Ed:
Just posted that to get a rise out of the dem's.
Your mild response (and no other comments from anyone else) was disappointing! :eek:

Just bustin' chops!
-Z-man.

I've read plenty, Lynn - and you missed the point: I'm slamming Chamberlain because he was an appeaser. I don't give a rip if he was conservative or not! The point is that appeasment does not work with tyrants! And I'll criticize anyone who thinks that no matter what label they post on their shirt. The only way to stop Hitler was to fight him, and unfortunately it cost lives to do that. So, were the leaders who committed our troops to fight Hitler immoral, knowing that many troops were going to die?....

That is the ultimate dilemma of war - Making the decision if the choice is moral or worhy to commit troops. I much more welcome a debate of that sort rather than a false debate about Haliburton conspiracies.

Saying that there were Republicans who liked Hitler is meaningless. I'm sure there are Democrats who are child molesters. And Republicans too. My Republican Dad fought in the war to kick Hitler's butt, and I can guarantee you his family were not fans of Hitler.

Brawlins, What does Hitler or nazis have to do w/ current events? Are you trying to make an analogy between the threat that Iraq posed to the world and that of nazi Germany? I also reject your assertions that "liberals" cannot debate w/ logic and are cowards.

I hereby challenge you to an on line debate, (we could start a separate thread in order to not bother anyone who is not interested), using mutually agreed rules. Yes, I am a busy guy, but it could proceed as time allows. Anyone reading can be the judge of who is using logic and facts. I will beat you like a red-headed stepchild. Are we on? :)

It is easy to sit in your cubicle at work and call people, (or groups of people), cowards on the internet. I can assure you that it takes a lot more courage to be a liberal in the current political climate and be called un-patriotic. Flag-waving has never been a risky endeavor on American soil that I am aware of. Still, I am a great patriot, I love my country and consider it my duty to save it from corrupt neo-conservatives and their mostly ignorant followers.

So, are we on? SmileWavy

Denis - You did not read the earlier posts. My Hitler reference was in reply to a previous poster.

Yes - We are on for a debate and you will lose because I am on the side of the truth. You are not allowed to use hearsay and speculation, but facts. Go for it, red-haired stepchild.

How do you want to start? Do you want to debate politics, or some other left-wing issue, like the right to murder unborn children?

Let me add that I defend the side of truth. If I am expected in the debate to defend Nixon just because he was a conservative, I will not. I call a spade a spade. So I will suggest a topic, or you can do so if you like, and we will agree if it's a good debate topic.

I'm very eager to proceed. And like you, I slip on the internet only when I am able, so there may be some gaps in my appearances.

- Bill

Can we have this debate around half time during the Superbowl?

I'm not really interested in what's going to be offered on TV. :D

Here's a suggestion for a debate topic:

Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend and confidant to President Bush, said the President believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time. Pro argument; that the Bush II presidency resulted from divine intervention. Con argument; President Bush misread some signs on the road to the White House.

For purposes of fairness, and keeping in mind this is an exercise in logical argument and debating skills, I would assign speeder with the pro and brawlins with the con sides of the argument.

Each side should post an opening statement of less than 250 words. Then, the main body of argument, of less than 1500 words. Finally, each side has a rebuttal of under 500 words.

Other suggestions?

Ed

I will take the "Pro" side if this is the debate topic. I have done formal debating in front of audiences several times and once, in front of a large forum, I took the "Con" side of an argument when I really believed in the "Pro" position. I blew my opponent out of the water and people left the debate believing that my side was true, a side I really did not believe in. I said I would never do that again. So, if this is the debate topic, I will take the "Pro" side.

You understand that I already assumed you would prefer the pro, and speeder would prefer the con? I figured this way, with roles reversed from my assumption, you'd both have equal difficulty making a persuasive argument.

No matter. Let's see what speeder thinks. Whoops, it's Friday; he might have a hot date!

Ed

On my way out the door for a hot date, ;) , but I do not think that a topic w/ religious and/or spiritual aspects is appropriate. I would have to be arguing for something which is impossible to prove or disprove, sort of a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of thing.

