• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Ziggurat said:
We've already been over this. Politicians are civilians. "Civilian" is a different word than "citizen". If you're having trouble with what words mean, look it up. How can you be this stupid? I mean, do you have to practice?
Click to expand...


No, I simply don't care about semantics. You know what
I meant, that's all what counts. Gee... :rolleyes:
 
Oliver said:
No, I simply don't care about semantics. You know what I meant, that's all what counts. Gee... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I asked you a question: do you or do you not believe that civilian control of the military is important to a democracy? Your prior statements suggest that you do not. You have not said that you do. The semantics is important because if you don't know what the word means, you can't make sense of the question. And you haven't made sense of the question, so none of your responses have been at all relevant to that question, regardless of what you meant. So stop trying to blame me for your inability to understand the definitions of words. The question has gone unanswered by you. So I repeat: do you or do you not consider civilian control of the military to be important to democracies?
 
Ziggurat said:
I asked you a question: do you or do you not believe that civilian control of the military is important to a democracy? Your prior statements suggest that you do not. You have not said that you do. The semantics is important because if you don't know what the word means, you can't make sense of the question. And you haven't made sense of the question, so none of your responses have been at all relevant to that question, regardless of what you meant. So stop trying to blame me for your inability to understand the definitions of words. The question has gone unanswered by you. So I repeat: do you or do you not consider civilian control of the military to be important to democracies?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do believe that civilian control is important for a democracy.
So is the military in general to a degree depending on the general
hostility towards those democracies.

My point is that the amount of energy and money being spend into the
US military is waaaay to overblown. America doesn't have real enemies
besides the ones they created. And those enemies are pretty much
lousy third-world countries.

To declare those countries as threats which need even more
spending regarding the Military - sounds pretty paranoid. But the
truth seems to be that there is a lot of money for all sides of this
agenda. So it merely looks like corruption.

Or are you telling me that there is any logic behind the military
spendings and the aggressive foreign politics other then big
money?

And if so - will Santa Claus visit you this year as well? :confused:

The point is: Iran is no threat. No matter how much people
whine about it. But maybe the IAEA is lying and Bush surprisingly
stopped to do so...

CNN Interview with head of IAEA on Iran 10/27
 
Undesired Walrus said:
No.

Could you be any more racist please?
Click to expand...


Oh really - which enemies didn't the US create among those
they're whining about today? :confused:

And I wasn't racist - in comparison to the US-military power,
the Countries in question are militarily: third world countries.

Aren't they?
 
Oliver said:
Oh really - which enemies didn't the US create among those
they're whining about today? :confused:
Click to expand...

Al Qeada.

And I wasn't racist - in comparison to the US-military power,
the Countries in question are militarily: third world countries.

Aren't they?
Click to expand...

No you didn't. It was quite obvious you didn't mean, 'third world militaries'. You meant they were third world countries which are 'lousy'. Your lack of knowledge is a bit sad.
 
Oliver said:
Yes, I do believe that civilian control is important for a democracy.
Click to expand...

Then how do you reconcile this belief with your previous statement (post 1849) that the military was "dumb" for following orders from its civilian commander? There's a logical contradiction there. I know logic is one of your weak points (basic definitions of words being far from your only shortcoming), but how exactly do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Al Qeada.

No you didn't. It was quite obvious you didn't mean, 'third world militaries'. You meant they were third world countries which are 'lousy'. Your lack of knowledge is a bit sad.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Then how do you reconcile this belief with your previous statement (post 1849) that the military was "dumb" for following orders from its civilian commander? There's a logical contradiction there. I know logic is one of your weak points (basic definitions of words being far from your only shortcoming), but how exactly do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...



Semantics.

But let the Experts speak for themselves...

Experts cast doubt on reality of Iran nuclear threat
One says there's no 'smoking-gun proof' a weapons program exists

WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program. *snip*


Outside experts say the operative words are "right today." They say Iran may have been actively seeking to create a nuclear-weapons capacity in the past and still could break out of its current uranium-enrichment program and start a weapons program....

Full Article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5271470.html
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
Semantics.
Click to expand...

So the definitions of the words you use don't matter to you, and therefore nothing you say can ever be wrong, because if anyone ever thinks it is, it's just semantics.

You really are special, Oliver.
 
Darth Rotor said:
You will note, that the Islamic Republic was not the sort of ally the US provided nuclear tech to.

Any idea why that might be?

Let's do a history lesson.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced Russia, and tossed out its royalty in favor of a Communistic, authoritarian rule. The Soviet Union was a different political entity than Russia.

The Islamic Republic was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced the Iran of the Shan, tossed out its royalty in favor of an Islamist authoritarian rule, and made a new political entity.
Click to expand...

LOL! let's do a civics lesson. The United States of America is a federal Republic. It was created when a revolution tossed out the royalty in favour of rule by a slaveowning elite (originally, you had to own land to be an elector).

Doh.
 
Oliver said:
Who is the Prince of Bahrain? And does he have facts?
(in contrast to my fanclub) :D
Click to expand...

The Prince of Bahrain is the Prince of Bahrain.
Maybe, he has not facts, just his opinion.

The point is, why should the world run the risk to plunge into WWIII, if this can be avoided?
Even if the risk is small..
 
Oliver said:
But let the Experts speak for themselves...
Click to expand...

And who are these experts? Well, the only people mentioned are the IAEA and some guy named Mark Fitzpatrick. We've got no reason to think Fitzpatrick's opinion is authoritative, and we know the IAEA's opinion isn't. They have never in their entire history discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Not once. So if Iran has one, why on earth would we expect them to have discovered it?

It's funny how superior you think you are for not believing anything Bush says, but yet at the same time how little you question anything you think contradicts him.
 
pmurray said:
LOL! let's do a civics lesson. The United States of America is a federal Republic. It was created when a revolution tossed out the royalty in favour of rule by a slaveowning elite (originally, you had to own land to be an elector).

Doh.
Click to expand...

Sorry, almost right, you get a C-, which in American money is barely passing marks.

Not all landowners and property holders were slave owners, though some were. You might want to look at who the founding fathers were. There were dozens of them, and in the main, the folks north of the Mason Dixon line (Pennsylvania/Md border) were NOT slave holders when the Declaration of Independence was sent across the pond, and the folks up there hadn't been for a few generations. It took a compromise between slave holders and non slave holders to get the Declaration agreed, the war agreed, and the Constitution agreed. It eventually took another war to sort that detail out. The attempted revolution/rebellion by the CSA failed.

But a gallant effort, nonetheless, from one not from our shores. (IIRC, you are from Oz?)

DR
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Al Qeada.



No you didn't. It was quite obvious you didn't mean, 'third world militaries'. You meant they were third world countries which are 'lousy'. Your lack of knowledge is a bit sad.
Click to expand...

The gentlemen in question's expertise on American History and Politics is as breathtaking as is knowledge of the Middle East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom