 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Whaleboy - quote:
I think the penny is dropping that Gulf War II had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. |
I think it has alot to do with terrorism, the message is clear - don't **** with us and don't help those who do...
quote:
The procurement of weaponry is a matter for the intelligence services, if anything the fog of war makes it easier to acquire those weapons as the intelligence services are stretched in trying to fight a needless altercation. As for creating a nuke, the danger is vastly overstated considering how chronically difficult it is to do so. |
Create? No, just procure... And the war on terrorism has at least 2 fronts - prevent that procurement and eliminate the people who want a nuke to use on us.
quote:
Just as me saying "I don't think you have the right to say certain things" is free speech, but used to attack the notion of free speech. |
That's quite a leap, Bush told the guy he can't criticise Blair? No, he was told Bush doesn't want to hear him speak any more.
quote:
That's fine, but I don't think that you have the whole rationale covered IMHO. Bush has the right, in his personal life, to the same freedom of association as the rest of us, but freedom of association does not lead to effective government. If, for example, an governmental institution like a school was to arbitrarily expell students on the basis of pro or anti-war on Bush's whim, that would not be an efficient or valid course of action, I think we can all agree there. |
Bush ain't a student or teacher, he's the CinC during a war and he doesn't have to offer opponents of that war his ear.
quote:
With another party, he, as a man in a position of political power (and that is the key thing) has introduced punitive consequences for one particular opinion over another (compounded by the fact that Howard is an opposition MP in another country), to effectively say "we don't want you saying that, and we'll take measures against you if you do". |
The measure was a refusal to listen, not force him to keep quiet.
quote:
Because of their position in power, it is unacceptable to take those measures, though they are fine to disagree. What I would have done is attempt to refute Howards points instead of getting arsey about it. |
Why are you responding to questions I posed to Kuci and ignoring what we were talking about? This is about whether or not Bush's action violates some libertarian principle and you're debating the efficacy of his actions. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
I think it has alot to do with terrorism, the message is clear - don't **** with us and don't help those who do...
|
Which has... what exactly to do with Iraq? Am I missing something? How would you define ****ing with you?  Am I ****ing with you by expressing a contrary opinion and refuting the logic behind the WoT? Should I thus be "shut up" accordingly or have such passive measures taken against me, measures nonetheless?
quote:
Create? No, just procure... And the war on terrorism has at least 2 fronts - prevent that procurement and eliminate the people who want a nuke to use on us.
|
And you don't think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture with which you profess to deal? Prevent the procurment and eliminate SPECIFIC individuals, fine, that's why you have the intelligence agencies. The military is a tactical agent, the elimination or forceful modification of other nation states, large monolithic organisations (unlike cell-structures that are modular and best dealt with by covert means) and the defense of your nation from the aforementioned threats. Aircraft carriers can do nothing against suicide bombers.
If you "eliminate" people on an arbitrary basis in terrorist organisations, three more pop up to join them, and you succeed only in further alienating the Islamic world, thus perpetuating and escalating the conflict. Work out your enemy, terrorism (in which case use intelligence), Islam (in which case use armies) or Kerry (in which case sling mud).
quote:
That's quite a leap, Bush told the guy he can't criticise Blair? No, he was told Bush doesn't want to hear him speak any more.
|
Quite an irrational reaction for a world leader. Sure in his private life he can listen to whom he wants, but in a public role refusal to hear (or in this case meet... a more abstract message he has sent, namely that he in person is not welcome, not merely his opinions) is tantamount to a sanction upon the basis of expressed opinion.
quote:
Bush ain't a student or teacher, he's the CinC during a war and he doesn't have to offer opponents of that war his ear.
|
I do not believe the USA to be at war. Hostilities in Iraq have ceased, and there are no states with which the USA is militarily quarrelling at the moment that I am aware of. Covert operations alone? That is not a state of overt war. I fail to see how his role as commander in chief is primary to his role as president and political representative of his nation to the world, including opinions and counter opinions regarding that nations actions.
