|
Grex > Agora46 > #42: Iraq and related conspiracy theories <-- here | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 119 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 50 of 119:
| 
Jul 2 21:17 UTC 2003 |
"The very
fact that they DO have nuclear warheads should preclude caution."
I don't think you mean preclude, do you?
Just to throw gasoline on the fire, there's another big difference between
Iraq and N. Korea: NK doesn't have oil.
|
sabre
|
|
response 51 of 119:
|
Jul 2 22:31 UTC 2003 |
View hidden response.
|
sabre
|
|
response 52 of 119:
|
Jul 2 22:46 UTC 2003 |
Yes..I meant preclude..thanks for sharing.
You are wrong in assuming that we aren't attacking NK becasue they don't have
oil however. The real worry is that we fear nuclear reprisal against SK or
Japan.
It's even concievable that they would attack China to escalate the issue into
an out right nuclear war.If Iraq had nuclear weapons our response would have
been quite diffrent. In fact Saddam made a public statement saying that his
only mistake in attacking Kuwait was doing so BEFORE having nuclear weapons
and in this I beleive he was correct. The statement also showed that he had
every intention of obtaininf such weapons if not using them.This issue is why
I beleive Iraq and NK are two totally diffrent situations and they must be
dealt with as such. I see that you are viewing this issue thru your
Bush-bashing paradigm.Would you risk nuclear attack on Seoul or Tokyo to deal
with them before we exhaust ever diplomatic means possible?
|
jazz
|
|
response 53 of 119:
|
Jul 3 00:08 UTC 2003 |
It's really hard to read a page of text without proper punctuation or
paragraph breaks.
Nonetheless ...
I don't recall any points you've raised that I haven't addressed. Feel
free to quote one or two, and I'll show you where they were addressed, or
address them at the moment.
The fact remains that, whether you believe North Korea may be ready
to deal at some point and hand over their existing nuclear weapons or not (and
it'd be a day to call Guinness if they did), that they're engaged in the
business of creating weapons of mass destruction. I believe that your
statements about having conventional weapons pointed at Seoul also proves the
point that they are actively a threat to an economic ally of ours.
In foriegn policy, you don't often get situations that are more
parallel. The idea that North Korea might attack South Korea, or Japan,
outside for making a decent premise for a Bond flick, really doesn't change
the essentials of the case, and that is a nation which has threatened our
allies is rumored to have acquired some heavy-hitting weapons, and in one case
we went to war, and in another we're sitting on our thumbs. If an apple needs
to look any more like an apple for your purposes, you're never going to find
it, and therefore a president can do whatsoever he wishes, since there is no
way to suspect hypocrisy. I challenge you to find any situation in recoded
history that more closely parallels the allegations made against Iraq.
It's also a big distraction to say that North Korea might *use* their
weapons of mass destruction. That's the whole argument we were making against
Iraq when we invaded them. They could have plausibly used them against *us*,
against Israel or against a number of nearby locations, as long as they relied
on alternative delivery technology, which we were assured they have.
I'm not sure where you came up with the theory of North Korea attacking
China, but it sounds too ludicrous to be believed.
|
russ
|
|
response 54 of 119:
|
Jul 3 03:34 UTC 2003 |
sabre, your atrocious punctuation and lack of proper distinction
between quotes and replies makes your posts damn near incomprehensible.
You put at LEAST one blank after a period which ends a sentence,
you put blank lines to delimit paragraphs, and it is common
practice to designate quotes with a leading character such as ">".
|
sabre
|
|
response 55 of 119:
|
Jul 3 12:24 UTC 2003 |
russ you sound like a prissy little grammer queen.Refer to post #27
|
jazz
|
|
response 56 of 119:
|
Jul 3 12:28 UTC 2003 |
Evidently he can't handle criticism any more than he can handle
paragraphs and punctuation.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 57 of 119:
|
Jul 3 13:27 UTC 2003 |
I gave up reading his posts. It just isn't worth the effort.
|
sabre
|
|
response 58 of 119:
|
Jul 3 13:43 UTC 2003 |
You're endless whining about NK is a s boring as your nerdish dialogue.
As I have said before if we did attack NK you would be raising a shit storm
about the injustice of it all.While I don't have the graceful form that your
posts display,I have something you lack. It's called PITH. Your endless
rambling and hyperbole show your bias.I hope you have a job as a technical
writer or as an editor.We have enough liberal brain-washed robots like you
in politics.I never said NK wasn't a threat. In fact I agree that they are
more of a threat than Iraq.You never answered me when I ask if you wanted to
risk a nuclear attack on SK or Japan.You just vomited out a bunch of liberal
rhetoric that is the epitome of the liberal cookie-cutter mindset.I think you
should take occam's razor and slash your wrists because you damn sure haven't
applied it to your thinking. I could do all my posts in EBONICS and still make
more sense than you or any of your ass-kissing buddies.If you want me to bash
Bush start talking about his domestic policy. I would be more apt to agree.
|
flem
|
|
response 59 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:27 UTC 2003 |
In case anyone else has stopped reading sabre's "pithy" posts, I feel
compelled to point out a couple of gems hidden deep in the bowels of #58.
I particularly like the suggestion that we slash our wrists with Occam's
razor, though the suggestion that sabre could do his posts in Ebonics and
still make more sense raises the delightful possibility that maybe he'll
actually do it, which would kick ass. :)
re: way back there: maybe you meant "preclude", but if so, you don't seem
to know what it means.
pre-clude
tr.v. pre-clud-ed, pre-clud-ing, pre-cludes
1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.
See Synonyms at prevent.
2. To exclude or prevent (someone) from a given condition or
activity: "Modesty precludes me from accepting the honor."
Source: The American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition, via dictionary.com, formatted by yours truly for
this medium.
The quote under discussion is "The very fact that they DO have
nuclear warheads should preclude caution." Since then, you've done
nothing but argue for caution in approaching N. Korea, for fear of
their nuclear weapons.
No need to thank me again for sharing; you're quite welcome. :)
|
jazz
|
|
response 60 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:27 UTC 2003 |
What a fountain of maturity you are today.
You chose to bring up foriegn policy on GREX. This isn't Yahoo chat,
and it isn't UseNet. So you're going to get responses which are more
carefully thought out, but you're also going to be expected to think your
points out carefully, and present them in a readable fashion. If you can't
handle that, then you probably shouldn't be posting on GREX, because you're
only going to get upset.
I don't think there's anything worth addressing in #58. I'm actually
a moderate who disagrees with the way that the war was handled, not with the
intention of keeping Iraq free of biological and chemical weapons. I do
disagree with almost all of Bush's policy, but not because of a political
stance I have, but because I don't like the effects of his policy.
However, it's pretty clear that you respond to rational arguments with
personal attacks when you can't back your own statements up. I have better
things to do with my time.
|
jazz
|
|
response 61 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:28 UTC 2003 |
Re #59:
I'm gunnae do all me postin from nae on in Irvine Welsh like Scots
drawl, ye ken? Someone dun hooked eh up with the gear from the quality of
his posts like.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:39 UTC 2003 |
There was an accurate description by the columnist David Broder of Antonin
Scalias dissent diatribe against the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative
action in UM law school admissions. Broder called it "sarcastic,
dismissive, polemical and smug.". That is an accurate description of
sabre's contributions here. He is probably a fan of Scalia, too.
|
sabre
|
|
response 63 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:49 UTC 2003 |
I rise ta da challenge.You pimpz aren't moderate at all.I say kill all
liberals.You pimpz can finally buttfuck each other legally.I say bomb North
Korea. and shit. The result o' Bush'spolicy in Iraq has freed an opressed
poeple.You peep fo' da worst in everything conservatives do. Don't make me
come ovah there bitch...
|
flem
|
|
response 64 of 119:
|
Jul 3 14:56 UTC 2003 |
/cheers wildly
|
sabre
|
|
response 65 of 119:
|
Jul 3 15:08 UTC 2003 |
affirmative action is a disgrace to the black race.maybe whites should have
affirmative action in sports like .5 of a second added to every sprint.Maybe
we should get 2 1/2 points ber basket instead of 2.Maybe we should get a 20
count in boxing.It's a shame that blacks feel they can't compete with whites
on an even footing.Re:#59 Hey phlegm. thanks for sharing. You gay ass grammer
queen.I guess you get your ass kicked in school every day and you only avenue
of venting is too sit back and "carefully think out your posts" like jazz does
He probally cut-n-pasted half the bullshit he spewed.Sitting around on this
bbs thinking out your posts in agood indicater than you never get laid.Maybe
know that sodomy is legal you can all get together and buttfuck each other.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 119:
|
Jul 3 15:14 UTC 2003 |
He really is a scream, isn't he?
