IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[Collegeboy]

No I am not, but you sure seem like you are. You know that judging an event using Hindsight is bad. As for the rest, you know that the general public is generally ignorant (Again not meaning stupid, just not informed). So what you are arguing against is stupid. Oh I am not pissing on your experience. I am pissing on your lack of experience in that certain area we are talking about (What makes a terrorist, hatred towards the average Americans in foreign countries etc...)

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No I am not, but you sure seem like you are. You know that judging an event using Hindsight is bad. As for the rest, you know that the general public is generally ignorant (Again not meaning stupid, just not informed). So what you are arguing against is stupid. Oh I am not pissing on your experience. I am pissing on your lack of experience in that certain area we are talking about (What makes a terrorist, hatred towards the average Americans in foreign countries etc...)

No, that is not what you are doing. Sorry. Keep arguing it though. You may be able to further convince yourself.

The BEST way to judge an event is with Hindsight since you have all the information to pull from. LOL Every one of your “arguments” about history use hindsight. So, you are now saying that your arguments are bad (which they are, but for a different reason) because they use hindsight?

Don’t tell me what I know or don’t know… you have a real bad habit of doing that.

You were riding a peek in the wave of at least cleaver arguing points if not totally factual or correct… now you are sliding down the other side of the rise. And you keep sliding faster with each post now.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

No, that is not what you are doing. Sorry. Keep arguing it though. You may be able to further convince yourself.

The BEST way to judge an event is with Hindsight since you have all the information to pull from. LOL Every one of your “arguments” about history use hindsight. So, you are now saying that your arguments are bad (which they are, but for a different reason) because they use hindsight?

Don’t tell me what I know or don’t know… you have a real bad habit of doing that.

You were riding a peek in the wave of at least cleaver arguing points if not totally factual or correct… now you are sliding down the other side of the rise. And you keep sliding faster with each post now.

I am not telling you anything, I am showing you how your experiences that you say you have don’t lend with the debate we are having.

History is one thing, hindsight is another. To judge a person or an event on what we know today is bad, for there is no way that person knew then what we know now.

Are there any more stupid things you want to argue?

[Trench]

I made a thread about it but it will get deleted I bet...

President ordered that the inspectors leave Iraq... HERE WE COME!

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not telling you anything, I am showing you how your experiences that you say you have don’t lend with the debate we are having.

History is one thing, hindsight is another. To judge a person or an event on what we know today is bad, for there is no way that person knew then what we know now.

Are there any more stupid things you want to argue?

You are showing me? LOL You can’t begin to show me what you don’t know. I told you time and again that I have had indepth conversations with foreign nationals about their views and feelings on the military and America in general. But you want to ignore that and only profess that I know about one side of the issue because I may (or may not) have been a uniformed soldier at the time. You want to always skew things to best fit your arguments no matter if they are factual or not.

And I will tell you outright that your books and second hand knowledge actually lend LESS to the debate than anyone else’s first hand knowledge… even it theirs is not the FULL story. At least they HAVE one, where you have NONE.

Looking at historical events using both the information they had available at the time, and with what we know now IS good. And that is still hindsight. To claim others are using information not available at the time when it is clear they are not is stupid, and only goes to show a pattern of yours…. If you don’t agree with something, it does not matter where it comes from, how valid it is, how factual it is, you just claim it isn’t valid and somehow think that makes it so. LOL

And ad for stupid things I want to argue about….. kiss my rear…. long and hard. When you want to argue something or say something and someone points out how you waffle depending on how you want to see things, DEAL WITH IT, or shut up. It is pretty simple.

Oh, but I forgot that you blame the reaction, not the cause…. And that includes if the cause was your own words.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
To judge a person or an event on what we know today is bad, for there is no way that person knew then what we know now.

Are there any more stupid things you want to argue?

you seem to have that part of the debate all wrapped up.

what utter gibberish.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Alot of people call them Nazi Death Camps. I am surprised you haven't heard it called that. The general public isn't really informed enough to make a fair and correct assessment. Why do you think they call it playing to the ignorance of the populace? Why do you think Ike never voted tell after he was President, he didn't think the people should vote for they were and could never be fairly informed.

You are plaing a game of semantics! Of course I have heard the term Nazi Death Camp. That is not the generaly accepted term for them though. You are spouting Palestinian Propaganda by calling them "Concentration Camps"! You seem quite biased in this argument!


Before you start throwing out the word Palestine remember that not all Palestinians are represented by these terrorist groups. Palestinians themselves are not terrorist but certain groups in them are.

Actually they are. Their elected leaders did not seek to stop the violence, rather they encouraged the Intifada. Al Asqua Martyrs Brigade is an arm of Arafat's own Fatah party. So yes, they are represented by these terrorist organizations. Are there a great many people on both sides who crave peace? I am sure there are. But until both sides elect leadership that wants peace, it will not happen!

France is an industrialized country. They are a major power. And no the Eu shouldn't get a seat that would give countries like Germany two votes, that is almost like giving a vote to the Council of the Americas (I think that is its name)


Huh? In whose eyes? They are a nation in decline. Also, If you gave the EU the Veto and vote, you would take away them individual member states vote, duh? BTW who is a more major power: Germany, Japan, or France?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


machinery: make the cheese.

chemicals: make the cheese taste good.

automobiles: drive the cheese around.

metallurgy: to make the metal used to make cheese machines, airplanes and cars to drive the cheese around.

aircraft: to fly the cheese around.

electronics: cheese testing?

textiles: easy, cheesecloth.

food processing: eating cheese.

tourism: show everyone the cheese.

ROFLOL!

Come on College Boy this had to give even you a laugh!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

You are showing me? LOL You can’t begin to show me what you don’t know. I told you time and again that I have had indepth conversations with foreign nationals about their views and feelings on the military and America in general. But you want to ignore that and only profess that I know about one side of the issue because I may (or may not) have been a uniformed soldier at the time. You want to always skew things to best fit your arguments no matter if they are factual or not.

And I will tell you outright that your books and second hand knowledge actually lend LESS to the debate than anyone else’s first hand knowledge… even it theirs is not the FULL story. At least they HAVE one, where you have NONE.

Looking at historical events using both the information they had available at the time, and with what we know now IS good. And that is still hindsight. To claim others are using information not available at the time when it is clear they are not is stupid, and only goes to show a pattern of yours…. If you don’t agree with something, it does not matter where it comes from, how valid it is, how factual it is, you just claim it isn’t valid and somehow think that makes it so. LOL

And ad for stupid things I want to argue about….. kiss my rear…. long and hard. When you want to argue something or say something and someone points out how you waffle depending on how you want to see things, DEAL WITH IT, or shut up. It is pretty simple.

Oh, but I forgot that you blame the reaction, not the cause…. And that includes if the cause was your own words.

I don't know where you get that I skew information to suit my views, that is the far from the truth. I take in both sides information and make an educated guess as to what will happen, as to what has happened and so forth. I see the Israelis just as guilty as I see the Palestinians, no bias there. Your first hand experience would lend greatly if it wasn't skewed by your situation or other events. And judging from your responses I have more knowledge of the situation then you do. You can look at what we know today and what they knew then, but to judge the person because of it is stupid and is irresponsible research. I don't blame nothing, you some how like to keep saying that. But when you talk about basic feelings of the people on the ground, like I am, when you are talking about them and you say blame, you are saying they blame this and they blame that. Not I blame this and I blame that. Get it.

1de. I am not playing a semantics game. I showed you what the word concentration camp is. What ever meaning you put to it is your own fault, not mine. I used the word correctly. Can the PLO stop the violence? I don't think they can without allowing Israel to bomb settlements which will only allow more violence to erupt. You have to understand the situation over there before you render a judgment. I don't understand it completely, I never will, that is why I don't blame either side, but place blame on both sides.

You wouldn't even be worrying about France if they didn't stand up to the US and say no. Props to them for doing so.

[aaron_mag]

Once again the wife stopped me from being bent over the computer debating with you guys all night. I had to watch Irish Folk Dancing (ARRRRGGHHHHH the horror. Wait a sec. Those women actually had nice legs so it wasn't so bad)

Now back to our fray....

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
This is a great article CPhil. Can you find the direct US Government reports that these facts came from? Not questioning the facts at all. I am completely on board France strictly being selfish in this matter. However I want to beat CollegeBoy and others from attacking your post stating that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. The original data sources will disarm them before they can attack those facts!

Took the words right out of my mouth. So what. It wasn't like this was a big secret. Can it be that votes in our own legislative branches (and even the President) have something to do with special interest groups and lobbyists? Say it isn't so. The fact is, however, that this is the ultimate source of checks and balances. I'll bet, however, that all of these countries make much more money off of trade with the U.S. I'll bet that a compromised resolution could have been reached to make them agree to a follow up resolution agreeing to military force if certain steps were not met. I also bet that Saddam would have been forced into compliance when he these trading partners started putting the screws to him (which they would have). To quote a presidential candidate the most powerful country in the world (US) cannot afford to continue to have the weakest diplomacy in its history.

I am all for a peaceful solution. When the Palestinians were dealing with a dove PM in Israel, instead of taking advantage and negotiating for a land of their own, they start the Intifada. Things were looking pretty good for the Palestinians before this began. They were receiving a lot of international aid. They had just opened their own international airport. The Palestinian Authority was collecting taxes from it's constituents. They were on their way to real peace and then some knuckle head had to go and start the Intifada. I stated the thing about Ghandi because it was possible then. Now, I just don't know anymore.

I agree with you here. If Palestinians took the example of Ghandi and Mandela Israel would be in real trouble. The international community would start putting the screws on them fast! Hopefully something like this will catch on. It would really be the best thing for them.

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
I have no interest in repeating the mistakes of the past, and putting my country at further risk from a bunch of dirty nightshirt wearing savages who want to kill all of us.

Sounds very similar to the militant fundamentalist views expoused about us. I think you will agree that the U.S. as the world leader must be above this sort of thinking and prejudices.

[Jack_Dubious]

Here is a list I found of...
The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program

courtesy of The Memory Hole, one of my new favorite sites.


JDub

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not playing a semantics game. I showed you what the word concentration camp is. What ever meaning you put to it is your own fault, not mine. I used the word correctly. Can the PLO stop the violence? I don't think they can without allowing Israel to bomb settlements which will only allow more violence to erupt. You have to understand the situation over there before you render a judgment. I don't understand it completely, I never will, that is why I don't blame either side, but place blame on both sides.

Well. I stayed out for another few pages. But I can't let this go. I'll get to the semantics "argument" later. But do you realize you just said that you A) have to understand the situtation over there before makeing a judgement, B) State that you don't understand it, and then C) make a judgement? Did you follow that? And I still haven't seen you provide one shred of anything remotely approching relevent proof to any of your claims.

Ok now to semantics. If I say I want to light a ***got (slang for homosexual) on fire. Chances are you and most of the world will assume I mean a gay guy. But I mean a small chunk of wood. It's your fault you misunderstood, not mine. When I first read this I thought this was a pretty freakin dumb stance to take. Now I realize it's not even a stance. It's just freakin dumb.

EDITED: Improper spacing and to not be as rude.

[Collegeboy]

To the first I wasn't picking a side or making a judgment as to who is right and who is wrong. I am simple saying for know I place blame on both side equally until I can fully understand or get a better understanding of it.

To the second, a concentration camp is just that, a concentration camp. If you want to be specific about the holocaust ones you can use their names, you can say Nazi Death Camps, you can say Nazi Concentration Camps, you can say a number of things. But just saying concentration camp doesn't imply you mean the holocaust.

[ShooterJM]

Go up to people and ask what's the first thing people think of when they hear the term "concentration camp". Didja do that yet? I did. I asked 50 people, in bars, at work, etc. Guess what. ALL 50 SAID HOLOCAUST. And when I explained your argument, all 50 also thought it was quite humorous and ridiculas. So I repeat.

Originally posted by ShooterJM
When I first read this I thought this was a pretty freakin dumb stance to take. Now I realize it's not even a stance. It's just freakin dumb.

And I'll add: If you want to appear intelligent, try staying away from postions like that.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Sounds very similar to the militant fundamentalist views expoused about us. I think you will agree that the U.S. as the world leader must be above this sort of thinking and prejudices.

I was until 9-11.

after that all bets are off when it comes to my country's security.

and I called terrorists a bunch of dirty night shirt wearing savages....

OH MY GAWD HOW UNFEELING OF ME.

guess what? I'd like all of them to die too.

see, I have no need to understand them. I have no need to know why they hate me and my country.

all I need know is they want to kill, rape, murder and destroy my country, my neighbors and my family.

all I need know is exactly where they are so that we may exterminate them.

like the roaches they are.

end of story.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
Go up to people and ask what's the first thing people think of when they hear the term "concentration camp". Didja do that yet? I did. I asked 50 people, in bars, at work, etc. Guess what. ALL 50 SAID HOLOCAUST. And when I explained your argument, all 50 also thought it was quite humorous and ridiculas. So I repeat.


And I'll add: If you want to appear intelligent, try staying away from postions like that.

Does that mean anything no. The word concentration camp is different from a death camp. The two are thought of to be the same but is far from it. What is so hard about that. I guess the ingorance of the population goes into effect.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Does that mean anything no. The word concentration camp is different from a death camp. The two are thought of to be the same but is far from it. What is so hard about that. I guess the ingorance of the population goes into effect.

You can play these semantics games all you want. We KNOW what the meaning of concentration camp is, and we KNOW how you and others INTEND the meaning to be. The connotation of the title “concentration camp” will forever be linked to the images of mass murder and unspeakable horrors committed in the German concentration camps of WWII. And this is why you used it as well as those you talk of do. You can play your games and act all indignant if you like, but spouting off about the ignorance of the general public will not save you this time… but a simple apology could have from the beginning. You are now holding on to dictionary definitions just to be a jerk, and this does not go unnoticed.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Does that mean anything no. The word concentration camp is different from a death camp. The two are thought of to be the same but is far from it. What is so hard about that. I guess the ingorance of the population goes into effect.

Hehehehehe did you just skip over that cute little example I gave? Or does it require further explanation? The term concentration camp was coined in 1901, death camp in 1944. However, the terms are used interchangably. I'd suggest typing concentration camp into Google. See what pops up...I'm guessing Dachau or Aushwitz.

When debating definition of terms is paramount. If a word means something to EVERYONE, then it's not easily redefined, especially when it's emotionally charged. Despite what you and merriem-webster say. Hence my argument on the word ***got.

Hold tight to your argument son, hold it fast. Can't let it slip away......

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

You can play these semantics games all you want. We KNOW what the meaning of concentration camp is, and we KNOW how you and others INTEND the meaning to be. The connotation of the title “concentration camp” will forever be linked to the images of mass murder and unspeakable horrors committed in the German concentration camps of WWII. And this is why you used it as well as those you talk of do. You can play your games and act all indignant if you like, but spouting off about the ignorance of the general public will not save you this time… but a simple apology could have from the beginning. You are now holding on to dictionary definitions just to be a jerk, and this does not go unnoticed.

No, I told you what it is meant to be used as. I typed it; I should know what I meant it as. I meant it as a concentration camp, a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions. Funny no where on dictionary.com do they say death camp, or for example Nazi holocaust or anything. But you type in death camp, and it says a concentration camp in which those held captive are likely to die or be killed. So guess what, a concentration camp is a generic term. Would you all like to care on with your stupid rant?

Under your word it says your definition but also the definition of homosexual men.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
and I called terrorists a bunch of dirty night shirt wearing savages....

Your first statementment did not seem to be against terrorist (of whatever nationality they may come in) but against the arab population in general. It indicated that they are savages with little hygiene and (and this is the WORST PART) implies that they have poor taste in clothes.

all I need know is exactly where they are so that we may exterminate them.

We all want that but I feel it is important to add that it matters to us who gets in the way. Otherwise we are following the rhetoric quoted by Bin Laden when he says there are no civilians in this war (as amply demonstrated by 9/11). Also we are not exactly arguing about Iraq anymore...this started with our debate about Bin Laden and Clinton...

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No, I told you what it is meant to be used as. I typed it; I should know what I meant it as. I meant it as a concentration camp, a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions. Funny no where on dictionary.com do they say death camp, or for example Nazi holocaust or anything. But you type in death camp, and it says a concentration camp in which those held captive are likely to die or be killed. So guess what, a concentration camp is a generic term. Would you all like to care on with your stupid rant?

Under your word it says your definition but also the definition of homosexual men.

More proof that CollegeBoy lives in a world ruled by BOOKS. He knows that by saying one thing EVERYONE will THINK one thing and the visions imprinted in their heads will be one thing, but hides behind a dictionary and saying everyone else is wrong and we are ranting.

Okay CollegeBoy.. you are right.. technically the generic term and what EVERYONE knows it as is wrong. You are also a jerk of major proportions (and I use that word because what I really want to type would be against the rules here.).

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy



1de. I am not playing a semantics game. I showed you what the word concentration camp is. What ever meaning you put to it is your own fault, not mine. I used the word correctly. Can the PLO stop the violence? I don't think they can without allowing Israel to bomb settlements which will only allow more violence to erupt. You have to understand the situation over there before you render a judgment. I don't understand it completely, I never will, that is why I don't blame either side, but place blame on both sides.

You don't make any sense. You are playing semantics. You are assigning a different meeting to the term then 98% of the rest of the country assign to it. So we are wrong? It is a loaded term and you know it!

As for stopping the violence. If the PLO stopped it, what excuse would Israel have to bomb them? Israel would lose any moral advantage they feel they have now. They only bomb in retaliation now.

You wouldn't even be worrying about France if they didn't stand up to the US and say no. Props to them for doing so.

You are wrong, I have bashed the French forever. It is not only fun, but easy!

Take a moral stand, not an economic one and I'll respect you more in the morning! (Not you, France)

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So guess what, a concentration camp is a generic term. Would you all like to care on with your stupid rant?

Under your word it says your definition but also the definition of homosexual men.

Cute. Ok I'll slow down. First we'll get some definitions. The word "mean": To act as a symbol of, to signify or represent. The word Definition: A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

With those two definitions can you see how a word can MEAN one thing, yet be DEFINED as something different.

Let's move to my example of the word ***got. The word first MEANT and was DEFINED as a bundle of wood. Now over time it started to MEAN a homosexual man. Was it DEFINED as a homosexual man, not at first no. Do you see the correlation here?

One more time!

Originally by ShooterJM
When I first read this I thought this was a pretty freakin dumb stance to take. Now I realize it's not even a stance. It's just freakin dumb.

[joeyjoe367]

LOL

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No, I told you what it is meant to be used as. I typed it; I should know what I meant it as. I meant it as a concentration camp, a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions. Funny no where on dictionary.com do they say death camp, or for example Nazi holocaust or anything. But you type in death camp, and it says a concentration camp in which those held captive are likely to die or be killed. So guess what, a concentration camp is a generic term.

Okay, so by your definition, a REFUGEE CAMP administered by the UN doesn't fit the definition of concentration camp as outlined above. Are there fences around the camps to detain the residents? During times of calm, do not a majority of people leave the Refugee camps and go into Israel proper to work? Are there guard towers surrounding the camps to confine the residents? Since your book definition does not fit, I guess that means that you don't know what concentration camp means or else, like your friends, you are deliberately using a loaded term knowing what the general populace will interpret it to mean. Therefore spreading their propaganda!

Well?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You wouldn't even be worrying about France if they didn't stand up to the US and say no. Props to them for doing so.

I'm not worrying about them, even though they have stood in the way.

what are they going to do? stop selling us cheese?

[Collegeboy]

You all are funny. Yeah that is right rant on me for using a dictionary to get the definition of the word. If the general populace was right about everything the world ain't would be a proper word to use, but we all know that isn't correct.

Here is one more time the definition of a concentration camp.

concentration camp
n.
1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.


from www.dictionary.com

To the above lets see is the camps in Palestine fall into the equation. number 1 yes, number two yes.

So guess what, it is a concentration camp.


Now we have this settled can we move on.

[ShooterJM]

What do I need to use bigger text or something.....

I'm done. This officially is the point of no return. Everyone jump out before you're sucked in to a realm where logical progression means nothing.... AHHHHHHHHH it's got me.....! Go on without me....cough cough......save yourselves!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
What do I need to use bigger text or something.....

I'm done. This officially is the point of no return. Everyone jump out before you're sucked in to a realm where logical progression means nothing.... AHHHHHHHHH it's got me.....! Go on without me....cough cough......save yourselves!

No I read your post on the difference between definition and what something means.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You all are funny. Yeah that is right rant on me for using a dictionary to get the definition of the word. If the general populace was right about everything the world ain't would be a proper word to use, but we all know that isn't correct.

Here is one more time the definition of a concentration camp.

concentration camp
n.
1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.


from www.dictionary.com

To the above lets see is the camps in Palestine fall into the equation. number 1 yes, number two yes.

So guess what, it is a concentration camp.


Now we have this settled can we move on.

Don't think so. Are there fences surrounding them? They are places where people live. They are not detained or confined there, so Number 1 does not apply. They have historically been allowed freedom of movement in times where calm was prevalant.

As for number 2, I guess Camden, NJ is a concentration camp then!

You are playing semantics for sympathy. The problem is that everyone here sees through your thinly veiled attempt. It is not an appropriate term. Your defense of the usage just doesn't make sense.