View Single Post
Old 02-17-2007, 01:14 PM   #42
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Your contention about democracy has implicit in it that somehow you support the concept in Iraq. That isn't even remotely believable given the fact that you would have been quite content to see them suffer under Saddam's regime (or any that followed) b/c the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise.

-----Ludicrous nonsense. I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq........ therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

As for your ridiculous implication that I was in some way in favour of Saddam's rule... Ugh, it's beneath contempt. Every civilised, intelligent person was against Saddam's regime, but every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that bombing the heck out of Iraq (as we did over the course of decades) would do NOTHING but strengthen Saddam. Every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that invading Iraq, destroying what little infrastructure they had left and decimating the civilian population would be WORSE than leaving Saddam in power, as evil and damaging as he was.

So was I (or any other individual with more than one brain-cell) in any way in favour of Saddam's reign? Of course not, only a sillyperson would suggest so. I was in favour of ousting Saddam through means that would not adversely affect the Iraqi people and international attitudes to the US and UK, means which I have mentioned above.
Save the canned speeches for your fanbase. Fact is, the only way for the Iraqi people to shed themselves of SH would have been for him to die in his sleep or to have been turned on by his own praetorian guard. If all your brain cells weren't so busy engaging in mental self-abuse, even you would realize that. Even using your VERY strained attempt at logic, you can only claim that you favor (by default) some form of democracy only insofar as you relate it to the issue of the presence of foreign troops.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place

Oh do we indeed? .... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral".

No, I'm just going from your ludicrous statement that a UN impramataur somehow makes any action even remotely moral. You have a misplaced faith in international institutions that many don't share. Fact is, you were even unwise enough to suggest that had the UN given any support at all to what you've made verrrry plainly clear is grossly immoral, that would have lent it some moral credibility. So much for your vaunted logic. Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral. So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway) in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked.

-----Bahahah! Ohhh Tot. You really are priceless. "Pure democracy is mob rule!!!111" as if that's something negative...
The only thing unmissable here, besides your bluster and hubris, is how you infer soooo much from anyone's statements. And really, this 111 stuff is pretty juvenile, al. Mob rule equals anarchy. The KKK was mob rule. I could very reasonably conclude logically that you don't have a problem with lynching b/c it was democratically done. In a group of 10 men, one being black, it's naturally a positive thing that the 9 white guys would hang the black man, b/c .......hell, majority rules (afterall, that's what pure democracy is all about). hoist on your own ridiculous petard. end of story.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The "accusation" was neither spurious nor poorly formed. Unfortunately, you consistently twist people's words to fit your rants and then deny that you are guilty of anything. In doing so, your responses become irrelevant. Also, you've demonstrated repeatedly throughout that you have neither a modicum of maturity or apparently an ounce of introspection. You also make leaps of logic that are both non sequitur in nature and astounding in their arrogance. I'd be able to take you seriously if you weren't so selectively hypocritical in your attempts at admonishment. ... You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked. This is just one example of how you devolve into irrelevancy. You simply make too many assumptions. So, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop spewing your own particular brand of nonsense in these threads. Untill then, you just have no credibility.

------There you go again with a veritable smorgasbord of unsubstantiated accusatory assertions...

A multitude of examples have been provided for you (and not just w/regards to me) over the course of many posts. Your inability to take criticism in no way dismisses anything (btw, you're very quick to try in bask in any statement that's remotely favorable to you). The only thing really ludicrous is the immature nature of many of your replies. Grow up. Untill you do so, you're dismissed to go play with the rest of the children.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,