What Ariana thinks

[Tony]

Tony, you are ignorant of how the military works.

Ok, I can accept that, let me see what you have to say.

And I'm willing to bet that you're too hard-headed to listen to someone with actual military experience who does know how it works. But, I'll say this anyway for the benefit of anyone with an open mind who happens to be reading this.

Soldiers refuse orders all the time. They are specifically trained to refuse orders. At least once a year every single member of the US Army receives this training. Every-single-one. The training is standardized so it's the same in every unit and it is delivered by a Captain or above. Every soldier knows that, not only is he allowed to refuse an illegal order, every single soldier in the Army knows that it is his *duty* to do it.

I was a platoon leader in Korea. My driver was an 18 year old Private just a few months out of basic training. He was very polite, very respectful, he almost seemed afraid of people with higher rank than him. They're all like that right after basic. We were cruising down MSR 1 a few cars behind a truck carrying South Korean Army soldiers. The wind caught one the Korean soldiers' helmets and pulled it off. It, along with a nice pair of goggles fell to the side of the road. I got a good look at it. It was pretty cool stuff. We drove a little farther and I realized that the Korean truck wasn't going back for it, so I told my driver to make a u-turn and go back, I told him I was going to grab it as a souvenir. This PVT says to me, an officer, "no sir, we can't make u-turns here, it's illegal and dangerous." He wasn't afraid. He shouldn't have to be. He was right.

I was a company executive officer in a training unit at Fort Gordon, GA. A drill sergeant had something he wanted to do in his office late one night (he was supposed to be sitting at the CQ desk) so he ordered the fire guard to secure the door by sliding a pair of rakes through the handles. That way, he could hear if anyone tried to leave the building. This private, this trainee, refused to do it. The DS made him do push-ups all night. The next morning the trainee reported this to the 1st Sergeant. The DS got in trouble. The trainee did not. And he shouldn't have. He was right.

Soldiers refuse orders all the time.

Ok. What's your point? I never said solders can't refuse illegal orders.

Was the soldier in your second example ever compensated for the punishment he received for not following the illegal order?

 

[Tony]

No, it is not the logical conclusion.

Yes it is.

He points out that soldiers may not refuse moral, legal orders, or refuse legal orders for political reasons.

He never said anything about moral. You're creating a reverse strawman (steelman perhaps?) to buttress your earlier assertion.

You propose an immoral, legal order, then knock it down as idiotic.

Morality was never mentioned, so your evocations of it are irrelevant. My point stands as is.

 

[Tony]

Tell me, exactly how many WMD's and facilities do we need to find before you would acknowledge that they exist?
[/B]

The amount that the president alleged Iraq to posses. Hell, even half that.

As far as claims, go back and read claims from the Clinton administration, assessments by other world leaders and independent studies. The general consensus before the war is that Iraq had WMD's and the capabilities to produce more in the future, and you know what? They were right!

Ahh, so the CIA was right all along.

Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the Iraqi government to prove that they were in compliance with the UN mandate to disarm, not for anyone to prove that they did not.

Yes it was, but I don't think for a second that Bush was sincere in waiting for the UN to make a final judgment. He was just using the UN as a pretext to make his war.

 

[billydkid]

Bush

The comment about needing to have a war to have a great presidency comes from Bush himself in private conversations. I am sorry I can not link to it. Believe it or don't. I'm sorry, did I miss something. They found the fabled weapons of mass destruction? We were a hair's breadth away from Condi's and Cheney's mushroom cloud? Whew, wow, that was a close one.

 

[BS Investigator]

Arianna is not to be taken seriously.

She changes her views every few years in an attempt to win favor with certain crowds. She's a joke.

 

[SezMe]

Arianna is not to be taken seriously.

She changes her views every few years in an attempt to win favor with certain crowds. She's a joke.

Maybe. Maybe not. But that is not what is being discussed here. The issues raised about WMDs, foreign policy, etc. are all important and on the table. The discussions such as the one in this thread help me, for one, to hear arguments from both sides and try to formulate my own INFORMED opinion.

If Hannity (who is not to be taken seriously and is a joke to many people) raised the same issues, those issues would deserve the same debate.

Get off the ad homs and with the program.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe. Maybe not. But that is not what is being discussed here. The issues raised about WMDs, foreign policy, etc. are all important and on the table. The discussions such as the one in this thread help me, for one, to hear arguments from both sides and try to formulate my own INFORMED opinion.

