View Single Post
Old 02-18-2007, 08:22 PM   #44
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
Spider AL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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.
Clearly nonsense. Common people have overthrown dictators the world over throughout history. If the Iraqi populous hadn't been made destitute and dependent on Saddam by years and years of US sanctions, they undoubtedly would have had more of an opportunity to revolt. And how much easier would it have been for them to revolt if we had SUPPORTED them instead of pounding them into the dust with our evil sanctions and our ill-advised military attacks? Much easier.

People have overthrown barbarous US-sponsored regimes before, and no doubt they will again. Your contention that this was an impossibility in Iraq is sheer ridiculousness.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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.
On the contrary, I have demonstrated that I am in favour of democracy ACROSS THE BOARD, both in Iraq and elsewhere. I shall once again post those few phrases in from post #37, that you conveniently chose to ignore in your last offering.

I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq.

The Iraqi people didn't want to be decimated by our violence and starved into submission by our economic sanctions, therefore I was AGAINST those violences, and against those sanctions.

The Iraqi people didn't want us to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroy their national infrastructure in the process of illegally invading their country, so I was against that invasion.

The Iraqi people don't want us illegally occupying their country, they don't want us continuing to be a focus for violence and occasionally going off on one and beating Iraqi kids up if not blowing their heads off. So I'm against the occupation.

So I'm in favour of the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, 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.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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
I have never made such a statement, Tot, and I have pointed that fact out to you before, many times. Let me explain yet again in the most simple of terms:

The UN's support does not MAKE any international intervention moral. If something is immoral, it's immoral whether the UN supports it or not. One could in theory pressure the UN into supporting an immoral war. Therefore UN support doesn't "make" any action moral. I have never claimed this, it is a fallacy that only you have wheeled out. It's a straw man, a nonsense.

But, WITHOUT the sanction of an international institution like the UN, an international intervention CANNOT BE truly moral. In other words, an act which the government of one nation considers to be just is merely vigilantism without the support of international law and the institutions that embody international laws. And vigilantism, lynch mobs... these are immoral and illegal things.

Once more: The UN doesn't MAKE any international intervention moral. But without the UN, it could never BE moral. To be just, an international act like a war must be BOTH inherently moral, AND have the support of international law. The invasion of Iraq had neither.

You have failed to grasp this simple distinction EVERY time it has been shown to you, I have no reason to believe you'll grasp it now. But perhaps... a vague hope lingers in my battered old heart. So I'll keep telling you.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral.
Ha! In post #36 You said this: "the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise. And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place"

And my response was this: "Oh do we indeed? Go and find a post in which I've described those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You won't find one. Once again you make the basic error you've consistently made throughout these threads... 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"."

Firstly, you attempted to quote me out of context, by cutting out the first couple of sentences of my response. How childish. Secondly, you still haven't come up with a post in which I describe those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You haven't found one, you won't find one, so your original assertion was rubbish. QED.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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.
You accuse me of being juvenile? That's laughably rich. Secondly, I didn't have to make any great inference from your statement, because you literally said:

"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)"

And that reprihensible statement is perfectly clear. You refer to pure democracy, rule by the people as "nothing more than mob rule". You call the PEOPLE a "mob" (most derogatory) and with that, you clearly imply that true democracy would be a negative thing.

And now you've compounded your earlier statement by opining that "mob rule" equals anarchy in your book.

Anarchy = a state of society without government or law.

Even more ludicrous! You equate pure democracy with lawlessness, ungoverned chaos, etcetera. Tot, you clearly dislike the idea of democracy... not merely in Iraq, but in general.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

The KKK was mob rule.
No Tot, the KKK was a violent mob. A minority.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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.
In my experience Tot, nothing you've ever concluded in the senate could remotely be called "reasonable", and this is no exception. You present a hypothetical racist lynching as an example of what you consider to be democracy in action. This is laughable. It pains me to even dignify this idiocy with a rebuttal, but I suppose I should rebut for the sake of completeness.

First of all, the lynching you describe is undemocratic because the racists have not obtained a mandate from the masses before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. Secondly the racists have not obtained the imprimatur of the democratically elected state legal bureaucracy before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. It is neither sanctioned by the people, nor the officials elected by the people. