And what exactly would be his actual point? Because I was under the impression that this thread was about the recent elections in Spain and that PharmBoy posted
I must be missing something so please explain to me. Can you please point me to what European here was telling the USA how to defend itself and how the USA should ask Europe’s opinion before they do anything? And while I have your attention, is Spain required to consult with the USA or does it enjoy independence to decide?
Eva Luna, I do not know what mental image you have of me but my tongue can do wonders. . . and I’m willing to prove it
In the same document the terrorists demand two things and one is true while the other one is the opposite of what they really want. How are we to know what they really want so we can yield to their demands? Thank goodness we have the CIA to tell us what the terrorists really mean. I am guessing Bin Laden is really a woman with PMS and that is why she says something when she means the opposite and we are expected to know exactly what she means or else she will kill us. It really explains everything.
I gotta admit, this post of yours is pretty cool. You try to get me involved in responding to an inaccurate interpretation of someone else’s post, and you hit on someone at the same time. Pretty cool!
And, since you said please, I’m tempted to try to answer you but I really think I would be out of line to do so. I would be in effect putting words in **Pharmboy’s ** mouth, and perhaps attributing certain meanings in ways other than he would prefer to do. So, as much as I’m tempted, I’m going to have to decline. I’m sure **Pharmboy ** can explain himself if he’s inclined to.
I’m just showing that I am always willing to put my mouth where my mouth is
Um, no, I am not asking you to explain his post but yours. YOU said some things about what I said and I am asking you to explain what you said. You said my post was “response you get is a sarcastic insinuation that you said something entirely different than what you actually said, in the hope of getting you bogged down in defending yourself and diluting your actual point”. Please justify why my response was a “sarcastic insinuation that he said something totally different … etc etc” I am not asking you what he said but what you said about my post.
Fair enough, but I doubt you’ll find my answer satisfying.
He said: “I’m so fucking sick of you Europeans telling us how we ought to be defending ourselves, and how we should always ask your opinion before we do anything.”
The first sentence of your response to his original post was: "I must have missed the part of the election in Spain which was about telling America how to defend itself. "
I’ve already said this, but nowhere did he say “the election in Spain was about telling America how to defend itself.”
He was telling the “young punks” that history shows appeasement doesn’t work. He was also expressing his disgust with the belief prevalent in certain quarters that the U.S. should seek approval from other countries before it takes action it deems to be in it’s own defense, and that the U.S. shouldn’t take take that action unless it’s approved by other countries, countries that by and large are inclined to take a peace at any price stance, and who would be opposed to the use of force even when only force would work. He seems to believe that the U.S. should pursue whatever course of action it deems best, particularly in light of 9/11, and if any other country doesn’t approve or want to join us, we should tell 'em to stuff it and proceed in our own defense.
When I pointed out he didn’t say what you said he did, you then responded that you were “under the impression that this thread was about the recent elections in Spain,” implying that that his comment must therefore have been in regard to the election when he was clearly stating a general complaint about how certain people feel we should proceed in matters of national security. Many people on this thread offer sidebar comments that pertain to matters other than strictly one subject. I think it should be obvious to anyone that he wasn’t speaking of the election per se.
i am wrong in assuming that would be referring to anyone or anything said in this thread and it is not directed at anyone in this thread. It is obvious to you that he is directing that at other Europeans he has encountered elsewhere and it is totally unrelated to anything posted here? He probably intended to start another thread and posted here by mistake? That is what you think?
Well, I don’t interpret it that way. I interpret he is talking to us here in this thread and when he says Europeans are telling America how it should defend itself I can safely assume he is talking about something posted here. If he is merely ranting about something unrelated he should start another thread and not hijack this one.
In any case for you to jump on my post requires quite some tortured logic.
Cool! You just proved my point better than I ever could, which is good because I’m not going to spend another 15 or 20 minutes responding to all the holes in this post.
History also shows that people with opinions about everything and no real facts to back them up tend to be among the least well regarded individuals for obvious reasons. Also, the socialist government in Spain is not ‘appeasing’ the terrorists just because it has chosen to go take a different avenue than the United States. Your idea that the United States’ strategy in fighting terrorism is the only possible one is ludicrous. :rolleyes:
You just proved my point better than I ever could, which is good because I’m not going to spend another 15 or 20 minutes responding to all the holes in this post. You are a fucking idiot, in the same league as the OP.
Okay, I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here:
1.) Since you’re going to such pains to defend him, you agree with the position you’ve said that he was espousing.
2.) By the US “defending itself”, you are referring to the US invasion of Iraq, and you believe that this constitutes the US defending itself from terrorism.
So, if these assumptons are correct, my question to you is this: In light of the fact that all the reasons given by the Bush admnistration prior to the war have turned out to be false—no WMDs, no provable links to Al Qaeda, no “imminent threat”—how do you justify the war as “self-defense”?
Yes well this is the nub. By ratification of the UN Charter into US Law you have given up the right to take action you, solely, “deem to be in (your) own defence.” That’s right - it is supposed to be only with the approval of the UN Security Council which the US did not have - approval of other countries. Now hey, you can do otherwise if your administration risks is happy to risk being arrested and tried for War Crimes, same goes for my UK administration. Just do not be surprised if you get villified by the international community for doing so.
You can only take such action in “self-defence” under Art.51. By the precidents created by previous US administrations. Specifically I am thinking in relation to the Cuban Missile Crisis - where real evidence of WMD was ctually involved - when to quote Abram Chaynes (Legal Adviser to the State Department at the time) “an article 51 defence would have signalled that the United States did not take the legal issues involved very seriously, that in it’s view the situation was to be governed by national discretion, not international law.”
Now the UN could have authorised military action, by would have chosen not to for the very reasons that have been shown to be the case - lack of good evidence of WMD, and lack of evidence of any linkage between Iraq and international terrorism, in particuar AQ.
Blow this all off if you like on the basis of the US are too powerful for us to stop doing whatever the hell they like - but that is why your current administation is despised.
Thanks, guys. I’m now laughing so hard that my co-workers now think I am completely insane. More than they already did, anyway.
You know, these last few posts are rather thought-provoking. I think the ancient Greeks had it right, Aristophanes in particular. Why is the language of war so closely related to the language of the bedroom? All this talk of surrender and capitulation…it makes me think that men had a greater hand than women in the development of that area of language.
If you haven’t before, please read Aristophanes’ classic Lysistrata. Plot summary:
I’m also starting to see some similarities between Iraq and GD. Both are just so chock-full of testosterone at the moment, it’s painful to watch; excess testosterone and heavy weaponry, whether literal or verbal, are a really bad combination.
Maybe what the women of Iraq need to do is boycott their marital duties (hey, I just almost typed “martial” instead of “marital.” Coincidence? Maybe not entirely). And maybe some of the folks in this thread could stand to get laid. You know who you are.
Not that I would ascribe such an interpretation to your post (because that would be putting words in your mouth), but previously on this message board a statement such as yours above has usually translated as “I have no further rebuttals but can’t possibly admit it, so I’ll pretend that the whole thing is too ridiculous to respond to and hope nobody notices.”
However, I’m sure that this is not the case with you, and that you will be happy to elaborate upon the various holes in sailor’s post (I almost wrote “on sailor’s holes” :eek: ) when you have more free time, if only to prevent this erroneous assumption from gaining any ground.
