kuzadd Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Some folks need such word games to fool themselves.....I prefer a more direct lexicon when it comes to armed conflict. "Department of War" had a nice, unambiguous ring to it!Well at least they haven't changed the word "warhead" to "defense head" or "peacekeeping head". some folks need those "word games" to fool themselves. Some need them to fool others Some need them to make themselves feel better or justify makes no difference, you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to it's all war, killing , maiming, brutalizing, raping. perhaps it should be called "living hell" to better and accurately reflect the reality? BC, I would prefer the direct lexicon also, that way there are no illusions, or delusions Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
ScottSA Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 As for imposing your will, I'd say there are two purposes to war: one is to impose your will, which is the role of the attacker. The other is to prevent someone from imposing their will upon you, which is the role of the defender. Iraq is an example of the former, and Afghanistan the latter, which is why the US has found it easier to find allies for Afghanistan than for Iraq. It's sad that the basic ability to discriminate has been destroyed in the western world. I suppose it has to do with the abstraction of real life through the media of television, where there seems little difference between a movie and real life, but it goes deeper than that, with the assault of nihilism on thought. Too many these days can't seem to make a distinction between 'us' and 'them', and it may not actually become real to some people until the barbarians are actually ripping their heads off with paring knives. Fortunately for them that won't happen in this generation, at least. In fact, too many seem to actually buy into the myth that there is no 'us' and 'them,' and that we're all one big happy kumbaya if we can just 'get past it.' We are at war. It's real. Our soldiers are fighting and dying. This is not some abstract debate over two morally equivalent "sides," and it's not some game between the reds and greens, an historical reference that you'll miss, but that's apropo here. I have no idea what your imagined distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan is based on, or how you would possibly defend it, but it doesn't really matter; by virtue of your culture, nationality, and a host of other factors long forgotten in the west you are on one side and not the other. It may seem enlightened to you to pretend to stand atop an ivory tower gazing down on the amusing antics of the rest of the world as if it's some play being acted out for your debating enjoyment, but in the final analysis you want one side to win, even if you don't know it now. Quote
shavluk Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 a commercial in the beginning but this looks like a good film Quote
Higgly Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) It's sad that the basic ability to discriminate has been destroyed in the western world. I suppose it has to do with the abstraction of real life through the media of television, where there seems little difference between a movie and real life, but it goes deeper than that, with the assault of nihilism on thought. Too many these days can't seem to make a distinction between 'us' and 'them', and it may not actually become real to some people until the barbarians are actually ripping their heads off with paring knives. That's nothing. There are actually those who cannot differentiate between attack and defense. Yes, I think I hear a barbarian outside my door right now. What's that noise? Oh wait..... I think it's....just a minute...yes, I opened the door to make sure...it's a saxophone! O GOD! A SAXOPHONE! WE ARE DOOMED! DOOMED! Edited October 25, 2007 by Higgly Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
jazzer Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 There are actually those who cannot differentiate between attack and defense. That's because all attack is actually defense, i.e. attack in order to defend our country, defend our rights, defend our culture, etc. Quote
Higgly Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) That's because all attack is actually defense, i.e. attack in order to defend our country, defend our rights, defend our culture, etc. Oh I know. And weapons of mass destruction too. It is remarkable that there is so much paranoia about Islam when the country that has most often gone out of bounds is the good old US of A. Edited October 25, 2007 by Higgly Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
ScottSA Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 It is remarkable that there is so much paranoia about Islam when the country that has most often gone out of bounds is the good old US of A. Case in point. Quote
White Doors Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 Word games. That's all the denial is. And it's not impressive. I wonder if the Afghans realize there is no war taking place in their country? Perhaps O'Connor should go there and tell them. I'm sure that would really set their minds at ease. Why would O'Conner go there? He is no longer the man. try and keep up if you like to comment on Canadian politics. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Guest American Woman Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 Why would O'Conner go there? He is no longer the man.try and keep up if you like to comment on Canadian politics. Ummmm.... even though he's no longer Minister of Defense, he's still the man who said Canada wasn't at war. Try and keep up if you like to comment on my posts. Quote
ScottSA Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 Ummmm.... even though he's no longer Minister of Defense, he's still the man who said Canada wasn't at war. Try and keep up if you like to comment on my posts. So what? He was wrong. Quote
Guest coot Posted November 4, 2007 Report Posted November 4, 2007 If Canada were truly at war, the Canadian people would be called upon to do their part. Iraq and Afghanistan are small political/corporate missions involving a small percentage of the population. How someone can sit at home watching TV and surfing the internet and presume that they are fighting the good fight is beyond me. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 4, 2007 Report Posted November 4, 2007 If Canada were truly at war, the Canadian people would be called upon to do their part. Iraq and Afghanistan are small political/corporate missions involving a small percentage of the population. How someone can sit at home watching TV and surfing the internet and presume that they are fighting the good fight is beyond me. Canada declined the party invitation for Iraq....we didn't have much TV or internet during WW2. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Higgly Posted November 4, 2007 Report Posted November 4, 2007 This reminds me. What are the rules for calling somebody a jackass? Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Guest coot Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 Canada declined the party invitation for Iraq....we didn't have much TV or internet during WW2. Declining that party was one of our proudest moments. But yes, during WWII, people made sacrifices and enlisted. For a country to be at war, the country must be involved. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 Declining that party was one of our proudest moments. But yes, during WWII, people made sacrifices and enlisted. For a country to be at war, the country must be involved. Then the original sacrifice reference to Iraq for Canada didn't make any sense. Many American (and Canadian) families are making sacrifices, even if you don't know about it. My country is involved. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Who's Doing What? Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 Then leave. Please leave. I haven't seen a thoughtful or intelligent post from you yet.The intelligent response to opinions with which you disagree is to rebut their points, not to go on a whiny shriekfest against the author of the posts. Apparently that is beyond you. Therefore, this really isn't the board for you. What garbage! Your cheerful personality must be what keeps so many people coming back to these boards. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Who's Doing What? Posted November 5, 2007 Report Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The "conservative base" doesn't debate itself, it debates the left, and just about anything works against the left, because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. That's why the left assumes without thinking that "racism" means whatever one feels they should mean, while the right points out that the term is a derivative of "race," and much therefore refer to things racial. Another hallmark of the left is that it assumes that all bigotry is wrong, thereby switching bigotries from discriminatory to anti-discriminatory. If, for example, it comes to light on the left that all Scotsmen don't shag sheep, the left siezes the assumption that no Scotsman ever shags sheep, and announces that anyone who claims Scotsmen shag sheep is a "bigot." Or, apparently in light of this thread, a "racist." You see right here you grouped people with diferent political views from your own, into a single entity, and use the term "left" in a derogatory, bigotted, manner. Your mindset is obvious. Sad, but obvious. Edited November 5, 2007 by Who's Doing What? Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
kuzadd Posted November 6, 2007 Report Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) You see right here you grouped people with diferent political views from your own, into a single entity, and use the term "left" in a derogatory, bigotted, manner. Your mindset is obvious. Sad, but obvious. The "conservative base" doesn't debate itself, it debates the left, and just about anything works against the left, because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. That's why the left assumes without thinking that "racism" means whatever one feels they should mean, while the right points out that the term is a derivative of "race," and much therefore refer to things racial. Another hallmark of the left is that it assumes that all bigotry is wrong, thereby switching bigotries from discriminatory to anti-discriminatory. If, for example, it comes to light on the left that all Scotsmen don't shag sheep, the left siezes the assumption that no Scotsman ever shags sheep, and announces that anyone who claims Scotsmen shag sheep is a "bigot." Or, apparently in light of this thread, a "racist." because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. This is the most , I have to say hilarious statement. I have yet, to see, anyone who willingly associates themselves with the right, display rationality. Let alone hold it in higher esteem, as is being stated. In fact it is quite clear the "right"( willingly associated,) is hysterically, over the top, filled with fear, cowering, from every imaginary "attack". Demanding there own freedoms be restricted, so the nanny state can 'keep them safe" (Well we have to make concessions or the terrorists are gonna get us) LOL! Instead of looking at economic reality, (BTW big banks are in trouble inc. Citi) but hey Muslims are gonna getcha!. Instead of looking at geopolitical strategy, the coveting of resources, we have "boogeymen" everywhere. Demons wanting footbaths. Maniacal bus drivers, with head coverings. Muslim rioters-watch out! this is rational??? this is rationality being held in high esteem??? Hilarious. Who's doing what: hit the nail on the head! But grouping people into derogatively labeled identifiers,("left",bad "Arabs", bad, "liberals" bad) helps some, by simplifying issues, so they can "understand" them within the capabilities of limited simplistic reasoning skills. Black and white. Edited November 6, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Argus Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 This is the most , I have to say hilarious statement. I have yet, to see, anyone who willingly associates themselves with the right, display rationality. Let alone hold it in higher esteem, as is being stated. Well, first you will have to find someone to explain what rationality means to you. As evidenced from your many postings here you are completely unfamilar with the concept. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kuzadd Posted November 7, 2007 Report Posted November 7, 2007 Well, first you will have to find someone to explain what rationality means to you. As evidenced from your many postings here you are completely unfamilar with the concept. I'm not wasting my time. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
ScottSA Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) You see right here you grouped people with diferent political views from your own, into a single entity, and use the term "left" in a derogatory, bigotted, manner. Your mindset is obvious. Sad, but obvious. I take it you didn't notice that this thread was about not being allowed to call people bigots? Edited November 8, 2007 by ScottSA Quote
ScottSA Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 (Argus @ Nov 7 2007, 07:04 AM) Well, first you will have to find someone to explain what rationality means to you. As evidenced from your many postings here you are completely unfamilar with the concept. I'm not wasting my time. And what a waste of time that exercize would be! Quote
maxsyno Posted November 8, 2007 Report Posted November 8, 2007 The left endeavours to use history as a means to work out the current political state of things. It can never be assumed to be infallible but past patterns and trends are used as a means of 'displaying' the rational calculations, formulas and character behind what is occuring in the present. Also the left would argue that pointing out distinctions is not harmful. What is harmful is to adopt the pc notion that in doing so is being 'judgemental' and that it is disrespectful. It would be argued that distinction and debate are healthy and relevent. Once you introduce morality into politics the truth of things gets distorted by it and the real debates are rendered mute. Much like the church renders many things into silence. Liberals, not the left are those that carry emotion based politics, despite sometimes sharing left wing views. Remedies of reform are then posited as opposed to over turning policies etc. Liberals therefore advocate and work for the right wing . . .eventually. They just tone down the distinctions. Quote
Moxie Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 Well, first you will have to find someone to explain what rationality means to you. As evidenced from your many postings here you are completely unfamilar with the concept. LOL thankyou for stating this, she seems to speak in code. I never understand her posts. Perhaps Englais isn't a language she can write or speak in? Quote Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
Higgly Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 (edited) LOL thankyou for stating this, she seems to speak in code. I never understand her posts. Perhaps Englais isn't a language she can write or speak in? There are people who have taken the time to do the research, and develop informed opinions, and then there are the Moxies... Edited November 11, 2007 by Higgly Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.