't argue as if the USA is a 'mister know it all', because it isn't, just like any other country isn't, I can tell you that. Please refrain from that imperialistic type of talk. Pfew ...
kind regards

[Peter Pol]

I saw some discussion about Poland's role in WWII. Some things should be added to the discussion.
1. Poland never signed an act of capitulation and for example France and Czech Republic did.
2. In 30s of 20th century Jozef Pilsudski (Marshal of Polish army) asked other countries to stop Hitler and prevent inevitable war. He wanted to attack Germany before Hitler would attack somebody else. Unfortunately, nobody agreed with Pilsudski. We all know what happened next in just a few years - WWII.
3. In WWII Polish soldiers fought against Germans in many countries(Norway, Libya, Italy, England...).
4. When Poland was attacked in 1939 nobody wanted to help Polish people. USA, England and other countries decided to sacrifice this small country.
About nowadays... Poland is one of not many countries that fully support American politics concerning Iraq. For example Germany and France are now ones of the biggest anti-American countries in Europe.
So, please do not treat Poland and other small countries with disregard. They are trying to do their best to help the world to be a better place. Of course they don't have such funds as USA have, but at least they try.
---------------------------------------------
"Cogito ergo sum."

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

...War is by no means a solution to anything at all. It never has been, it isn't now and it never will be. After-war periods simply show total devastation, no matter what those administrations tell you, read some history books for the simple proofs of it...Please don't spew anymore crap like this. And please think of all the innocent folks that really don't know where to go to...

Couple things in all this, Jos:
-Peace is what happens before and after war; war is what happens before and after peace. Hoping for one without the other isn't idealism, it's just foolish.
-The meek might indeed inherit the earth; what remains to be seen is who wills to them, and when.

Until then, we've all got as much reason to live as puppy dogs, old nuns and wide-eyed schoolchildren, so why not cut out the cloying emotional arguments and preach life for everyone?
I find rhetoric like this stuff just as tiresome as war-mongering. Peace-keeping is not a passive process; people die all the time in the name of preserving it, of whom the "innocent" probably rank low in number. We're all connected, Jos, and if pacifism helps you forget that, maybe you should look for a new faith.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Oh puh-leaze, don't give me that all-American-white-teeth-Rambo-talk. The USA acted on behalf of being a NATO and UN partner there, no more no less. And they blew up just like the rest of that non-motivated bunch of military nono's there.

Aside from the fact that I'm not totaly sure what you are saying, your reaction seems a bit odd, since I only mentioned the US once, and otherwise only referred to NATO and the UN.

When, oh when do the US learn not to seggragate themselves from the rest (the majority) of the world?

Who's "the majority of the world". Do you speak for the majority? Like every other country on the planet, we look out for our best interests. But as we are a part of just about every world body and have some amount of trade with nearly every nation on the planet, I don't think there is a case for segregation. Take the recent NATO talks. Out of 19 nations in NATO, three had isolated themselves from the position of the majority. We shared the position held by the majority. Take a look at the map of Europe and then take a look at the nations who have stated they will support us in action against Iraq. You will see that this is the majority of Europe.

FYI I'm a pacifist, I refused to be drafted when I was 18 years old back in '63 and I still, after all these years wonder why people still don't understand that war is by no means a solution to anything at all.

What is pacifism a solution to? Please tell me about all the great victories of pacifism? Did the pacifistic stance taken by German Jews help them during WW2? Did the pacifists put a halt to genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, or Rwanda for that matter? Did pacifists make it possible to get food aid into the starving people of Somalia? Was it pacifism that was the key to evicting Iraq from Kuwait? Were pacifists responsible for beating back the Iraqi military and bringing millions of starving Kurds down from the icy mountains between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran? Given these situations, what do you think the victims view of pacifists would be?

It never has been, it isn't now and it never will be. After-war periods simply show total devastation, no matter what those administrations tell you, read some history books for the simple proofs of it. And still people think they can think (sic) with their testosterone-pill-built-muscles instead of their brains (if still present 'I wanna be your drill instructor', yeah, cute, cool).