I think that it would be much better to debate about the Iraq war/invasion, with each of us taking the side that we actually believe in. I would find it nearly impossible to argue the other side, it would require 'sexed-up dossiers' and other questionable intelligence. ;)

I am thrilled to hear that you consider yourself an expert debater, Brawlins, it is no fun playing tennis w/ a cripple. Let's go to war over war!! (Deranged Howard Dean scream): YEEAAHHHHHHH....! :D

Something I picked up in my meanderings around the net...

Theologian: A blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat...and finding it!

OK, so I thought something at least a little off that well-beaten war path could have more entertainment potential. Yes, impossible to factually prove or disprove, that's the beauty of it.
The question to be answered is not the metaphysical one, but which one of you can make the better argument.

Anyway, my apologies to Colin (cowtown), whose thread I (we) have hijacked.

Ed

Hey, no worries. I'm just going to stand back and watch, and keep my posts in the tech. forum. :)

Potential topic: WMD - Was the WMD argument a Bush scheme - a false pretext to invade, or was it a real issue?

Brawlins...You are trying to prove (or disprove) a string of unprovables, akin to proving whether or not there is a Supreme Being". Both overactive Athiests and religious zealots are equally nuts. An unprovable is just that. The probability that any of us know what goes on in the oval office is highly unlikely. And, anyone can claim to stand for "the truth". Sean Hannaty and Mr. Limbaugh do it all the time. It is indeed the truth, bit only as they see it. There are three sides to every story: Your side, my side and somewhere in the middle, the actual events.

Debating anything with a close minded individual is like dueling with an unarmed man. Save yourself the embarassment.

BTW...Although far from being a liberal myself, I fail to see why some folks think it is a dirty word..........

From back up, before the pre-match chest thumping on who was best at debating ;)

That is the ultimate dilemma of war - Making the decision if the choice is moral or worhy to commit troops.

Well, yeah. I think you'll find that the majority of liberals (who are against the Iraq war) agree 100% with you.

The liberals just have a different measure of "moral or worthy". It isn't cowardice. Ironically, given that generally Christian views and conservatives go hand in hand, the liberal view on this case is to protect life.

So anyway, why invade Iraq? Just 'cause someone is a brutal dictator isn't enough. Bush now has a problem, as the other reasons are starting to look pretty jumped up, and the motives for the war are in question.

Actually that isn't fair. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, rather, I think the other reasons for invading Iraq (WMD and Al Qaeda/terrorist links) were made without sufficient care. Bush etc wanted to roll Saddam, and turned over every rock they could get their hands on to build a case against him. Unfortunately, there was plenty of info they couldn't find out.

Face up fellas, the invasion was made on pretty dodgy grounds. That's why you lacked international support for it. It isn't because the other countries are stupid or cowards. It is because they had misgivings.

Note - recent comments to media about "so maybe we won't find anything" in regard to WMD.

All good points, Cam. I think GW didn't believe he needed to make a strong case to invade Iraq, simply because 9/11 had occurred and there was some idea that us as "liberators" would be welcomed with, I think Rumsfeld said, "flowers and hugs," or some such nonsense.

Yes, Powell's quote is well taken. I wonder if he'll resign. He's one of the few honest faces in the administration, and far to intelligent to be blind-sided by the verbose and waning rhetoric.

All good points, Cam. I think GW didn't believe he needed to make a strong case to invade Iraq, simply because 9/11 had occurred and there was some idea that us as "liberators" would be welcomed with, I think Rumsfeld said, "flowers and hugs," or some such nonsense.

The problem is, he only had to convince the US people (in the end), because you guys have so much power globally you actually can do what you want.

With that power comes responsibility, which I don't think Bush is equipped to handle.

CamB wrote:
Frankly, CamB, I weary of this whole thing.

From CNN reports earlier this week: "Powell said the United States had demanded of Iraqi officials a full accounting of what had happened to the nation's weapons, 'and all they did was make statements without proving it, proving it to our satisfaction.'"

The UN Chief Inspector, Hans Blix said:
"Iraq used chemical weapons in the war against Iran and against its own citizens. It used long-range missiles both in the Gulf War and against Iran. ...[T]he cease-fire conditions of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) stipulated broadly that Iraq must be rid of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles and facilities to produce them."

