Argggh! It's NUKE-LEE-ER. NUKE-LEE-ER!

[Z-man]

Originally posted by WOODPIE
Z-man

What other educational backgrounds would you like to see as disqualification for voting rights? An interesting premise, but there's got to be more societal groups, in your humble opinion, that should be denied the right to vote. Com'on, tell us...

Ed

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!

Just bustin' chops!
-Z-man.

[brawlins]

Better go back and read a little more brawlins, Chamberlain was a conservative!! Chamberlain and his party were trying to appease Hitler because Germany had outspent/out-produced most of the major powers of the world militarily especially in aircraft.

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.

There were plenty of Republicans in the USA who thought Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread.

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.

[speeder]

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?

[brawlins]

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?

[brawlins]

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

[dd74]

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.

[WOODPIE]

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

[brawlins]

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.

[WOODPIE]

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

[speeder]

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....!

[WOODPIE]

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

[cowtown]

Originally posted by WOODPIE

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.

[brawlins]

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

[Moneyguy1]

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..........

[CamB]

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.

[dd74]

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.

[CamB]

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.

[brawlins]

CamB wrote:

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 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 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 lacked international support for it. It isn't because the other countries are stupid or cowards. It is because they had misgivings.

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

[CamB]

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".

[brawlins]

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?