Unfortunately, the measured application of military force is often the only realistic way to solve certain problems in the world, including many humanitarian crisises. History has proven this time and again.
There's alot of horrible shit that happens in the real world, and if anyone has the balls to try to stop it, rarely if ever is it going to be stopped through some peace march. The only thing that people who perpetrate such crimes acknowledge is brute force. On the other hand, it is the arrogant selfishness of "pacifists" who, unable to see anything past their left-wing politics, are willing to continue to let others suffer.
War and conflict are not good things. However we all live in the real world and should recognize that sometimes it is necessary. Blind pacifism is at least as disturbing as blind war-mongering. Maybe a better question is under what circumstances is the application of military force the lesser of all evils in a given situation.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Unfortunately, the measured application of military force is often the only realistic way to solve certain problems in the world, including many humanitarian crisises. History has proven this time and again.
There's alot of horrible shit that happens in the real world, and if anyone has the balls to try to stop it, rarely if ever is it going to be stopped through some peace march. The only thing that people who perpetrate such crimes acknowledge is brute force. On the other hand, it is the arrogant selfishness of "pacifists" who, unable to see anything past their left-wing politics, are willing to continue to let others suffer.
War and conflict are not good things. However we all live in the real world and should recognize that sometimes it is necessary. Blind pacifism is at least as disturbing as blind war-mongering. Maybe a better question is under what circumstances is the application of military force the lesser of all evils in a given situation.
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

I am sorry i find your arguments very odious and offensive. The case for war has not been made, witness the british having the stupidity to submit a plagiarised report as their "case" for war. I believe it is the arrogance and bigotry of right-wingers that has caused this matter to escalate beyond control. How do you "liberate" a country by killing its citizens and raining bombs on its cities?. It is easy to sit in front of you computer monitor and make spuriou arguments, you need to live in a country that is threatened by unprovoked military invasion to understand what it feels like.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I believe it is the arrogance and bigotry of right-wingers that has caused this matter to escalate beyond control.

The problem has been created by the citizens of Iraq and their new found wealth. They don't have the maturity to have all the wealth they enjoy.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
FYI I'm a pacifist, I refused to be drafted when I was 18 years old back in '63

Who exactly were the Dutch fighting in 1963?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
The case for war has not been made

Hasn't been made to who? To you? According to a Washnigton Post poll, 63% of Americans feel that the Bush administration has presented enough evidence to show why the United States should use military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I believe it is the arrogance and bigotry of right-wingers that has caused this matter to escalate beyond control.

Based on what evidence? The only reason the inspectors were let back into Iraq is because of the credible threat of military force that the US and some allies are presenting. As long as the threat of force seems credible, every indication is that Hussein will at least act like he is cooperating. When the threat becomes less than credible, he stalls. Now you have people like France and Germany, and the idiots carrying their placards, undermining the credibility of the threat and giving Hussein an out. He has less incentive to comply with UN demands if he thinks that we will not carry through on our threats. As France, Germany, and the placard carrying idiots have presented an aura of deviciveness, Hussein now thinks he can continue his non-compliance, thus bringing the threat of actual conflict much closer. It's not the hawks making things more dangerous, it's Saddam Hussein and those who are wittingly or unwittingly supporting his position that are making things more dangerous.

How do you "liberate" a country by killing its citizens and raining bombs on its cities?.

Maybe you might ask the citizens of countries like France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, to name a few, how this might be possible.

It is easy to sit in front of you computer monitor and make spuriou arguments, you need to live in a country that is threatened by unprovoked military invasion to understand what it feels like.

What are you talking about? I live in a country that is threatened by, and has been the victim of, unprovoked attacks from outside forces.
However, any attack on Iraq is far from unprovoked. They are in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire. Normally, when one violates a cease fire, hostilities resume. Additionally, they are a state supporter of international terrorism. The Iraqi regime has nobody to blame but themselves.

[Mapraputa Is]

I have my own explanation for world-wide opposition to American plans to go to war. The USA now is the only superpower, and everybody knows what the only superpowers tend to turn into over time (isn't this why there is such thing as multi-party system?). Naturally, the world pays special attention to whether the only superpower has valid enough reasons to attack a sovereign and much weaker state, and many probably wonder who will be the next, after the USA is done with Iraq.
Question: after the USSR, a mortal threat to all progressive mankind and especially to the USA, ceased to be, how much was US military budget reduced?
Another question: does the USA has this reduced yet big enough military budget because there is still a mortal threat to the US security (somewhere), or is it the other way around?
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

