Take the GLOVES off our troops NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 4:49 pm

Also as there are extremist Sunni Muslims, it is the Shiites that are the most fundamentalist and ritualistic. Check out the Iranians!

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:00 pm

Can't wait till the Gloves Come Off the troops!:yh_rotfl Doya think they will be able to secure a city or town?? Though they are spilling blood and losing soldiers, they aren't impressing anyone but delusional overweight rednecks that won't sign up! RE-ENLIST LYNNDE!!!! Only people that can't hold jobs are left to recruit!

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

Well - that will probably bring the thread to a steaming halt!

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:21 pm

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Well - that will probably bring the thread to a steaming halt!If it can't take the weight of anti-capitalist opinion, let it sink to the bottom. Alll the way! Let me tie some concrete to it!!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:19 pm

spot wrote: So, that was Monday night. I'm glad I took the breather. You're screaming "why, why, why?" in everything you write, and each reason I give is firstly ignored - merely scanned for ammunition - and secondly screamed down in turn with further "why"s. You get less interesting to talk with by the day. You grow careless, you have ceased to think, you're as predictable as a hangover."screamed"? i don't know about you, but typically online screaming is of the nature of LOTS OF ALL CAPS WRITING or lots of boldface writing (often combined).

"why?", although i'm not applying the method at all rigorously, is easily enough explained - are you familiar with the socratic method? i'm trying to find the truth behind the ambiguity, by poking and prodding you.

as to the last line above, well then. there you have it. clearly, all my one word retorts and ALL CAPS boldface bon mots aren't working. yes, the most thoughtful writers follow that sage advice, "simplify, simplify, simplify". sadly, thoreau failed to heed it himself.

First, to put what I say in context, since you brought up the holocaust, what was the consequence of declaring war on the Axis in 1939, as far as European Jewry is concerned? You can write it two ways. Either you say "intervention saved the lives of three million Jews", from the pre-war total European population of nine million, or you say "intervention failed to save the lives of six million Jews". As an indication of a successful intervention, I'm not impressed. thankfully, those who fought, and died, to put an end to hitler's madness were not concerned with impressing you.

first, it is convenient, but does injustice to the magnitude of the horror, to speak only of the jews who were liquidated. as i mentioned, gypsies and homosexuals were also liquidated. as well as 'cripples'. as well as those who were 'mental defectives'. and virtually anyone who was imprisoned at the time the germans came. and it is also worth noting that half of the six million poles killed were *not* jews.

five million non-jews died in the holocaust. that is no small number, by any stretch of the imagination. had the war not ended when it did, i believe many more poles would have been exterminated.

so yes, you can get away with saying that three million jews were saved due to hitler being stopped. we can't know however what might have been had he not been stopped. i think his designs for the polish population were clearly mapped out. for that matter, one can speculate what he may have had in store for the french, the belgians, the dutch - who knows where it would have stopped?

If that's the best that going to war can achieve, then it leaves a lot to be desired. I believe that absolute pacifism could have done better than that, but let's agree from the outset that even if it had failed as utterly as you claim it would, it would not have done much worse than declaring war did. Going to war, as a mechanism for preventing the holocaust, was by any definition a failure.no, i absolutely will not agree that "it would not have done much worse than declaring war did". that's utter poppycock.

at least use logical constructs. who has said that going to war was a mechanism for preventing the holocaust? the true nature and extent of the holocaust only became known *after* the war.

i believe an argument against pacifism is found precisely in the holocaust itself. the jews did not fight back. is that not pacifism? it cost them more dearly than all others.

Secondly, absolute pacifism isn't anything to do with appeasement - if you think that, you're predictably uninformed but you're wrong. i said "the path" of appeasement. appeasement, capitulation - not fighting back, but rather conceding in the hopes that by sacrificing others you might save your own skin.

Neville Chamberlain's British Government's path in dealing with the Axis, and in particular with Nazi Germany, was one of appeasement. Absolute pacifism is most commonly a mass movement of individuals. I don't know of any historical moment when it has been a mechanism of government. It is a process adopted by people acting in concert, or even, exceptionally, by a single individual.as a formal movement. sure. when governments emulate the methods of those who will not defend themselves, however...

Thirdly, we have your concluding sentence: "using violence to stop violence is anathema to the total pacifist, so lifting a finger to stop hitler would not have been acceptable, correct?" which makes sense only if one equates violence with lifting a finger.actually, it makes grand sense without equating violence to lifting a finger.

I've always taken "lifting a finger" to mean taking action, not committing violence.is violence not an action?

It means doing something. Doing something would have been not just acceptable, it would have been an obligation. Committing violence would have been doing something unacceptable, it would have been forbidden by definition within absolute pacifism. Absolute pacifism employs force, it doesn't employ violence. It forces its opponent to change. That's its objective. It's employed as much to salvage the aggressor as it is to stop him from aggressing.all that pacifism under those terms would have done is make it slightly more difficult for the nazis to load up the cattle cars. the nazis despised the jews more (if that be possible) because they did not fight back.

If you want an example of absolute pacifism succeeding in its goals, I have two examples for you. The student protest movement - you remember Kent State University? - that pulled the rug out from under Richard Nixon's administration.two problems. the protesters at kent state were not acting as absolute pacifists. secondly, the student protest movement most assuredly did not 'pull the rug out from under' the nixon administration. they pulled the rug out from under themselves with Watergate. Watergate brought down the nixon administration. the student protest movement arguably brought a premature conclusion to the vietnam war.