I agree however the thread title is "what Ariana thinks" which I think invites a response and I would like to go on record as saying that it is difficult for me to imagine anyone caring what Ariana thinks. I'm not personally convinced that she does. And if a thread was started about ins-Hannity you can damn sure bet his mental abilities would be discussed as well it should be IF we are going to consider what he thinks. The guy couldn't rub together two thin dimes if logic where his profession. That doesn't mean he is wrong but it is a good idea to question whether he should be taken seriously. I don't like Arianna and I didn't like her when she spouted right-leaning rhetoric. That doesn't make her wrong but her inability to figure out just what the hell she thinks is a reason not to take her seriously. As for all of the rest, carry on.

 

[Dan Beaird]

The amount that the president alleged Iraq to posses. Hell, even half that.

And just exactly how many WMD's is that? Personally I don't recall dubya giving numbers.

Ahh, so the CIA was right all along.

Nope, they were just as wrong as everybody else. We're on another tack here, because I'll be one of the first to say that the CIA had, and probably still has, more problems than anybody knows how to fix. We might be better off starting over from scratch.

Yes it was, but I don't think for a second that Bush was sincere in waiting for the UN to make a final judgment. He was just using the UN as a pretext to make his war.

You'll never lose money betting against the sincerity of politicians. At the same time it seems that every country against the war (and the UN itself) was using their position as a pretext to make money at the expense of the Iraqi people.

I'm afraid the UN can never be the final arbiter of any issue which touches on the security concerns (real or perceived) of any state. They don't have the credibility, moral authority or muscle.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Bush

The comment about needing to have a war to have a great presidency comes from Bush himself in private conversations.

So if it was a private conversation, how did you hear it? Maybe you heard it from Idiot Lew?

Believe it or don't.

We don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

How? How is people refusing to do what they're told "undemocratic"?

It is undemocratic to have a small portion of the population which is not democratically elected OR accountable to the rest of the public have a greater influence on government policy than everyone else. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't recognize this, since you don't really believe in democracy.

Unlike you, I'm not under any illusions as to the true workings of our oligarchic system.

I hear you, man! Like, totally. The man's just keeping us down. That's why they don't want us to know that you can make a car that runs off of vegetable oil! And you can make rope from hemp! But they don't want you to know that, because the MAN has got to have his corporate profits! It's an oligarchy, man!

Wow, that was some good pot.

Why not? It's proven to be the case more often then not. Look at how Germany was fooled by Hitler and the Nazis. I think it's unrealistic for you to expect the general public to be able to detect and counter-act the sophisticated propaganda to which they are often subjected. I don't think that's the fault of the public, it’s the fault of the government/leaders/politicians.

What an eletist and arrogant argument. What you're saying is basically an argument FOR an oligarchy, with the only proviso being that you want good leaders not bad ones. Rubbish.

And it's also based on a deep (though unfortunately not too uncommon) historical misunderstanding. Hitler, as well as EVERY SINGLE DESPOT that has EVER ruled, came to power through violence. There isn't a SINGLE dictator who didn't need to use violence to suppress political opposition. Without that violence towards his opposition, Hitler would never have risen to power. Germany wasn't fooled so much as intimidated, and the Nazis could never control Germany without that constant imposition of fear on their own population. It is indeed shameful that so few resisted, and so many actively aided. But you're blinding yourself if you attribute it all to propaganda, and ignore the absolutely critical role of intimidation.

And you can whine all you want to about propaganda in the US, but there is no real intimidation going on here, and people get exposed to propaganda from all sides. Unlike you, I trust that the general public can sort things out. If you DON'T believe they can, then you really don't believe in democracy, because that's the only context in which democracy can function.

 

[Tony]

It is undemocratic to have a small portion of the population which is not democratically elected OR accountable to the rest of the public have a greater influence on government policy than everyone else.

I agree, that is why I am against special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporations having more access than the general citizen, but how do soildiers being able to refuse orders match this criteria?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you can't recognize this, since you don't really believe in democracy.

Translation: You don't think like me, therefor you don't believe in democracy.

I hear you, man! Like, totally. The man's just keeping us down. That's why they don't want us to know that you can make a car that runs off of vegetable oil! And you can make rope from hemp! But they don't want you to know that, because the MAN has got to have his corporate profits! It's an oligarchy, man!

Wow, that was some good pot.