|
other
|
|
response 67 of 119:
|
Jul 3 15:24 UTC 2003 |
I'm trying to figure out whether sabre is beady really cutting loose, or
polytarp trying to prove something...
|
sabre
|
|
response 68 of 119:
|
Jul 3 15:35 UTC 2003 |
what's a scream is your bleeding heart position on affirmative action.I think
it's a conspiracy to decrease the quality of our work force.You see them
everywhere you go. Affirmative action token niggers that advance to high
positions just to meet a quota.Those that merit such advanced are ignored in
favor of such deadbeats.I think you're on Jesse Jackson's payroll.As for
jazz's delusion that GREX is some kind of superior collective..well I've seen
better posts from special ed m-netters.Your Homo Gestalt is just plain HOMO.
You compensate your inferiority complex by deluding yourself that what you
post has merit.The fallacy of ad populace is the reigning factor here.You damn
sure haven't proved anything.
|
other
|
|
response 69 of 119:
|
Jul 3 15:49 UTC 2003 |
Sabre, on the other hand, has quite handily proved itself to be incapable
of discussion, as opposed to diatribe, and a master of pedagogical
discourse. I.e. attack first, don't think later.
|
spectrum
|
|
response 70 of 119:
|
Jul 3 16:15 UTC 2003 |
I don't think you should quote fallacies of logic when your posts are
filled with them
Jazz has posted some himself. The most notable is ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM.
another is ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM .
and another is REIFICATION contained in fallacy of "hypostatization".
He also uses ILLICIT PROCESS in one place.
sabre and flem both use argumentum ad hominem
Sabre you are the worst offender here.Your use of ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
in defending Bush's failure to find WMDs in Iraq is full of holes.
You also use ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM to make us accept your conclusions.
Can anyone spot his AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT ?
How about his ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM ?
His bifurcation is also incorrect.
I get a kick out of his FALLACY OF INTERROGATION when he asks questions.
His PETITIO PRINCIPII is sheer entertainment but I bored with this whole
discourse.
I don't intend to read this thread any longer. I look forward to meeting
SOME of you in another thread.
|
jazz
|
|
response 71 of 119:
|
Jul 3 16:26 UTC 2003 |
I dinnae see the difference wit sabre's posts before an after eh wenta
usin ebonics mate. I nosh he get the whitfor then, and drub ehself intae the
ground.
Inae language Americans ken:
Damn, it's funny to see some dork get so riled up at being beaten in
a debate that he starts calling everyone around "gay ass" and telling
themselves to go slit their wrists, and then come back with a string of
rationalisations. "Boy, I bet they're all really nerdy, or gay, because they
use complete sentences." "Bet I can intimidate them by using white boy
gangsta slang, they won't even know I can't do it."
Summae us wentae college, ye ken?
Muchas eh I dinnae like Scalia's decisionmaking, I wouldnae ascribe
sucha level a noggin to sabre a I woulda Scalia. He isnae a Justice, hell,
he isnae even coherent.
|
jazz
|
|
response 72 of 119:
|
Jul 3 16:26 UTC 2003 |
Aww, por boye dun got shuffled and he dinnae wanna play no mae?
|
flem
|
|
response 73 of 119:
|
Jul 3 17:00 UTC 2003 |
I scrolled back about 30 responses trying to find a place where I might
reasonable be accused of ad hominem argumentation, but I didn't find any.
Perhaps spectrum would be kind enough to point it out to me?
I'd also be interested to see definitions and examples of the various other
logical fallacies he accuses people of, above. That's got to be more
interesting than ebonics. :)
|
sabre
|
|
response 74 of 119:
|
Jul 3 17:04 UTC 2003 |
I got beat in dis here debate? Bull sheeit. You gots yet ta prove anythin'
ya little dweeb.Our attack on Iraq wuz justified. Our lack o' action at dis
here point in NK iz justified.You haven't won uh debate until ya prove yo'
point.You lack o' ability ta do so has caused ya ta respond in dis here
manner.Believe me..if ya seen me on da street ya would shake wiff
fear...faggot beeotch don't make me shank ya!
|