I'll settle for that, I won't go on to Martin Luther King's civil rights marches.yes, the civil rights by and large was a pacifist movement, and it was successful. however, the scale and scope bear no resemblance to the circumstances of WWII, where pacifism could not have been successful. the civil rights movement was just that - a fight to gain rights denied. the movement was *not* faced with genocide. trying to reason with a genocidal regime intent on total world domination is quite a different matter, and one that *cannot be stopped* without violence wrought to stop violence. not pretty. but that's reality.

And, in my opinion, if absolute pacifism had been employed en masse throughout Europe against the Nazi regime in Germany, or against Il Duce's Fascist regime in Italy, it would not only have brought the Nazi occupations to an end more swiftly, it would have re-educated the Germans and the Italians into the bargain. It would most certainly have ended with far fewer deaths than the carnage that actually occurred as a result of declaring war. your opinion is duly noted. i believe you are utterly deluded on these points however. 'most certainly'? nonsense. nobody can know what would have happened, so 'most certainly' is empty rhetoric.

The more terror a nation state brings to bear against an absolute pacifist movement, the sooner it destroys itself. I have every confidence that this lesson will eventually be learnt, to the benefit of the planet as a whole.the despot welcomes a pacifist population. you are presuming that good will is universal. the ovens at auschwitz did not go cold until they were forcibly shut down, and i doubt they ever would have without violent intervention.

You needn't bother to reply to the thread that you disagree with me, I'm already aware of the fact. If you wish to tell me why you disagree, however, then give me instances and examples, instead of opinion.thanks, but you don't dictate the terms upon which i or anyone else may or may not participate here.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:26 pm

to be fair, i don't believe that pacificism *cannot* work. as spot mentioned, martin luther king and the pacifist civil rights movement *did* work.

i believe however that for a genuine, pacifist movement to work, it can only do so with a genuine, charismatic leader, a la king, ghandi. without such a leader, i think such movements are doomed to fail. and i believe individual pacifism - "absolute, total pacifism" - is bankrupt, unless you foreswear all protections that society offers, a la buddhist pacifists.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:30 pm

spot wrote: "the Kent State marches did what exactly"? I think they were one of the reasons for the congressional restriction of Nixon's administration through 1972, though others with more knowledge could say more here about that. Without that restriction, I think he'd have been allowed to complete his term.
mr. nixon was never prevented from completing his term. he chose to resign. he was not forced from office through the legislative process.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:35 pm

David813 wrote: Unlike what most Americans believe, not all the freedom fighters in Iraq are jihadists! no, not all. most.

We gave them power AGAIN with the election of a Shiite extremist. Many of the rebels are ordinary Iraqi men that do not want a foriegn occupier in their country, handing it over to Shiite jihadists!
some of those fighting are those who are against the US presence. a great many are former fedayin (sp?).

what evidence have you that the shia who have been elected (note, *elected*) are extremists and jihadists?

Holy Warriors have descended on Iraq because of the turmoil we introduced to the region.
perhaps. 'holy' and 'beheading' don't usually strike me as bedfellows, but we'll let that slide.

The Palestinians hatred for apartheid Zionism is rooted in the misery of their daily lives, rarely through the Koran.
there are palestinians fighting in iraq?

The Islamic fundamentalists are but one of many elements opposed to foreign occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
that may be. but the are the majority by a wide margin.

A convenient excuse to "Take our gloves off" and REALLY get the blood splattering, but it just is not true.
we differ.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:38 pm

David813 wrote: Also as there are extremist Sunni Muslims, it is the Shiites that are the most fundamentalist and ritualistic. Check out the Iranians!
iran may be a theocracy indeed. it is far from the theocracy that was in control after the shah was deposed, and the time of the ayatullah khomeini. there is strong 'westernism' in iran, for lack of a better word. they have not demonstrated the bloodthirstiness of the sunni, as far as i'm aware, but i must say i haven't looked into it very closely.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:39 pm

anastrophe wrote: no, not all. most.

some of those fighting are those who are against the US presence. a great many are former fedayin (sp?).

what evidence have you that the shia who have been elected (note, *elected*) are extremists and jihadists?

perhaps. 'holy' and 'beheading' don't usually strike me as bedfellows, but we'll let that slide.

there are palestinians fighting in iraq?

that may be. but the are the majority by a wide margin.

we differ.I don't know how to select sentences and highlight them so I'll respond this way! Al Sistani, the Shiite cleric is not a fundamentalist??

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:41 pm

David813 wrote: If it can't take the weight of anti-capitalist opinion, let it sink to the bottom. Alll the way! Let me tie some concrete to it!!
FUNDAMENTALISM Stops a Thinking Mind

Never Tolerate the Intolerant

i happen to agree with both of the sentiments in your signature, however i'd present them this way:

Never Tolerate the Intolerant

Fundamentalism Stops a Thinking Mind

though if i were making my own signature, it would be a variation on a famous phrase that i've thought to myself for many years:

Be intolerant only of intolerance

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:42 pm

anastrophe wrote: no, not all. most.

some of those fighting are those who are against the US presence. a great many are former fedayin (sp?).

what evidence have you that the shia who have been elected (note, *elected*) are extremists and jihadists?

perhaps. 'holy' and 'beheading' don't usually strike me as bedfellows, but we'll let that slide.

there are palestinians fighting in iraq?

that may be. but the are the majority by a wide margin.