On January 16, 2003, Blix said:
"Only complete and unconditional co-operation of the Iraqi authorities with UN inspectors may avert the threat of war in Iraq...."
"To avoid a war, Baghdad", Blix said, "should present new convincing proofs that it has stopped developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and allow its experts both in Iraq and abroad to be freely questioned. The questioning should be conducted either in the absence of Iraqi officials or on the condition that these experts could be allowed to leave Iraq, he said."

Blah, blah....

Iraq was not cooperating. How long would Iraq continue to toy with the inspectors? Since 1991, they had toyed with inspectors, kicked them out - they came back in under threat. More arrogance, lack of cooperation.

I'm not convinced that we would ever find WMD. There's probably a quarter million square miles where they could be buried. Remember the buried Scud missle find that was not reported?

I believe if only Saddam had showed where his buried stashes were, and adopted a cooperative atttitude, then mercy would have been shown.

Bush was tired of Saddam flouting UN mandates with impunity. He had enough. He felt the the world community needed to hold Saddam accountable for not adhering to the mandates. For a man who lost a war (1991), Saddam was not taking the subservient tone of the defeated country. He was fortunate that we did not march to Baghdad in 1991 and rip him out.

The world community would not act, so Bush ordered the attack.

Nevertheless, I weary of discussions of Bush's motives. Let's switch gears. Below, I have a couple of topics for further debate/discussion.

1) Is it always wrong to enter into war? If not, how do you distinguish a moral war from an immoral war?

2) Should Bush have waited longer to attack? And if so, how much longer? (Be specific.)

I am going to back off and let others have a say so in this, though I may slip in.

Here's what I ask:
No more rehashing of past arguments. Stick to 1 and 2 above.
Refrain from hyperbolic (extreme) speech. Keep the discussion logical and cool-headed - no personal insults.
I do not believe that either of the points 1 or 2 above has a "correct" answer.

When you're finished with 1 & 2, how about this one:

Was it a moral decision to drop atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Why or why not?

- Bill

IMO, fewer American's would have supported the war without the scaremongering. That alone is why I am grumpy. Only 50 something percent supported it immediately before it was launched.

But anyway - your questions - I'll have a go.

1) Is it always wrong to enter into war? If not, how do you distinguish a moral war from an immoral war?

No. Prior to the pre-emptive war, I would have said "only when provoked". I don't think my view has changed much. This is entirely down to personal opinion, but I would expect that a responsible international citizen would make sure they had plenty of support - ie UN level. USA is not the UN.

2) Should Bush have waited longer to attack? And if so, how much longer? (Be specific.)

Until the UN agreed. I believe they would have sooner or later.

3) Was it a moral decision to drop atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Why or why not?

Good question. It was fricken horrible, based on the pics I've seen. I have no view on whether was moral.

In fact, as moral depends on each person's viewpoint, it is subjective and we can argue forever about it. This is going to go nowhere fast. The closest correct answer is probably related to the average (or collective?) moral viewpoint of non-dictator lead nations. The UN is a proxy for this, and the UN said "wait".

CamB - All of points 1 through 3 were of course subjective, thus making for a more interesting discussion. That's why I raised them. Arguments settled by facts alone are boring.

These are the dilemmas that world leaders face constantly. Take Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Our President Truman had to make a decision on the atomic bomb. If he said "no", best estimates were at least half a million American men would die from a land assault on Japan. If he said "yes", then a hundred thousand Japanese or more would die, including many non-combatants. Perhaps there was a third choice. What decision is the "right" one? You can't say "I don't know" if you're the leader.

You raise an issue about the UN being the ultimate authority. Many Americans wrestle with the concept of the UN as world authority. I am not particularly pleased that we alienated half the world over the past year. But what if half the world is wrong? To what extent does a nation surrender its sovereignty? Do European nations surrender their sovereignty to the EU?

What decision is the "right" one? You can't say "I don't know" if you're the leader.

I'm 28 years old. I have no view because I know very little about the circumstances. I don't have time to educate myself either.

But what if half the world is wrong?

Errr, you guys are 280 odd million out of something like 9 billion people. That isn't "half". Even on GDP you aren't half (yet?). Maybe on military spending....