Question: after the USSR, a mortal threat to all progressive mankind and especially to the USA, ceased to be, how much was US military budget reduced?
You'll have to forgive my laziness for not googling, but I'm sure you could easily verify if you wanted. Anyway, After the Gulf War, during the Clinton years, the US military was drastically downsized. Countless bases were closed, both in the states and overseas, whole units were eliminated, and there was a large reduction in force size (they got rid of a lot of people). US military doctrine even went through quite an overhaul. There began to be more of a reliance on quick mobile forces, and les sof a reliance on masses of armour and other things that were hard to move and rapidly deploy. Off the top of my head I can't tell you what the budgetary impact was.
Another question: does the USA has this reduced yet big enough military budget because there is still a mortal threat to the US security (somewhere), or is it the other way around?
There is a thought among many that Clinton and company went a little too far with the military reductions. Aside from having to maintain forces in Turkey and Saudi Arabia (as well as in traditional places like Europe and the Pacific), Bosnia and Kosovo popped up and put a further strain on the active duty military to keep forces dedicated to these contingencies as well. I believe the correct term is "operational tempo". That is, op tempo was too high.
With fewer resources, it meant that people and units were having to spend more time deployed. Some of this burden was shared by the reserve forces and national guard, but it was still alot to handle. For example, I did two tours in Turkey, one tour in Bosnia, and they were trying very hard to send me to Saudi Arabia right u puntil the day I got out. But this was the result of the Clinton downsizing. The phrase being thrown about at the time was how we all had to "do more with less".
So the US military was having to do more of these contingency deployments with far less manpower and resources. There was a bit of a loss of focus because our whole purpose and composition had been oriented towards the Soviet threat, which suddenly was no longer around. But when the Soviets left the picture, things were much more uncertain, and all of a sudden all these little conflicts began popping up, which would have been contained had bipolarity continued.
Without the Soviets to balance things out and keep their former disciples in check, in many ways the world became a much more dangerous place. The US military was left much leaner than it had been, it's makeup needed to be altered to become more mobile and more agile, and it needed a matching change in doctrine, all of this to deal with the new types of threats we expect to see (rogue nations, terrorism, civil wars, etc...). In otherwords, Communism is no longer our nations largest threat, instead we have several new threats (as outlined above) to our security which in many cases result from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Mapraputa Is]

You'll have to forgive my laziness for not googling, but I'm sure you could easily verify if you wanted.
Rats. I was lazy and thought I could rely on you instead of doing googling myself. But at least I provided you with an opportunity to make the 100th post in this thread.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The phrase being thrown about at the time was how we all had to "do more with less".

That's exactly what makes me angry with current west-european moralic highfly:
Its no fun for US to send soldiers (or to be sent as soldier) to dangerous missions.
Be assured that if US-gov says one day: We will concentrate on our own country and don't care much about the rest of the world. There will be a 70% mayority lamenting: Oh those ahistoric, uniteralist americans. They are repeating the error after WWI.
Was hearing in radio while posting: recent polls show that >60%of population see USA as mayor thread for world peace (Iraq: 30%).
[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
The real world is in fact quite complex - simplifying it may make it easier to discuss, but if the problem is changed too much, then the results of the discussion of the simplified problem are not really relevant to the real world problem, which still exists.

One of the best definitions of "intelligentsia" I read, was that "intelligentsia" is a keeper of complexity. Its mission is to keep things complex, and to prevent their societies from slipping into comfortable oversimplification.
-----------------
"I understand nothing," Ivan went on, as though in delirium. "I don't want to understand anything now. I want to stick to the fact. I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If I try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick to the fact."
F.Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
(C.f. Absolutism - Map, can we count Eugene as an example of Russian absolutism, or has he been corrupted by America? Since it seems to be inspired by a combination of Dostoyevsky and abstract mathematics, I'm going to say Russia.)

Hm... As Eugene did not respond to many of my relentless provocations, I can conclude that he can pretty much well be a US-born citizen.
And then, Dostoevsky was the last guy who cared about "innocent child" in Russia, since then, child's suffering did not seem to impress anybody... "Absolutism" is still more "American" than "Russian" idea to me.

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What are you talking about? I live in a country that is threatened by, and has been the victim of, unprovoked attacks from outside forces.
However, any attack on Iraq is far from unprovoked. They are in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire. Normally, when one violates a cease fire, hostilities resume. Additionally, they are a state supporter of international terrorism. The Iraqi regime has nobody to blame but themselves.

Oh yes Iraq is a state supporter of terrorism -- we know that but please don't play the victim card here i was personally affected by the 9/11 attack so don't portray yourself as anymore victimised than others or the people in Europe that have suffered similar attacks in the past.
Also please check your facts, the 9/11 attackers were saudis, why don't we invade them?. I feel sorry for people like you who accept everything fed to you with blind faith and refuse to view situations objectively. There is no point arguing -i am making my view felt to the others on this board - i am not in support of an unjust war and i believe my views will be vindicated sooner or later

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What are you talking about? I live in a country that is threatened by, and has been the victim of, unprovoked attacks from outside forces.