we differ.I was using an example, that Palestinian Arabs fighting apartheid in their Occupied country are not incited by the Koran. Most Yanks think ALL Arab opposition to US shareholder wants and needs must be jihadists. This is not true in Iraq either.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:45 pm

David813 wrote: I don't know how to select sentences and highlight them so I'll respond this way! Al Sistani, the Shiite cleric is not a fundamentalist??
to pick out the individual sentences - or simply to parse quoted material, you just add the following at the start and end of the segment you want separated. i am putting spaces between each character, otherwise the system would interpret it as a genuine quote command:

[ q u o t e ] I don't know how to select sentences and highlight them, so I'll respond this way! [ / q u o t e ]

which, without the spaces, would presented like this:

I don't know how to select sentences and highlight them, so I'll respond this way!
now, to the second half:

Al Sistani, the Shiite cleric is not a fundamentalist??
i think part of the problem is terminology. "fundamentalists" are not inherently extremists. some are, some aren't. i don't know any of the particulars of al sistani, but i've not gotten any sense from press coverage that he's an extremist, or bent on creating a theocracy.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:47 pm

anastrophe wrote: iran may be a theocracy indeed. it is far from the theocracy that was in control after the shah was deposed, and the time of the ayatullah khomeini. there is strong 'westernism' in iran, for lack of a better word. they have not demonstrated the bloodthirstiness of the sunni, as far as i'm aware, but i must say i haven't looked into it very closely.I think if you look at the two Muslim sects you will find the Shiites are far more religiously conservative in their beliefs. Have you already forgotten the US funded war on militant Shiite Iran by US backed & equipped Sunni Iraq?? Because the Shiites hated Saddam does not mean they are open to Baptist businesses opening in Najaf! Iraqi Communists also hated Saddam and the US was supportive of their extermination under the Rotting Reagan regime.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:50 pm

anastrophe wrote: FUNDAMENTALISM Stops a Thinking Mind

Never Tolerate the Intolerant

i happen to agree with both of the sentiments in your signature, however i'd present them this way:

Never Tolerate the Intolerant

Fundamentalism Stops a Thinking Mind

though if i were making my own signature, it would be a variation on a famous phrase that i've thought to myself for many years:

Be intolerant only of intolerance

I like the suggestion. Though it's necessary to be intolerant of white supremacists, religious fundamentalsts and child molesters.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:52 pm

David813 wrote: I was using an example, that Palestinian Arabs fighting apartheid in their Occupied country are not incited by the Koran. Most Yanks think ALL Arab opposition to US shareholder wants and needs must be jihadists. This is not true in Iraq either.
i think there are gross simplifications all around.

the palestinians feel that the israelis are occupying their territory. the israelis feel that the palestinians are occupying their territory. the jihadists would be three steps to paradise if both were wiped from the face of the earth.

the problem with the middle east is somewhat neatly encapsulated in jerusalem: within one city, the (arguably) holiest sites for three religions that have been at odds seemingly forever. the muslims feel jerusalem is their birthright. the jews feel jerusalem is their birthright. the christians feel jerusalem is their birthright.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:53 pm

anastrophe wrote: to pick out the individual sentences - or simply to parse quoted material, you just add the following at the start and end of the segment you want separated. i am putting spaces between each character, otherwise the system would interpret it as a genuine quote command:

[ q u o t e ] I don't know how to select sentences and highlight them, so I'll respond this way! [ / q u o t e ]

which, without the spaces, would presented like this:

now, to the second half:

i think part of the problem is terminology. "fundamentalists" are not inherently extremists. some are, some aren't. i don't know any of the particulars of al sistani, but i've not gotten any sense from press coverage that he's an extremist, or bent on creating a theocracy.I am quite surprised you believe al-Sistani is a moderate supporter of the Invasion! He is a Shiite extremist that will cause far more chaos in Iraq than Saddam ever did. He's got serious grudges, as do everyone else there. The Civil War will lead to a jihadist government much like the Taliban.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:53 pm

David813 wrote: I like the suggestion. Though it's necessary to be intolerant of white supremacists, religious fundamentalsts and child molesters.
"All generalizations are faulty - including this one".

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:56 pm

David813 wrote: I am quite surprised you believe al-Sistani is a moderate supporter of the Invasion!
i very definitely said nothing of the sort!

He is a Shiite extremist that will cause far more chaos in Iraq than Saddam ever did.
chaos is one thing. torture with genocide as the main course is a very different thing.

He's got serious grudges, as do everyone else there. The Civil War will lead to a jihadist government much like the Taliban.
i doubt it. time will tell.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:57 pm

anastrophe wrote: i think there are gross simplifications all around.

the palestinians feel that the israelis are occupying their territory. the israelis feel that the palestinians are occupying their territory. the jihadists would be three steps to paradise if both were wiped from the face of the earth.

the problem with the middle east is somewhat neatly encapsulated in jerusalem: within one city, the (arguably) holiest sites for three religions that have been at odds seemingly forever. the muslims feel jerusalem is their birthright. the jews feel jerusalem is their birthright. the christians feel jerusalem is their birthright.A debacle indeed that must play itself out. It's like preventing forest fires. You NEED the fires to achieve resolution, elimination of troublesome underbrush, to sustain the future health of the area. Stopping this battle is doing no one any good but the religious extremists on all sides. In my view Jerusalem is a monument to the failure of religion.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:59 pm

anastrophe wrote: "All generalizations are faulty - including this one".Would you be tolerant at a neo-Nazi rally? If I were in power, with my people of course I would roll in the technicals and open fire on them! It's intolerable to let intolerant people speak!!!!!!!!!!!!