As for denying his ear, Howard seems like a strange choice. A refusal to see representatives of the peace movement, I can understand, but it seems that Bush is denying Howard the opportunity to visit as a punitive measure to in retaliation for Howards attack on Blair, on Iraq, which on two levels is irrelevant to the WoT... in other words a punitive act of political convenience or the typical Bush measure of scare tactics and manipulation by intimidation (see the article I linked to earlier in this thread).
quote:
The measure was a refusal to listen, not force him to keep quiet.
|
That does not address my point. My point was in regards to Bush the president, not Bush the man. Latterly I don't give a **** about. He has introduced a punitive measure (symbolic since he is already aware of Howards views thus this becomes a measure of cordiality) against Howard for his expressing of his opinion.
quote:
Why are you responding to questions I posed to Kuci and ignoring what we were talking about? This is about whether or not Bush's action violates some libertarian principle and you're debating the efficacy of his actions.
|
You raise a point publically, I answer those points publically. If you just want Kuci to answer, then PM or email him. His actions by consequence or utility do not violate any libertarian principle, however by intent do violate the notion of potential free speech. That is only relevant for Bush the man, not Bush the president, whereupon his actions are unacceptable in my view.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
No, Ned, they are speaking their hearts. They are the best friends the US ever had. They are willing to tell you when you've ****ed up, but they aren't saying that everything you do has ****ed up as some knee jerk reaction. We should all hope for friends who will be honest with us when we go astray. It might hurt to hear it. It might smart to acknowledge going wrong, but real friends would not be that if they stayed silent. |
 The best friends will tell you that they think you are wrong and won't just blow smoke up your ass. |
Exactly. If instead of criticising certain US government decisions (and I stress this has nothing to do with US politics) on the International level, if every country whose Government and/or people were not hoping to convince Bush and co. of their being wrong and instead just wanted to pour scorn on them, the US would have a lot more 'enemies' than it does now. NZ would be one, yet there we are, contributing to the counter-terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Just not military operations in Iraq.
We disagree on many things, but we still support the US in all matters we find beneficial, correct, multilateral and justified- because we are friends and allies. In fact, if the US Admin didn't take such things as our country being anti-nuclear as a major personal snub for some reason, we'd be as close as the US and Oz are.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Exactly. If instead of criticising certain US government decisions (and I stress this has nothing to do with US politics) on the International level, if every country whose Government and/or people were not hoping to convince Bush and co. of their being wrong and instead just wanted to pour scorn on them, the US would have a lot more 'enemies' than it does now. NZ would be one, yet there we are, contributing to the counter-terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Just not military operations in Iraq.
We disagree on many things, but we still support the US in all matters we find beneficial, correct, multilateral and justified- because we are friends and allies. In fact, if the US Admin didn't take such things as our country being anti-nuclear as a major personal snub for some reason, we'd be as close as the US and Oz are. |
Friends provide "feedback" in private. Blair obviously does that with Bush, to good effect in most cases.
But, real *******s publicly bash Bush and the US. These are no friends and do not qualify as leaders of "friendly" nations.
Howard and any Tory leader who have said negative things about Blair and/or Bush on Iraq in public have to go. These people can never be "partners" with America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Whaleboy - quote:
Which has... what exactly to do with Iraq? Am I missing something? How would you define ****ing with you? Am I ****ing with you by expressing a contrary opinion and refuting the logic behind the WoT? Should I thus be "shut up" accordingly or have such passive measures taken against me, measures nonetheless? |
Without Iraq the message would lack substance. What did Khaddafi tell an Italian reporter following Iraq? He knew the US was serious now and ****ing with us would be inadvisable. And I don't need to explain to you what ****ing with us means, you know what it means.
quote:
And you don't think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture with which you profess to deal? Prevent the procurment and eliminate SPECIFIC individuals, fine, that's why you have the intelligence agencies. The military is a tactical agent, the elimination or forceful modification of other nation states, large monolithic organisations (unlike cell-structures that are modular and best dealt with by covert means) and the defense of your nation from the aforementioned threats. Aircraft carriers can do nothing against suicide bombers. |
It wasn't some intel agency that invaded Afghanistan. These groups need a state to provide a safe haven... The message is: don't give them that safe haven.