That's right, just wave a little american flag and everything will be ok.

What an eletist and arrogant argument.

Damn, if my argument, in your view, is elitist and arrogant, you're argument must be pure white trash.

What you're saying is basically an argument FOR an oligarchy

Non-sequitor, and a silly one at that. How is recognizing the need for an educated general public that can see through the BS foised upon them by government and politicians an argument for oligarchy? Why do you want to enshrine ignorance as the national ideology?

And it's also based on a deep (though unfortunately not too uncommon) historical misunderstanding. Hitler, as well as EVERY SINGLE DESPOT that has EVER ruled, came to power through violence.

I got news for you genius. Pretty much every single government, democratic or despotic, came to power through violence.

There isn't a SINGLE dictator who didn't need to use violence to suppress political opposition.

There isn't a single government that doesn't need to use violence to suppress opposition. Either domestically or abroad.

Without that violence towards his opposition, Hitler would never have risen to power. Germany wasn't fooled so much as intimidated, and the Nazis could never control Germany without that constant imposition of fear on their own population. It is indeed shameful that so few resisted, and so many actively aided. But you're blinding yourself if you attribute it all to propaganda, and ignore the absolutely critical role of intimidation.

Sorry, I forgot intimidation.

All governments use it to enforce their will.

You're making my argument, that government must use coercive tactics to get what it wants, for me.

And you can whine all you want to about propaganda in the US, but there is no real intimidation going on here

Yes there is. It's just not as bad as other countries and ignorant people, not like you of course, buy into because they've been fooled into respecting the "legality" of it.

and people get exposed to propaganda from all sides.

Duh.

Unlike you, I trust that the general public can sort things out.

Care to back it up with evidence?

If you DON'T believe they can, then you really don't believe in democracy, because that's the only context in which democracy can function.

Another non sequitur. Since I recognize the weaknesses of human psychology I must not believe in democracy. That's almost stupid enough to qualify for Sean Hannity.

 

[Ziggurat]

There isn't a single government that doesn't need to use violence to suppress opposition. Either domestically or abroad.

Now you're conflating the various forms of opposition. An invading army is not the equivalent of an opposition party. The US does not use violence to suppress POLITICAL opposition. Every dictatorship does. Are you really so blinded that you can't recognize that difference? Or did it not matter to you that there was a difference, as long as pretending there wasn't let you attack my position?

 

[Tony]

The US does not use violence to suppress POLITICAL opposition.

It has and still does. A recent example would be when the government threw Tommy Chong in jail.

Every dictatorship does.

Yes, and most governments.

Are you really so blinded that you can't recognize that difference?

I can recognize it. But it is a matter of degree. Why must you use to the bottom of the barrel as your metric? I criticize and you compare/contrast the USA to a dictatorship. It's sad that you have such low standards for this country.

Or did it not matter to you that there was a difference, as long as pretending there wasn't let you attack my position?

Say what?

 

[Ziggurat]

It has and still does. A recent example would be when the government threw Tommy Chong in jail.

No, he got thrown in jail for breaking a law which doesn't address political activity (or are you going to argue that selling bongs is really political action?). I happen to think the law is stupid, but that's a different matter. Had he been thrown in jail for denouncing the law, for trying to get it repealed, or for campaigning against politicians who enact or support such laws, then that would be a political jailing.

But I guess I was closer to the truth than I thought when I made that pot joke.

I can recognize it. But it is a matter of degree. Why must you use to the bottom of the barrel as your metric? I criticize and you compare/contrast the USA to a dictatorship. It's sad that you have such low standards for this country.

YOU are the one who started the USA/dictatorship comparison when you brought up Germany and Hitler, trying to argue that the public could be easily deceived. And now you're attacking me for having low standards in comparing the two because I blew a hole in YOUR comparison? Or can you not even keep track of your own train of thought? Maybe it's a memory loss thing. I hear pot can do that.

 

[Tony]

No, he got thrown in jail for breaking a law which doesn't address political activity

That is a cop out. People in dictatorships get thrown in jail and tortured for breaking laws too. Saddam gassed the Kurds for breaking his laws.

(or are you going to argue that selling bongs is really political action?).

Yes it is.

I happen to think the law is stupid, but that's a different matter.

Not really. It's a political opinion for which, if you dared to act upon, you'd get thrown in jail.

Had he been thrown in jail for denouncing the law

Which he did.