David813 · Post by **David813** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:02 pm

Do you see how close I am too 1000 POSTS:yh_hugs :yh_glasse

Post by **spot** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:54 pm

anastrophe wrote: "why?", although i'm not applying the method at all rigorously, is easily enough explained - are you familiar with the socratic method? i'm trying to find the truth behind the ambiguity, by poking and prodding you.

as to the last line above, well then. there you have it. clearly, all my one word retorts and ALL CAPS boldface bon mots aren't working. yes, the most thoughtful writers follow that sage advice, "simplify, simplify, simplify". sadly, thoreau failed to heed it himself.Where does "simplify" come into what I mentioned? I mentioned carelessness, thoughtlessness and predictablity. Simplification would be welcome. You mistake vagueness, imprecision, aggressive shouting and a lack of direction for simplicity, perhaps. Socrates knew where he was leading before he spoke. The Socratic method takes practice.

anastrophe wrote: i believe an argument against pacifism is found precisely in the holocaust itself. the jews did not fight back. is that not pacifism? it cost them more dearly than all others.Here you go again. I describe absolute pacifism as active, you describe the Jews as "not fighting back" (a disgustingly uninformed comment, google "Jewish armed resistance" sometime) and pitifully try to equate the two, as you continue to do with "appeasement, capitulation - not fighting back" in your next paragraph. When I analyse your comment "using violence to stop violence is anathema to the total pacifist, so lifting a finger to stop hitler would not have been acceptable, correct?" with the remark that this makes sense only if one equates violence with lifting a finger, you try to come back with "actually, it makes grand sense without equating violence to lifting a finger". Let's try, a bit more formally. Using J to stop J is K, so doing L to stop M is unacceptable. You've established no link between J and L. The dictionary explicitly denies a link between J and L. I tell you there's no link between J and L, and all you can manage is "actually, it makes grand sense without equating violence to lifting a finger". What tosh. "is violence not an action?", you ask? Yes, you petulant child, of course it is, but not all action is violent. If you can't see that turning it around makes your truism irrelevant, there's little hope for you. I stand by what I wrote, I suggest you take a break and read a few books, take a few classes; or, perhaps, just stop being so partisan. Absolute pacifism is, by definition, active force. We even agree, when you stop knee-jerking, that it can be effective in certain situations. We differ on the range of circumstances in which it is effective.

I note your interpretation of the end of US involvement in Vietnam. To stand on the pinhead of Nixon's resignation, when I never even brought the dread word "impeachment" into my comment, it to protest too much to little avail. Most people would agree that Nixon would have stayed out his term if he'd been allowed. Most people would agree that the congressional stance through 1972 was influenced heavily by the student protest movement, to the extent of it being a major aspect of pressing their investigation toward impeachment instead of sweeping matters under the carpet again. The fact that you take a partisan approach to history is already evident, I merely mention the commonplace point of view. It may even be wrong, but it's commonplace and I think it's robust.

If you're going to stand by "the true nature and extent of the holocaust only became known *after* the war." then again, I think you need to revert to some study. "become known" is different to "became widely publicised" or "became known in more detail". Check the date of the Wannsee Conference. Check the dates when diplomatic reports and even escapees from the camps were discussing and pleading with the Allies for intervention, and what information they brought out with them. I'm going to leave off discussing the holocaust with you, whether you press on in that direction or not. It means something. The way we're trampling around the memorial garden looking for stones to hit each other with is uncivilized. I've laid a few down unused already, I'm simply not prepared to pick any more up any longer. If you were looking for enlightenment it would be a different matter. You're just into cat-fights.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:06 am

I'm stuck with having a single fixed attitude on members of the armed forces, am I? OK, if I must, then I'll play along, it's easier than being complex and ambivalent. So, as an ex-serviceman, do you think you were paid less than a lot of money? Did you gain no personal satisfaction playing with noisy killing machines? That leaves us with the "useful member of society" bit. You know, I'm not convinced. If the money and personnel that goes into the armed forces went into policing, and education, and park maintenance, and repairing the canal system, the country would be a happier place, and we'd have cash left over. Trident's a great toy, I suppose, as were the Vulcans, but have they ever been worth the reduction of public services that they've entailed?

I will refrain from sharing my feelings about my service, they are personal, I will however tell you that I do not remember "playing" with noisy killing machines. I have never attempted to ask anyone outside of serving or ex serving military to understand the life because it's impossible.

I would guess you have got the fixed attitude tag from both the arguments you have put forward and your espousal of pacifism.

So let me get this right, we should spend the defence budget on education, policing, parks and the CANAL system. Perhaps the extra money spent on the police could be used to teach them how to apply pacifist principles when policing town centres on a Saturday night.

I am very confused by the Complex and Ambivalent comment, you do not appear to be ambivalent about any of your arguments and whether you are complex or not is solely a personal judgment.

Spot I think you dream of some sort of pacifist utopia which has never and will never exsist, I am sure it's in the nature of our species to attempt to dominate the weaker members of it. It's interesting to muse on the effects of pacifism but I do not hear of a pacifist giant striding out of the west (Bristol) to lead a hugely popular but peaceful uprising.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:24 am

That's a neat note, Bothwell, I have no problems with any of that. So long as nobody's insisting that I can only have one single mind on members of the armed services, and that it has to be the one I expressed in a moment of provocation as "moral derelicts", then I'm more than happy not to hold it all the time.