Unprovoked ??? :roll:

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Hasn't been made to who? To you? According to a Washnigton Post poll, 63% of Americans feel that the Bush administration has presented enough evidence to show why the United States should use military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

By the way please don't quote polls here according to a recent NYTimes poll 59% of repondents feel the United States should get UN approval before millitary action (that is unlikely without coercion by the way) There has been a group pf "yes-men" countries willing to sacrifice thousands of lives just beacuse of the favors they hope to get from the U.S. As to the so-called evidence let us consider it:
1) we hear a tape of two people speaking -- who are they ?- they could just as easily have been any two arab speaking people concocting a conversation.
2) The british report used as a basis for the powell briefing is based on information plagiarised from a student thesis-- check any recent articles from the british press. Suprisingly that has never been given much coverage by any of the mainstream media in the United states see here: http://abc.net.au/news/2003/02/item20030208001714_1.htm
3) The "satellite pictures" were not supported by any of the findings of the blix report here:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-14-blix-text_x.htm.
So what "evidence" are you talking about?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
don't portray yourself as anymore victimised than others or the people in Europe that have suffered similar attacks in the past.

Which "similar attacks" would those be?

Also please check your facts, the 9/11 attackers were saudis, why don't we invade them?.

Because not every situation calls for the application of military force (as has been publicly stated by the government btw). Other forms of pressure have been placed on countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan. There's no telling what additional pressures may need to be employed in the future.

I feel sorry for people like you who accept everything fed to you with blind faith and refuse to view situations objectively.

I don't think you have a clue what my thought process is, or what my sources of information are.

i am not in support of an unjust war and i believe my views will be vindicated sooner or later

Yeah, it's easy to support a dictator when it's not your life he is dictating over, isn't it?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
By the way please don't quote polls here according to a recent NYTimes poll 59% of repondents feel the United States should get UN approval before millitary action (that is unlikely without coercion by the way)

Why not quote polls? Can you think of any other way of attempting to qualify statements such as "most people think..."? As for your poll, what is the date of the poll? Where's the link to it?

There has been a group pf "yes-men" countries willing to sacrifice thousands of lives just beacuse of the favors they hope to get from the U.S.

Or another way to look at it is that there are a group of countries who have learned from history that appeasement is not a viable strategy and who are willing to take a stand for what they believe is right.

As to the so-called evidence let us consider it:

Unless you have some kind of background in intelligence analysis, I'm not sure your interpretation of intelligence data is really worth much. However, regardless of whether or not you feel the evidence is sufficient, 63% of the population of the country who is going to have to do most of the heavy lifting does feel it is sufficient.

[John Smith]

Mapraputa Is wrote:

Hm... As Eugene did not respond to many of my relentless provocations, I can conclude that he can pretty much well be a US-born citizen.
And then, Dostoevsky was the last guy who cared about "innocent child" in Russia, since then, child's suffering did not seem to impress anybody... "Absolutism" is still more "American" than "Russian" idea to me.

I am a US citizen and I have lived here for 10 years, but I was born and raised in Russia. I do think that absolutism is indeed a Russian notion.
Talking about cultural differences, I think that's what partially explains why much of Europe is opposed to war while America pushes for it. It's anthropological, -- Americans inherited simplicity, pragmatism, practicality, individualism, love for freedom, and violence from the native Americans. Europeans favor sophistication, tradition, pretense, higher role of society, collectivism, uniformity, and depth of thought, all coming from their long and rich history, arts and sciences, the glory of the state (Roman Empire), and the more pronounced crowd instincts due to smaller spaces and higher concentration of population. Some of these European values were imported to America as Victorian values, but for the most part, an American is still a plain spoken, no-nonsense, somewhat bad-manered, aggressive, competitive and self-relient person who values his privacy and prosperity of his own family far more than the welfare and power of the society.
When I came to America, one thing that surprised me was how people were perceived based on the basis of their speech. In Russia (and I think in much of Europe, too), an educated and respectable person is supposed to talk in long, complex sentences, using as many of sophisticated (and sometimes obscure) words as possible. In America, a smart person and a good speaker is the one who talks in short, clear sentences with simple words that communicate the idea to audience in the most efficient and persuasive way.
In America, when you enter an elevator, you tend to stay away as far as possible from the other person in it, protecting your freedom and space. You wish you were rather in a prairie somewhere in the south-western America, hunting the buffalo. If the other fellow stands too close to you, you feel very uneasy and are thinking of taking his scalp. In a European department store, you may be sqeezed between the other two shoppers who want to look at the same merchandize, and as a European, you will feel the sense of bond and same purpose with your countrymen.
Europeans want to integrate into a mighty European union more powerful than the Roman Empire, the Americans want to federal goverment to stay out of their business and have their state and local goverments independent.
So it makes perfect sense why Americans favor a war, -- it's the most pragmatic, direct, clear, and individualistic (we'll do it along if we have to) approach. The Europeans, on the other hand, characterize it as a disregard for the rest of the world, selfishness, aggressiveness, and lack of thought.
The internal conflict that I have is that I admire and embrace the american values and yet can't convince myself that killing a child can save the world.
Eugene.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the so-called evidence let us consider it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should a coalition of forces invade Iraq and turn up huge piles of evidence, people like you will claim it was all created by US as a plot.
You want truth, the invasion force is assembling.

