cctalk digest, Vol 1 #473 - 49 msgs

From: Al Hartman <alhartman_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Feb 22 22:38:00 2003

> From: Vintage Computer Festival <vcf_at_siconic.com>
>
> Based on the off-list exchanges we had, your "proof"
> was most likely merely jingoistic non-sequiturs
> that Sridhar would have probably found as stupid as
> I did.

Being that you haven't read said reply, you can't
possibly make a comment on them. I notice, as usual
you stoop to personal attacks rather than discuss the
issue.

> > But, how can you quibble with the concept that
> it's wrong for a county
> > to attack it's neighbors, or to build up offensive
> weapons?
>
> Look, every time you open your mouth you contradict
> yourself. When will you realize that everything
> you ascribe as the reasons for which we want
> to go to Iraq, the US has committed the same? Are
> you seriously this dense?

Personal attack.

And what contradiction.

When has the U.S. attacked it's neighbor?

Last I heard Canada and Mexico are unmolested. And
before you bring up stuff that's 100's of years old,
you can't address stuff that old with todays mores.

Iraq attacked it's neighbors in modern times, with
modern weapons.

> This is typical of the mindset of control freaks:
> everyone else is a child and must be punished if
> they don't do as we tell them. I consider this
> deviant psychological behavior.

Personal Attack yet again.

Do you understand a basic concept?

It's called "Being one's word".

When Iraq AGREED to disarm, to not own or develop
weapons of mass destruction, and then broke those
agreements. That's where the problem lies.

It's not about "control" or being a "control freak".

Adults make agreements and keep them.

That's the only way world affairs can work. Treaties
and agreements have to be kept, and there must be
trust that they will be.

When they are broken, they must be enforced. Otherwise
the entire house of cards based on agreements and
"word" collapses.

That leads to chaos.

> > Nobody wants war, but in case such as this... This
> > war will prevent the deaths of millions. Not only
> > by Iraq and Hussein, but by others in the future
> > who will take this example to embolden themselves
> > to do evil without fear of retribution.
>
> Contradiction.

None that I can see.

You'd like there to be one, so that you can attack me
personally.

It's a common tactic of people who are unable to have
intelligent discussions of issues.

Instead of discussing the issue or facts, and keeping
the discussion on that level. You attack the person
directly.

I could be the world's worst idiot. But, if I was
speaking a truth... What difference does that make?

I could be a drooling idiot and point up and burble
"Sky.. Blue..."

The fact that I could be an idiot, doesn't change the
fact that sky is indeed blue.

So keep the discussion on the facts, rather than
making personal attacks. When you do this, you rob
yourself of any power, and ability to have your
opinions considered and respected, and convince people
that they must be indeed, invalid since you needed to
make a personal attack.

> No it's not. It's in our power to change our
> President's ill pursuits because we elected the
> bastard and we can take him down.

I got news for you. Our President is not doing ANY
"ill pursuits". He has the highest sustained approval
rating of ANY President in history.

He is doing the right thing most of the time.

I got that you don't like what he's doing, and don't
agree with it. It doesn't make him wrong.

> He's OUR servant, and our problem. Saddam Hussein
> is someone else's tyrant, not outs.

No. He surrendered to us in a war. He has made
agreements with our Government AND the U.N. that he is
not keeping.

He attacked two of our allies, was defeated and he
must disarm to keep the terms of the treaty.

He is not doing that, and that makes it our business.

Sticking our heads in the sand (or up a bodily
orifice) as you would have us do, does not make the
problem go away, and emboldens others to break
agreements or to attack their neighbors without fear
of reprisals.

> Simple: we are not the police force of the world.

People would like us not to be.

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

Generally, I'm happy when we take principled stands
against terrorism, and agression against neighbors.

> Of course, logic eludes you, Al.

Not at all.

I would recommend you go to college, take some World
History and Civics courses. Also Ethics.

You hold some naive opinions. That sound good on the
face, but don't hold up under rigorous scruitiny.

They only seem good on the face, but when you extend
the consequences of what you would like to see happen
out on a timeline, you see that they don't actually
bring about the things you claim to stand for.

"Peace at any cost" is a misused statement. Often, the
price of peace IS war. Perhaps it wouldn't seem so
contradictory if you consider that in this context...

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..."

If there were some science fictional way to look at
alternate timelines where we could see the different
outcomes for different decisions, perhaps there'd be
some data for you that might convince you of this.

Having this stand that I hold, takes some faith. It
takes trust that there are things that never happened
that we will never hear about, because they were
deterred.

If every country or terrorist made a press release
saying...

"I was going to do X, but didn't do it because I was
afraid that the U.N., the U.S., the U.K., etc... Would
punish me for doing it..."

Then, you'd see how well deterrence works.

There was an article in Time Magazine (or it may have
been Newsweek) fairly recently that said, that when
the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, it emboldened all
sorts of actions.

Within three years of the pull-out, American Embassies
were attacked, Cuba stepped up it's actions in South
America, and more.

Backing down has consequences.

It's a tough row to hoe, and not as simplistic as you
make it.

Al
Received on Sat Feb 22 2003 - 22:38:00 GMT