I've certainly not suggested anywhere that the military have an unprofessional approach to their job. "Playing" is, as you point out, an inappropriate word. These are the tools of the trade, and any workman will want good tools and honed skills in using them. Besides, you may get more satisfaction from quiet killing machines than noisy ones.

I don't want an uprising. I keep trying to tell David that movements within the existing constitutional process are far more valuable than impossible attempts to overturn it, but he seems not to have the wit to hear. Besides, the civil authority would call on your Regiment for assistance prior to reading the Riot Act, if an uprising threatened too great a disturbance. I'll just do my best to get the Great Western-Striding Pacifist Giants a higher profile. Perhaps if I offer evening classes?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:39 am

Question for Spot.

Do you support the Provisional IRA,far left Socialists in the fight for freedom for a United Irish Socialist Republic?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:44 am

Gosh no, Captain. I don't even think Erskine Childers was right, running the guns in, though what the court did to him was inexcusable.

The current Paisley intransigence is held in place, given an apparent legitimacy in some quarters, by the retention of the arms caches. Tear off the old man's fig leaf, for goodness sake. Expose him to the world as a bigot with no possible excuse for refusing to powershare. That's the basis for union, not hanging onto an outmoded and unuseable means of defense.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:50 am

spot wrote: Gosh no, Captain. I don't even think Erskine Childers was right, running the guns in, though what the court did to him was inexcusable.

The current Paisley intransigence is held in place, given an apparent legitimacy in some quarters, by the retention of the arms caches. Tear off the old man's fig leaf, for goodness sake. Expose him to the world as a bigot with no possible excuse for refusing to powershare. That's the basis for union, not hanging onto an outmoded and unuseable means of defense.Thank you.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:02 am

i'm pleased to see you've dropped all pretense that only others engage in ad hominem.

spot wrote: Where does "simplify" come into what I mentioned? I mentioned carelessness, thoughtlessness and predictablity. Simplification would be welcome. You mistake vagueness, imprecision, aggressive shouting and a lack of direction for simplicity, perhaps. Socrates knew where he was leading before he spoke. The Socratic method takes practice.
whatever you say, dear.

Here you go again. I describe absolute pacifism as active, you describe the Jews as "not fighting back" (a disgustingly uninformed comment, google "Jewish armed resistance" sometime)
i will register my umbrage at this little bit. i'm quite well aware of the warsaw ghetto uprising. what is terribly sad is that it is notable, because it was one of the rare efforts at resistance. you can shove your disgust, as it is not an uninformed comment.

and pitifully try to equate the two, as you continue to do with "appeasement, capitulation - not fighting back" in your next paragraph. When I analyse your comment "using violence to stop violence is anathema to the total pacifist, so lifting a finger to stop hitler would not have been acceptable, correct?" with the remark that this makes sense only if one equates violence with lifting a finger, you try to come back with "actually, it makes grand sense without equating violence to lifting a finger". Let's try, a bit more formally. Using J to stop J is K, so doing L to stop M is unacceptable. You've established no link between J and L. The dictionary explicitly denies a link between J and L. I tell you there's no link between J and L, and all you can manage is "actually, it makes grand sense without equating violence to lifting a finger". What tosh.
you are correct, although your syllogism is inaccurate. but i concede that my comment was inaccurate. my point, lost in the sands of rhetoric, is that non-violent resistance to a gleefully genocidal movement is unlikely to work. it might, but the urge for self-preservation will normally trump turning the other cheek. you may do so of course, it's certainly your right; but you do so at your own peril. a living, fighting person is more effective at living, and fighting, than a corpse.

let me put it this way. the nazis, when faced with no violent resistance, never stopped. only when met with violent resistance were they stopped, and forced back. the french resistance had some effect at sabotaging and slowing nazi progress; a great deal of that resistance was violent, but covert, rather than pitched battle. violent nonetheless.

Absolute pacifism is, by definition, active force. We even agree, when you stop knee-jerking, that it can be effective in certain situations. We differ on the range of circumstances in which it is effective.
which is really what much of this boils down to. you maintain "with certainty", that pacifism would have done better against the gleefully genocidal nazi movement than the armed resistance that proved to be the only means of stopping it (appeasement certainly didn't stop it, and appeasement was a non-violent action, albeit not pacifist).

I note your interpretation of the end of US involvement in Vietnam. To stand on the pinhead of Nixon's resignation, when I never even brought the dread word "impeachment" into my comment, it to protest too much to little avail. Most people would agree that Nixon would have stayed out his term if he'd been allowed. Most people would agree that the congressional stance through 1972 was influenced heavily by the student protest movement, to the extent of it being a major aspect of pressing their investigation toward impeachment instead of sweeping matters under the carpet again. The fact that you take a partisan approach to history is already evident, I merely mention the commonplace point of view. It may even be wrong, but it's commonplace and I think it's robust.
it is not. here's where you ought to concede that those who live here, lived through it, were saturated with it for a goodly portion of their life, might - *might* have a view that's less partisan than your own. 'standing on the pinhead of nixon's resignation'. good sir, you're spewing worse poppycock than i can, and i submit i have a greater facility for same than you on any given day. you clearly don't understand our tripartate governmental system.

let's put this to bed, please: you wrote "Without that restriction, I think he'd have been allowed to complete his term." followed by "Most people would agree that Nixon would have stayed out his term if he'd been allowed."

this implies that he was *not* allowed to complete his term. not being "allowed" means one has been prevented from doing something. mr. nixon resigned. he was not prevented from finishing his presidency, he chose to end it himself. for crying out loud.

If you're going to stand by "the true nature and extent of the holocaust only became known *after* the war." then again, I think you need to revert to some study. "become known" is different to "became widely publicised" or "became known in more detail".
now this is just dissembling crap, and you know it, spot. and frankly, you can do better. you are microparsing the sentence and claiming something other that what i wrote. here, i'll make it a little easier for you, good lord you are tiresome:

I wrote:

the true nature and extent of the holocaust only became known *after* the war.

now, be good lad, and watch this. i will elide the first portion of the sentence, leave the particle that it seems you are hanging your blather on:

the holocaust only became known *after* the war.

had i said that, then quite reasonably you could have accosted me on the difference between "became widely publicised" or "became known in more detail". unfortunately, that's not what i wrote. it seems your mind elides entire portions of sentences when they don't fit your prejudices.

now, be a love, reassemble my sentence, drop the dissembling crap, and run along.

I'm going to leave off discussing the holocaust with you, whether you press on in that direction or not. It means something. The way we're trampling around the memorial garden looking for stones to hit each other with is uncivilized. I've laid a few down unused already, I'm simply not prepared to pick any more up any longer. If you were looking for enlightenment it would be a different matter. You're just into cat-fights.
of course, the high-minded pacifist would never get into a cat-fight. sadly, the pungent odor of kitty pee pervaded your entire post, so it won't take an exceptionally acute observer to see your sanctimonious puffery for precisely that.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:14 am

I've certainly not suggested anywhere that the military have an unprofessional approach to their job. "Playing" is, as you point out, an inappropriate word. These are the tools of the trade, and any workman will want good tools and honed skills in using them. Besides, you may get more satisfaction from quiet killing machines than noisy ones.

I give in, the semantics are too much, "Tools" of the" Trade". As to the satisfaction there is none, wherever you got the notion that anyone let alone someone you don't know (me) would derive satisfaction from killing is a mystery to me. I have been in the most perfect position to exercise pacifism, facing an armed opponent, they had a choice so did we, the fcat that I am here writing is a testament to the fact that neither of us thought pacifism would help, of course if we both had there could be more of us writing here but in the real world that does not happen.

I have noticed the nice little touches of irony and sarcsam lacing your posts that are no boubt useful in keeping the thread going but it's too much for me so I say

"Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!"

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:18 am

Thank you anastrophe, that seems to tie up all the loose ends. I'm quite happy to leave the thread there. Anyone reading it though can see the points, see how they were dealt with.

As for your note, Bothwell, I've not suggested that you enjoy killing, I honestly haven't. I suggested that people in the armed services derive satisfaction from the equipment they're provided with. "Tools of the trade" is a literary reference, I drop those in now and then because they provide resonance and depth. As, indeed, do you.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:13 am

As, indeed, do you
Please dont patronise me.

ps please dont deconstruct the above it's means exactly what it says.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:52 am

Bothwell wrote: Please dont patronise me.

ps please dont deconstruct the above it's means exactly what it says.That was unfortunate, on my part. Let me try to account for it.

I wrote my mail as you were writing yours. I ended mine at "resonance and depth." and submitted it. At that point, I saw your quote from Macbeth. What I should have done, perhaps, was to edit and remove my comment about literary allusions, since you'd just posted a fairly obvious one prior to me. What I actually did was to edit it with the additional sentence "As, indeed, do you."

In retrospect, my final sentence looks gauche and I regret having added it. I hope that the explanation at least clears me of deliberate patronage.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:39 pm

Get the danged ##%%@)#$#@(* MOFO thing over with. Let us - the US - say b*llsh*t and just put an end to all this nonsense. We have the weapons - we have the troops. What the Hell are we doing - my opinion - I want to say nuke the f**ckers but that doesn't apply. I do think we could go into Irag and end this within 6 months. The hell with allowing them to set up a democracy - let's do it and set it up for them. Their police - bull - does anyone here at FG for ONE blasted minute think the police of Iraq can defend themselves! Come on - they were involved in many war like activities before we got there. And while I'm on the subject - how many women here think the women of Iraq will be complacent to being house niggers again. Sorry for the racial slur - didn't know how else to put it.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:22 pm

BlndSmtOpinionated wrote: well, i hate to break it to you.. but I'm from Dearborn MI. I've been around iraqis for a while, in the civilian life. The women will continue to live as you put it, and they see nothing wrong with that. In order for a person to appreciate freedom, they first have to taste it. The iraqi police do nothing because they have no motivation to do anything. The reason for this is that they've not yet seen the power of their actions. I like to think about the story of Beowulf. In that book, Grendle was perceived as a monster, much like as Americans we perceive most of the Muslim culture as terrible. Truth be told, Grendle was just doing as she was raised, eating the Danes. Muslims are just doing what the Koran has stated, "And fight them until there is Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and religion will be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. ~~The Noble Quaran In order for these guys to see the error of their ways, they must first learn there is an alternate. However, I do agree we are being entirely too soft. What can you do? Mixing politics with war is almost worse than mixing it with religion!! LOLWell spoken

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:41 pm

Go Go Go

Attached files

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:16 pm

This is what just P!sses me off........ Headlines every day like this......