quote:
If you "eliminate" people on an arbitrary basis in terrorist organisations, three more pop up to join them, and you succeed only in further alienating the Islamic world, thus perpetuating and escalating the conflict. |
Then 3 more will die. We've been alienating Muslims for decades and 9/11 was a result, but we can't go back in time so we're stuck with the current situation. Would you have ordered the invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11? If so, would you have sent in the army or an intel agency? If not, how was the CIA going to deal with Al Qaeda protected by the Taliban?
quote:
Quite an irrational reaction for a world leader. Sure in his private life he can listen to whom he wants, but in a public role refusal to hear (or in this case meet... a more abstract message he has sent, namely that he in person is not welcome, not merely his opinions) is tantamount to a sanction upon the basis of expressed opinion. |
Most everyone sanctions people for angering us with offensive opinions, some refuse to listen, some even kill.
The difference between the two is the former does not violate free speech and the latter does,,,
quote:
I do not believe the USA to be at war. |
And that's where you part company with Bush and his supporters, they do.
quote:
As for denying his ear, Howard seems like a strange choice. A refusal to see representatives of the peace movement, I can understand, but it seems that Bush is denying Howard the opportunity to visit as a punitive measure to in retaliation for Howards attack on Blair, on Iraq, which on two levels is irrelevant to the WoT... in other words a punitive act of political convenience or the typical Bush measure of scare tactics and manipulation by intimidation (see the article I linked to earlier in this thread). |
You can dispute the choice or whatever else you want, that has nothing to do with free speech.
quote:
That does not address my point. My point was in regards to Bush the president, not Bush the man. Latterly I don't give a **** about. He has introduced a punitive measure (symbolic since he is already aware of Howards views thus this becomes a measure of cordiality) against Howard for his expressing of his opinion. |
It doesn't violate free speech to tell someone you're angry with their presence is no longer welcome. Free speech does not guarantee an audience...
quote:
You raise a point publically, I answer those points publically. |
You removed the point from it's context. Kuci and I weren't debating the efficacy of Bush's position, just whether or not there is some libertarian principle being violated by Bush.
quote:
If you just want Kuci to answer, then PM or email him. |
I didn't say only Kuci could answer, I asked you to observe what I said within the context of what Kuci and I were discussing. If you had made that observation you wouldn't "rationally" used a comment about libertarian principles as a defense of Bush.
quote:
His actions by consequence or utility do not violate any libertarian principle, however by intent do violate the notion of potential free speech. That is only relevant for Bush the man, not Bush the president, whereupon his actions are unacceptable in my view. |
Refusing to listen to rock and roll violates the free speech of rock and roll artists? C'mon...
Ned - quote:
Schlesinger did say that MI was involved in abuses. He did say that an MI colonel and an Army Brigadier General also bear responsibility. But when it gets to the Rumsfeld level, the guidelines were to abide by the Geneva Convention. |
When you see people high up in the administration trying to justify torture followed by the employment of torture in the field, it isn't unreasonable to think a connection exists. What happened to the chain of command? Some colonel decided to torture people on his own in direct contradiction of orders from higher ups? Let's see if this colonel and general get court martialed... If they do, maybe we'll see they were just following orders too.
quote:
To the extent that people want to say that George Bush was in some way responsible for the zoo we found in that prison when it was Bush who demanded prosecutions when he first heard about the abuses is a
BIG LIE. |
That gives Bush more credit than alot of people are willing to give, I seriously doubt if he's making such policies or even knows what is going on beyond the bigger picture. But all I see are prosecutions of little people and that's so damn typical of the military. Smear the little people, cover the behinds of the brass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I might support a Conservative party, but I'm not a moron. |
Now that's sig materials!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-08-2004 14:16
|