[Cindy Glass]

Which really means that you are not yet convinced that Saddam Hussein is going to cause the deaths of many others if we do nothing.
That is a valid stance - I just disagree.
PS: Your analysis of US vs European cultures was very interesting. I'll have to think on that for a while.

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Unless you have some kind of background in intelligence analysis, I'm not sure your interpretation of intelligence data is really worth much. is sufficient.

Please don't insult our intelligence on this board you have resorted to adhominem arguments which is why i have responded in kind. By the way please take some time to read my previous posts, the sources i quoted are not "my analysis" it is publicly available information- if you take the time to look for the information you will find it--the truth and not what you want to see

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Why not quote polls? Can you think of any other way of attempting to qualify statements such as "most people think..."? As for your poll, what is the date of the poll? Where's the link to it?

you want to see the link you got it here
correction the figure is 56%) but my point is still valid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2766917.stm

[Michael Ernest]

Shay, if you're concerned about fallacious arguments, consider the person who casts his own position as objective and differing viewpoints as skewed. That's how you sound to me.
An ad hominem attack is not one that casts doubt on the credibility of another's facts or arguments. It is one that holds the person's character or personal attributes as evidence of a flawed position.
This is not ad hominem: "I don't think you understand how the intelligence community works, so I can't take your analysis very seriously."
This is ad hominem: "Only degenerates would take the position you just stated, so I think we know what to expect from you."

[Jason Menard]

My previous statement should have been sufficient, but if you require a point-by-point:

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
1) we hear a tape of two people speaking -- who are they ?- they could just as easily have been any two arab speaking people concocting a conversation.

Could it have been? Was the dialect Iraqi? Were the communication protocols consistent with Iraqi military procedures? Were the people communicating known as being Iraq military personnel? You probably are not able to answer any of those questions. These are questions, at least some of which, I would be willing to bet those who are "in the know" could answer and therefore judge the validity of the content. Bust since I doubt you are "in the know", your claim as to what the content "could just as easily have been" is without merit.

2) The british report used as a basis for the powell briefing is based on information plagiarised from a student thesis-- check any recent articles from the british press.

The briefing was based on intelligence data that Powell presented, however the British report was cited in a couple of instances. Interestingly enough, nobody has disputed the veracity of the claims in that report. If you would like to dispute anything that is in the report, I would be most interested.

3) The "satellite pictures" were not supported by any of the findings of the blix report here:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-14-blix-text_x.htm.

Actually Blix just provided alternate explanations for what those images could have been. It's your choice, but I prefer to place greater weight on the interpretation of satellite imagery with people who do that sort of thing for a living, as opposed to some lawyer/diplomat.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Shay, if you're concerned about fallacious arguments, consider the person who casts his own position as objective and differing viewpoints as skewed. That's how you sound to me.
An ad hominem attack is not one that casts doubt on the credibility of another's facts or arguments. It is one that holds the person's character or personal attributes as evidence of a flawed position.
This is not ad hominem: "I don't think you understand how the intelligence community works, so I can't take your analysis very seriously."
This is ad hominem: "Only degenerates would take the position you just stated, so I think we know what to expect from you."

i agree : i didn't start this, someone on this board said this (and that person knows himself)and i quote:

There's alot of horrible shit that happens in the real world, and if anyone has the balls to try to stop it, rarely if ever is it going to be stopped through some peace march. The only thing that people who perpetrate such crimes acknowledge is brute force. On the other hand, it is the arrogant selfishness of "pacifists" who, unable to see anything past their left-wing politics, are willing to continue to let others suffer.

if that is not an adhominem attack, then i don't know what is.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
if that is not an adhominem attack, then i don't know what is.

Who is being attacked? What argument is being rejected "on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument"?
You seem to be unclear on what an ad hominem fallacy is. Please see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html for more info.

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Who is being attacked? What argument is being rejected "on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument"?
You seem to be unclear on what an ad hominem fallacy is. Please see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html for more info.

You defeat yourself, please check your links and review the attacks you made against pacifists--i consider this discussion closed from my point of view and i will not dignify any responses from you with an answer ... peace