To what extent does a nation surrender its sovereignty?

Being asked to wait a bit before making a pre-emptive strike against another nation is hardly surrendering sovereignty.

You have no time to educate yourself? How much time do you spend on this forum each week? You have 3245 posts!

You missed the question - It was philosophical, not mathematical:
As a nation, do you go along with the majority decision of the UN if you believe it is wrong?...if you feel that your own security could be threatened by a wrong decision, do you oppose the majority?

How long is "a bit"?

- Bill

You have 3245 posts!

Ah hell, it's only 2 and a bit posts a day. I can't answer the question without knowing how many Japanese civilians would have died following the conventional bombing which would have occurred if the atom bomb hadn't been dropped, at very least. I also can't really decide without being in a WWII mindset and with WWII knowledge. I guess I would have probably agreed to drop the bomb, but maybe only one of them (I think they dropped two for, er, redundancy from memory). It would have haunted me for every single day of my life that followed too.

As a nation, do you go along with the majority decision of the UN if you believe it is wrong?...if you feel that your own security could be threatened by a wrong decision, do you oppose the majority?

This is exactly the sort of logic that drives countries (such as Israel, Pakistan, NK, Iran etc) to develop nuclear weapons.

The UN is effectively a sort of world democracy (IMHO), and each country is, in a sense, a voting citizen. I fail to see why the US should be able to circumvent this democracy (as flawed as it might be). I actually don't even care whether invading Iraq was right or wrong for the purposes of this argument. What I care about is whether it is right or wrong for ANY country to go against the UN. If you think it is, why do you think that the street should only go one way (in the US' favour)? Is NK developing nukes ok because it is about sovereignty?

How long is "a bit"?

Dunno, and no one does, because Bush invaded Iraq before we found out. I suspect "a bit" is actually a pretty long time, as the threat to the US from Saddam was apparently quite low.

CamB - I enjoyed our little interchange.
I will not be around too much over the next week.
I'm assisting my mother with a move from the Charleston, South Carolina area to the Atlanta area.
- Bill

Just thought I'd throw in a view from someone who couldn't give a rat's ass about Clinton/Bush ........whatever.

I'm from the land of the snow and don't support one party or another.

The basic point (in my opinion) about Bush's inability to pronounce certain words is simply the fact it looks bad and when something looks bad, you fix it for Christ sakes! Especially if you are the leader of the USA.

If one of the contestants on that Donald Trump show (The Apprentice) kept mispronoucing words, he would be kicked off the show because Trump is looking for someone as close to perfect as possible....and this is just for a lame Reality TV show job. Were talking about the LEADER OF AMERICA here folks. He SHOULD be held accountable for his image.

As a Canadian looking in, it absolutely dumbfounds me that....

1. Bush stands in front of intelligent people, talking the way he does, and expects them to except him.

2. Those around Bush allow it to happen.

The words he mispronounces are not the problem.....the fact that the American public is "ok" with it - that is what disturbs me.

Newsflash!!! - outside of stout Bush supports - just about everyone in the world views this guy as a very, very bad example of how a World Leader should be. Someone needs to step in and fix this.

Honestly - it's like America is the front lawn of the Griswald residence and Bush is the Uncle Eddie that sits on the lawn and farts and picks his nose. Even the daft Clark Griswald knows Eddie has to go....why can't America think the same? Why do so many people try and protect this embarrassing boil of uselessness???

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

.....................

Double post - I'm an idiot.

Maybe I should run for President....??????

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

You're splitting hairs, 944 Boyeee. When's the last time you heard perfect grammar spoken publicly? Seems to me Canada has an ongoing problem as to whether or not it should speak French or English. That pales in comparison to our president mispronouncing words or using improper syntax. At least we all agree on one language here.

Talk about spliting hairs!!!!!

Up here in Canada, we speak English, yet have a large French population. There is no disagreement. We have decided to speak whatever language the person sitting across from you speaks.

But that is not the point - this isn't about how Canada looks in the eyes of those who view it - it's about Bush. Canada doesn't run a country. Canada doesn't give speeches. This isn't about how we view "America", but rather how we view it's leader. Christ - our last Prime Minister could barely speak English - but at least he spoke it well.