Suicide Bomber Kills 21 in Iraq; 3 GIs Die

News at 6:00

On and on. We send troops over there but then handcuff them from getting in the trenches and fighting this war to win. If we even start to get down and dirty we are called thugs/gestapo etc... Does Abugrab(sic) ring a bell??????????? or Gitmo.......?

I want to share this opinion piece from one of my favorite radio/news personalities, Bob Lonsberry...............

BUSH, DEMOCRATS BOTH WRONG

When he came back from Korea, after 50 years in uniform, Douglas MacArthur stood before a joint session of Congress and said that when you want to fight you should fight.

And when you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

There is no middle ground. Not that amounts to anything other than senseless butchery on both sides.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end,Ã¢â‚¬Â McArthur said. Ã¢â‚¬Å“War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“In war there is no substitute for victory.Ã¢â‚¬Â

That was true then, and it is true now.

It is a lesson we ignored in Vietnam and it is a lesson we seem to likewise be ignoring in Iraq.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.Ã¢â‚¬Â

After 31 months in Iraq, we have clearly not done that. We have not used every available means and we have not brought it to a swift end. We have instead returned to the Vietnam ways of a hamstrung operation stage managed from thousands of miles away to meet the unrealistic sensitivities of the politically correct and militarily naive.

Just like Vietnam, our soldiers are doing outstanding work. And just like Vietnam, our leaders are sabotaging them. The problem is not that we are in Iraq, the problem is that we are only half in Iraq.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.Ã¢â‚¬Â

And yet the cry is to do just the opposite. For political gain, with an army in the field, the very mission is in question. In a grab for power and advantage, one party wars against the president while the nation wars against terror. Not only are we not aggressively pursuing victory, we are questioning our presence in the field. As soldiers and Marines face daily combat missions their work is derided as fraud based upon a lie. Senate Democrats demand an exit strategy and a House Democrat weeps as he pleads for immediate withdrawal.

All at variance with MacArthurÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s advice.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“In war there is no substitute for victory.Ã¢â‚¬Â

And peace is found on the far side of victory. The exit strategy is victory, but victory can only come with vision and vigor.

The irony is that both sides are wrong.

The Democrats and the president.

The Democrats for not wanting to fight and the president for not wanting to fight hard enough.

Oddly, both are hurting the country.

The Democrats with their nearly treasonous dishonesty about how the decision was made to go to war and the president by prolonging the war by halfheartedly fighting it. Unfortunately, nobody is advocating for the right thing Ã¢â‚¬â€œ following MacArthurÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s advice.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Sapping the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s willingness to do that is the patently false claim by Democrats that the president and the administration hoodwinked the nation into war. They have simplified, distorted and lied, using a willing media to con the nation into forgetting the certitude and rectitude of American armor rolling into Baghdad.

The toppling of the statue and the toppling of the government and the change of venue in the war on terror. By our simple presence of arms, we drew the jihadists into battle in their backyard instead of ours, and got them to attack armed soldiers and Marines instead of unarmed businessmen and flight attendants.

And we made a statement to the culture that hates us by planting the largest deployed force on Earth right in their backyard, easily pushing aside the biggest army in the Muslim world.

Going into Iraq was the right thing for the right reasons, and they were far more than weapons of mass destruction. And there was no deception on the issue of those weapons. Bill Clinton said Saddam had them, the U.N. said Saddam had them. France, Russia and Germany said Saddam had them. And the Democrats in the Senate said Saddam had them.

There was no deception. There was agreement. And you can only work with what you have.

And in that regard our military has been exemplary. They have beaten down every enemy whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stood before them and in the wake of battle weeping appreciative women have shown them photographs of loved ones killed by SaddamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s regime.

To say that was a fraud or wrong or unnecessary is reprehensible. Particularly if it is done to advance partisan interest at the expense of the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interests.

Where the Iraq war has stumbled is in its lack of vigor. It has been a dog on a chain, the full-throated power and valor of American fighting men and women restrained by a willful disobedience to the rules of war at the highest levels of government.

George W. Bush is a great wartime president if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re talking September 2001. But if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re talking November 2005, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s another Lyndon B. Johnson. The man who missed Vietnam has chillingly recreated it. He is fighting just the war Douglas McArthur warned against, a war with something short of victory as its objective. A war fought with something less than every available means. A war that will bring more death than resolution.

Great work is being done by American GIs and they are bearing a great burden, but their ultimate usefulness is frustrated by the White HouseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s halfway war. Yes, Saddam is gone. Yes, there will be a constitution. Yes, the Iraqis will take over. But it has gone on a long time, and it will not end with true victory, and some are dying unnecessarily.

Ironically, both the Democrats and the president are wrong.

It is the right war being fought the wrong way.

In spite of advice that could still point us aright.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“In war there is no substitute for victory.Ã¢â‚¬Â

War was forced upon us.

So we should get serious about winning. We should fight like we mean it.

- by Bob Lonsberry Ã‚Â© 2005

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:24 pm

anastrophe wrote: mmmm. i see. so your contention is that calipari was the intended target? and, of course, the bumbling american soldiers decided to let the incredibly shrill harpie sgrena return to italy to to tell all? we'll ignore for a moment that in all likelyhood the italians paid a ransom for sgreni's release - lending aid to the enemy, likely used to facilitate killing more innocent iraqis...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00299.html

American GI's Indictment Sought in Italy

The Associated Press Monday, June 19, 2006; 1:41 PM

ROME -- Italian prosecutors requested the indictment of a U.S. soldier Monday in the fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence agent in Baghdad - a case that saw the agent mourned as a national hero. Authorities were seeking the indictment on charges of murder and attempted murder [...]