YOU are the one who started the USA/dictatorship comparison when you brought up Germany and Hitler, trying to argue that the public could be easily deceived.

It wasn't really a comparison per se. I was just bringing up an example of when a government fooled it's citizens.

And now you're attacking me for having low standards in comparing the two because I blew a hole in YOUR comparison?

You didn't blow a hole in my comparison, you only addressed one comment. And, your comment about "Are you really so blinded that you can't recognize that difference?" stunk of the same attitude-often demonstrated by "right-wingers"- that asserts America is good because it isn't as bad as a dictatorship. I was addressing that attitude. I might of been hasty in my judgment by attributing that attitude to what you were saying, if so, my mistake.

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Bush

So if it was a private conversation, how did you hear it? Maybe you heard it from Idiot Lew?


We don't.

We??? You and the gang? What is this compulsion to be one of the guys? Here are just a few of the columnists who contribute to Lew Rockwell. You may have heard of one or two. And, of course, their all idiots. You're real smart, but they're all idiots.

Becky Akers
William Anderson
John Attarian
Uri Avnery
Jørn K. Baltzersen
Sabine Barnhart
Bill Barnwell
Tom Barry
Milton Batiste
Stephen Bender
Steve Benson
Walter Block
Robert Blumen
Burton S. Blumert
Alan Bock
Bill Bonner
James Bovard
Gregory Bresiger
Peter Brimelow
Allison Brown
Harry Browne
Pat Buchanan
Gene Callahan
Stephen Carson
Doug Casey
Steve Chapman
Tom Chartier
Alexander Cockburn
Richard Cohen
Wally Conger
Sean Corrigan
George Crispin
H.W. Crocker, III
Richard Cummings
Karen De Coster
Cathy Cuthbert
David Dieteman
Thomas DiLorenzo
Brian Doherty
Shadia B. Drury
Brian Dunaway
Richard Ebeling
Brad Edmonds
Tom Engelhardt
Eric Englund
Marcus Epstein
Charles H. Featherstone
Humberto Fontova
Doug French
Michael Gaddy
James Glaser
David Gordon
Paul Gottfried
Andrew Greeley
Steven Greenhut
Anthony Gregory
Jim Grichar
David H. Hackworth
Leon Hadar
Franklin Harris
Paul Hein
David Henderson
Nat Hentoff
Robert Higgs
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Jacob Hornberger
J.H. Huebert
Gail Jarvis
Myles Kantor
Jack Kenny
Casey Khan
Stephan Kinsella
R. Cort Kirkwood
Robert Klassen
Karen Kwiatkowski
Steven LaTulippe
Ron Liebermann
William Lind
Jim Lobe
Roderick T. Long
John Lott
Tibor Machan
Christopher Manion
Eric Margolis
Ronald M. Maxwell
Daniel McCarthy
Wendy McElroy
Ryan McMaken
Linda McQuaig
Ilana Mercer
Donald W. Miller, Jr.
Joel Miller
Michael Moore
Stu Morgenstern
Alexander Moseley
Bob Murphy
Stephanie R. Murphy
Patricia Neill
Gary North
Robert Novak
Jane Orient, MD
James Ostrowski
Camille Paglia
Norman Patterson
Ron Paul
Michael Peirce
Greg Perry
John M. Peters
John Pilger
Richard Poe
Murray Polner
Gordon Prather
Ralph Raico
Justin Raimondo
Ted Rall
Fred Reed
Charley Reese
Morgan Reynolds
Ralph R. Reiland
Frank Rich
Carey Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts
Lew Rockwell
Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers
Michael S. Rose
Michael S. Rozeff
Chantal K. Saucier
P. Andrew Sandlin
Jeremy Sapienza
Bill Sardi
Hans Sennholz
Butler Shaffer
Robert Scheer
Cindy Sheehan
Joseph Sobran
Norman Solomon
Thomas Sowell
Carlo Stagnaro
Russ Stein
Dale Steinreich
Joseph Stromberg
Jacob Sullum
Vin Suprynowicz
Linda Schrock Taylor
Mark Thornton
Tom the Dancing Bug
Tom Tomorrow
H. Arthur Scott Trask
Jeffrey Tucker
Laurence M. Vance
Marcus Verhaegh
Bill Walker
Richard Wall
Jude Wanniski
Roland Watson
Christopher Westley
Tom White
Walter Williams
Clyde Wilson
James Leroy Wilson
Lawrence S. Wittner
Thomas Woods
Miles Woolley
Steven Yates
Adam Young
Andrew Young
Kevin Zeese

 

[Ziggurat]

That is a cop out. People in dictatorships get thrown in jail and tortured for breaking laws too. Saddam gassed the Kurds for breaking his laws.