As for the last time I heard perfect grammer spoken publically?

Well, just about everytime I turn on the TV....every TV show producer makes sure he doesn't make his show look "amature" by making sure people are saying the right things.

I have seen about thousands of talk show hosts and/or public figures speak thousands of times and they all "did their job" to the point where I didn't notice any problems in the delivery. As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say I haven't seen ONE public speaker in the last little while who had the problems Bush does.

Stop protecting him. He isn't Corky from Life Goes On...he is the damn President of The USA!!!

Jeff (944S Boyeee)

Cow-Boys are made to keep cows. This guy should never have left his ranch. Not only does he display a total disdain for grammar and international law, but he is also proud of all that. Who would be stupid enough to brag about being a low C at Yale ? He also showed disrespect to senior staff at the White house like Paul O`Neil that he was calling `Pablo` all the time. Who would be stupid enough to talk about going to Mars with a $477 Bn deficit ? Bottom line is: his intellectual capabilities are way unsufficient for the job. This shows, and this is why he is not being respected around the world.

Aurel

Aurel, I know English is your second language, but this was too damn funny to not point it out. :D

"Insufficient" not "unsufficient," since we're on the subject.

Aurel: grammar has been a dying art in the U.S. for decades now. I would say it has been bastardized since the Army G.I. bill came along, where the blue-blood suddenly had to contend with new forms of syntax from various regions of the U.S. within higher-income institutions like universities. Language is bound to change when Princeton is mixed with down-home Alabama.

Is it wrong? If you're a purist, yes, it's very wrong. When I was in graduate school, I was appalled at some of the linguistic skillsets my professors used. But then thinking back on that, I may as well be turned off by Faulkner's dialectics, ee cummins lack of capital letters and Celine's use of ellipses.

What the president displays in pure communication is that language is continually evolving. I've learned to not fault someone for improper use of sentence structure, etc., because if I criticized them, whether constructive or otherwise, I nevertheless will be thought of as an *******.

Andy Rooney on "Larry King Live" once made note of the horrible use of grammar in (American) English, bringing up, of course, Bush. For all the man complained about, he simply came off as a bitter old fart who wanted to speak only with WASPs like himself. English is the most difficult language in the world to learn because of its Germanic roots, and inclusion of French, Spanish and Latin, plus the media's idea of what the hip phraseology of the day is, and how they continually purvey such. It's a no-win situation if one does not want to sound stodgey.

I'm no great Bush fan, but I do think he's much better than before with his public speaking. After all, the man does have ADS. But, hey, cut him some slack; sources say he is now able to tell his "left" from his "right," and at that, with aplomb.

Granted. I type fast, do not spell check, and sometimes guess on words that I never used before (at least, not in english).

BUT:

1- I am not persident of the United States
2- I am not pryd of it
3- I am still intelligenter than Dubya

:D

Aurel

Having learnt English and German, I have to disagree here: English has to be the simplest, easiest language to learn on earth, and this is probably why it is so widespread. There are no genders to worry about according adjectives with, and unlike german and latin, no declination (sp?) on the verbs.
There is only you, not `vous` and `tu`, etc, etc...
On the other hand, my fiancee is trying to learn french, and she still has a long way to go :D

Aurel

French is fairly easy to learn. It has the same Latin roots as Spanish. Know one and you know more or less the other.

And English, spoken properly, is not easy to learn. Pick up some books on Literary Criticism and grammar to see for yourself.

The only thing easy about English is it's easy to misuse it.

And the reason English is so widely spoken comes traditionally from colonial efforts by Britain , English-speaking missionaries, and the economic power of English-speaking countries. To put things in perspective, if France had the economic might of the U.S., the whole world would speak French.

Do you speak french ?

Only the most basic. I'm certain I've forgotten most of it now. :(

Damn, David!!! Yer makin' me proud, brother!! Excellent points about the English language.

Jimmy Carter used to say "nucular" too, and he was (if I remember correctly) a nuclear engineer. I have been told that this mispronunciation is a "Southern thing."
See story in recent Onion about an "ask" murderer in NYC.

mmmmmmmm......., Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/