dcsimg
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: Are "Peace-nicks" USEFUL IDIOTS?

  1. #31
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    I find the idea of other world leader as being stupid quite amusing considering Georges long, famous and rather hillarious list of 'Bushisms'.

    To say he's a moron would be harsh, to say his tongue is in 5th gear and his brains filling up with petrol may be fairer

    Having said that i quite like his lil 'comments' they really are quite amusing

    --Jakk

  2. #32
    Complete & Utter Member j.m@talk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    NW UK
    Posts
    4,719
    I wonder if Jorge W & Bushmaster are related????

    Might explain a lot

  3. #33
    Complete & Utter Member j.m@talk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    NW UK
    Posts
    4,719
    Ahh

  4. #34
    Member wallie_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Central Calif. USA
    Posts
    444
    DS888 sez:
    "there is no such thing as "universal truth"
    And: DS888 also sez:
    what proof you have for your existence? None!
    You actually believe that? Your argument is implausible. On the first one regarding universal truth, your statement contains a direct contradiction of its own premise. You say there are no 'universal truths'. But the statement proclaims there is one, the fact that there are no universal truths, is a proclamation of a universal truth. But if there is one universal truth, that opens up the door of probability that there are other universal truths. I find it amusing that those who wield this type of statement usually do not see the obvious flaw in its reasoning. he-he
    As to the second statement: Proof of my existence? Part of the existential dilemma is the fact that humans, by virtue of their limited sentience, can never know that what they believe or think is an actually reality. I don't need proof I exist in order to live my life. Existence is a prerequisite of being, therefore I am. Why did you not try to refute Descartes’' statement because it is basically saying the same thing.

  5. #35
    Member Lycia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    456
    What I find ironic about this whole situation is this: In this country we have The Bill of Rights:

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


    Fine. Yet here we are telling other countries that they do not have the right to defend themselves from us. How is that we expect Saddam to disarm when we ourselves have the same weapons and more? Because of our relgious beliefs are different from thiers, that makes us right?

    What if you were walking down a road hunting when another person walks up, also armed. Say this person says "sorry, you can't have any guns. Drop it." Are you going to comply?
    Tiger, tiger, burning bright,
    In the forest of the night,
    What immortal hand or eye
    Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

  6. #36
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Then according to Lycia, we should send Saddam a few thousand nukes with ICBM's and an credit card for gas so he can used them. Brilliant suggestion peacenick.

  7. #37
    Member Lycia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    456
    What I find ironic about this whole situation is this: In this country we have The Bill of Rights:

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


    Fine. Yet here we are telling other countries that they do not have the right to defend themselves from us. How is that we expect Saddam to disarm when we ourselves have the same weapons and more? Because of our relgious beliefs are different from thiers, that makes us right?

    What if you were walking down a road hunting when another person walks up, also armed. Say this person says "sorry, you can't have any guns. Drop it." Are you going to comply?
    Tiger, tiger, burning bright,
    In the forest of the night,
    What immortal hand or eye
    Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

  8. #38
    Member wallie_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Central Calif. USA
    Posts
    444
    Rights are not automatically given to everyone. Moreover, if you behave irresponsibly and abuse others rights, what rights you have are usually taken from you. Saddam has been the perpetrator in starting two major wars, (resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands) and has proven he should have no right to arm his regime, and the world has told him so. I suppose you would also think that a country like N. Korea should be able to make as many nukes as it wishes?

    Unfortunately, as ukulele said, 'Brilliant Suggestion" your argument solidifies my case about the majority of 'peace-nicks' being: 'Useful Idiots'.

  9. #39
    Senior Member strat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Boston Mass hole
    Posts
    549
    Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
    I find the idea of other world leader as being stupid quite amusing considering Georges long, famous and rather hillarious list of 'Bushisms'.To say he's a moron would be harsh, to say his tongue is in 5th gear and his brains filling up with petrol may be fairerHaving said that i quite like his lil 'comments' they really are quite amusing --Jakk
    Yes he made a few mistakes, but you must not have listened to President Bush over the past years. Sounds like you let the media tell you how to think and what your political views are.