You're in top appologist form today, I see. In the case of the most famous gas attack on a Kurdish village, a number of Kurdish fighters retreated into the village. They were arguably breaking Saddam's laws. The civilian population, however, was not. The use of chemical weapons against the town was a deliberate decision to kill those civilians along with the fighters. How you can pretend that this act can even be treated as enforcing laws is beyond me. You consistently fail to recognize or acknowledge true evil, and your obsession with using true acts of evil to try and tar the US in general and Bush in particular only serves to trivialize the truly great crimes of our age.

More broadly speaking, there are differences between laws which ban political activity and laws which ban non-political activity. Banning bongs is stupid, and it is perhaps an invasion of privacy, but it is NOT an act of POLITICAL repression. Chong is in jail because he's an idiot, not because he's a political activist.

And, your comment about "Are you really so blinded that you can't recognize that difference?" stunk of the same attitude-often demonstrated by "right-wingers"- that asserts America is good because it isn't as bad as a dictatorship.

Strawman. I have never made that claim, and I don't know anyone else here who has. You, on the other hand, HAVE made the claim that America is barely better than dictatorships. And you act surprised that someone would take exception to that characterization? No, America may not be perfect, but we are among the best countries in the world when it comes to freedom and justice, and THE best when it comes to spreading those values across the globe.

IIRC, you used to list your location as Texas. Is that still where you are, or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

[Tony]

You're in top appologist form today, I see.

LOL. It's telling that you interpret YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS used to support laws and acts you disagree with as "appologist". For the record, I do not support the gassing of people, regardless of the law. Any allegations of apologizing for such acts are merely ad hom attacks.

In the case of the most famous gas attack on a Kurdish village, a number of Kurdish fighters retreated into the village. They were arguably breaking Saddam's laws. The civilian population, however, was not. The use of chemical weapons against the town was a deliberate decision to kill those civilians along with the fighters. How you can pretend that this act can even be treated as enforcing laws is beyond me.

Yes, I'm painfully aware that it's beyond you.

You consistently fail to recognize or acknowledge true evil.

No I don't. I perfectly understand that it's evil. That's why I use it to show that your "breaking the law" mantra is bogus.

and your obsession with using true acts of evil to try and tar the US in general and Bush in particular only serves to trivialize the truly great crimes of our age.

If you think those acts are trivialized by something I said, you need to reevaluate where you truly stand on the issue and the commitment you have to the principles you claim to stand for.

There is absolutely nothing I can say or do that would objectively trivialize such atrocities.

More broadly speaking, there are differences between laws which ban political activity and laws which ban non-political activity. Banning bongs is stupid, and it is perhaps an invasion of privacy, but it is NOT an act of POLITICAL repression.

Yes it is.

Strawman. I have never made that claim, and I don't know anyone else here who has.

LOL.

"Strawman".

Bwahahahahahahahaha. I said myself I might have been hasty in making that judgement and you cry "strawman".

You, on the other hand, HAVE made the claim that America is barely better than dictatorships.

I did? Where? Nevermind, it's clear you're lying.

Let me say now that America is a lot better than dictatorships.

No, America may not be perfect, but we are among the best countries in the world when it comes to freedom and justice

Evidence please?

and THE best when it comes to spreading those values across the globe.

Again, evidence?

you used to list your location as Texas. Is that still where you are, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Why do you want to know?

 

[Ziggurat]

I did? Where? Nevermind, it's clear you're lying.

Let me say now that America is a lot better than dictatorships.

That's not what you said recently in another thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60469
You stated (near the bottom of the page):
"In terms of justice and personal freedom, this country is just a few steps better than a tin-pot dictatorship."

My claim: "You, on the other hand, HAVE made the claim that America is barely better than dictatorships."

Let the weaseling begin.

 

[Dan Beaird]

quote: Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, America may not be perfect, but we are among the best countries in the world when it comes to freedom and justice

Originally posted by Tony:

Evidence please?

Combined Average Ratings - Independent Countries

You're so far to the left you've fallen off your rocker Tony.