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:08 am

BlndSmtOpinionated wrote: well, i hate to break it to you.. but I'm from Dearborn MI. I've been around iraqis for a while, in the civilian life. The women will continue to live as you put it, and they see nothing wrong with that. In order for a person to appreciate freedom, they first have to taste it. The iraqi police do nothing because they have no motivation to do anything. The reason for this is that they've not yet seen the power of their actions. I like to think about the story of Beowulf. In that book, Grendle was perceived as a monster, much like as Americans we perceive most of the Muslim culture as terrible. Truth be told, Grendle was just doing as she was raised, eating the Danes. Muslims are just doing what the Koran has stated, "And fight them until there is Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and religion will be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. ~~The Noble Quaran In order for these guys to see the error of their ways, they must first learn there is an alternate. However, I do agree we are being entirely too soft. What can you do? Mixing politics with war is almost worse than mixing it with religion!! LOL

Actually Iraq was a secular state under saddam-for all his faults at least women got an educatuiopn and didn't have to wear the burkha. Now more than likely it will becime a fundamentalist state-at least for a while. Afghanistan was a secular state until the US helped the taliban to power. Wearing the burkha is no more a part of islam than fundamentalist christians are true christians who insist women should stay at home and not go out to work, shouldn't own property and belong to their husbands and should have no say in whether they have childeren or not so contraceptives should not be sold openly and no easy divorce. Let that lot have political power and then try and exercise your free speech and right to live as you choose.

Iraq did not attck the united states of america a group of saudi terrorists who had no connection whatsoever to 911. Why does anybody in america believe that Iraq had anything to do with 911? A terrorist attack is not an attack by another nation state you can't fight it by conventional armies. All that's happened is that Iraq will become a funbdamentalist islamic state split in two by religious differences that will go on to destabilise the entire region. When Saudi and pakistan go the same way maybe then you will realise that you can't solve problems generations in the making by force of arms. Where does the absurd believe that all muslims want to bring down western democracy come from? It's scare mongering they couldn't do it even if they wanted to, freedom and democracy can only be destroyed from within not by outside attack. This isn't a war like ww2 or even korea. Terrorists are a threat but not that frightening that you should live in terror of them. that's what they want you to do.

The iraq war wasn't forced upon you, you chose to go to war in the ridiculous belief that the iraquis would welcome you with open arms and the even more ludicrous belief that Saddam had WMD's and was behind 911.

Why don't you show support for your troops by calling your govt to account for getting them involved in the first place. Soldiers are not the servants of the rulers at the time-there but to do or die without a whimper. You all seem to have been conned in to the idea that supporting the troops and calling for them to come back home is somehow mutually exclusive.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:30 pm

better not let the gloves come off. it'll just let more boys get burned fingers. sengd the prez and his administation over there and let them get shot insrtead. they could use the extra metal in their backsides. it might let them get their asses hot when they get out in the sun.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:59 pm

charles_r51 wrote: sengd the prez and his administation over there and let them get shot insrtead.I thought it was illegal to voice such opinion in the USA these days, under the new Homeland Security Patriot legislation? Or is it merely illegal to enquire whether it's illegal to enquire whether it's illegal to voice such opinion? I'd hesitate to ask.

The outgoing UK Ambassador to Iraq farted on the way out of the country, letting loose a stinker by way of his secret assessment of the current situation (in a memo to Tony Blair and his senior cabinet). That's according to this morning's news on the radio anyway. Let me see if I can find what he said in it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5240808.stm is the story.

"The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."

The Financial Times gets it about right, today, in an article written by Sir Rodric Braithwaite, UK ambassador to Moscow 1988-92 and then foreign policy adviser to John Major and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee::

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3a7a368c-224d-1 ... e2340.html

Mr Blair has done more damage to British interests in the Middle East than Anthony Eden, who led the UK to disaster in Suez 50 years ago. In the past 100 years â€“ to take the highlights â€“ we have bombed and occupied Egypt and Iraq, put down an Arab uprising in Palestine and overthrown governments in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf. We can no longer do these things on our own, so we do them with the Americans. Mr Blairâ€™s total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself: who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?

Mr Blair has seriously damaged UK domestic politics, too. His prevarication over a ceasefire confirms to many of our Muslim fellow citizens that Britain is engaged in a secular war against the Arab world and by extension, against the Muslim world. He has thus made it harder to achieve what should be a goal of policy for any British government â€“ to build a tolerant multi-ethnic society within our own islands. And though he chooses not to admit it, he has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These are not achievements of which a British prime minister should be proud.

Excuse my extended absence, children - I'm putting in too many hours away from my computer, learning new tricks. Old dogs like me should be immune by now but apparently not.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:22 am

spot wrote: IExcuse my extended absence, children - I'm putting in too many hours away from my computer, learning new tricks. Old dogs like me should be immune by now but apparently not.

And what new tricks would that be, my friend?

Inquiring minds want to know! :p

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:57 am

under the patriot act 2 of 2003, anything you say or do that someone doesn't like can send you away. citizenship can be revoked, and you can be deported for trial in another country by -guess who?- the us military tribunals. how's that for free spech, press, and all that stuff? maybe we ought to send bush to iran for questioning by OUR military. any one have any other ideas? i ran out after reading our glorious patriot act last night. oh, I wanna go home!:-5 :-5 :-5 :-5