    Very Sad, but at least you are consistent!

  10. #40
    Senior Member strat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Boston Mass hole
    Posts
    549
    Originally posted by Lycia
    Yet here we are telling other countries that they do not have the right to defend themselves from us. How is that we expect Saddam to disarm when we ourselves have the same weapons and more? Because of our relgious beliefs are different from thiers, that makes us right?
    Saddam's apologists and defenders must be reminded over and over, it was never the task of the U.N. inspectors to ferret out Saddam's bombs, bugs, and poisons. They were never intended to be Sherlock Holmes running around Iraq with magnifying glasses. Their job was to look at Saddam's WMD books, see what weapons were on the ledger in 1998 when the previous inspection team got the boot, and then verify whether Saddam was surrendering those weapons as he agreed to do back in 1991, in exchange for a ceasefire, in exchange for leaving him to oppress his people in peace. The answer is clear: Saddam is not surrendering anything. In fact, it was the unanimous decision of the Security Council that the burden is on Saddam to settle this question. Resolution 1441 clearly "decides that false statements or omissions" by Saddam about his WMD "will constitute a further material breach." Saddam makes false statements and omissions at breakfast, lunch, and dinnertime. No one seriously disputes that. There's more — there's Saddam's failure to allow his weapons-makers to be taken out of Iraq along with their families for confidential interviews (specifically required by 1441) and there's the fact that Saddam is still building long-range missiles and other prohibited weapons. Why defend him?

    Originally posted by Lycia What if you were walking down a road hunting when another person walks up, also armed. Say this person says "sorry, you can't have any guns. Drop it." Are you going to comply?
    WTF are you talking about- you are comparing Apples and elephants. Why is the argument always against the US/ Tony Blair instead of the problem? Saddam is the one breaking all the rules of morality, law, and humanity! I do not understand the logic? You tell me why he should not be removed from power!

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56
    great use of ad hominem attacks

  12. #42
    Senior Member strat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Boston Mass hole
    Posts
    549
    Originally posted by mrt1212
    great use of ad hominem attacks
    That was not an ad hominem attack?

  13. #43
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Originally posted by mrt1212
    great use of ad hominem attacks
    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

    It's not a personal attack if the person you go after is a public figure like Saddam. It goes with the territory.

  14. #44
    Member wallie_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Central Calif. USA
    Posts
    444
    mrt1212 sez: ( about strat1's comments)
    great use of ad hominem attacks
    Though a little terse in wording, strat1 was refuting Lycia's statements. An ad hominem attack is an assault directed specifically to demean the person. e.g. "U R a retard" as opposed to, "That statement is stupid!"

  15. #45
    Member strshptpr9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Right Here
    Posts
    43
    we are not telling other countries that they don't have a right to defend themselves, we are telling a despot leader who has already shown a penchant for using chem/ bio weapons,[ on his own countrymen, no less] that he must disarm and remove his capabilities to do so again. have you conveniantly forgotten the kurds in N. Iraq who were hit with mustard and sarin?
    Is the U.S. president telling the U.K. or France or Russia, or any other country to disarm and destroy their WoMD's?NO, you havent seen that happen. and why is that? because they haven't shown a willingness to use them.

    Maybe I am the one missing the point here, but i doubt it. As an American, I have absolutely no ill will toward the people of Iraq, just the leaders of the country who have shown a ruthless disregard to human life.

    why do you feel the need to involve religion?I am not very learned on the Muslim faith, but I personally feel any person can pray to whichever diety he or she chooses
    Fine. Yet here we are telling other countries that they do not have the right to defend themselves from us. How is that we expect Saddam to disarm when we ourselves have the same weapons and more? Because of our relgious beliefs are different from thiers, that makesus right ?
    Last edited by strshptpr9; 02-28-2003 at 09:30 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •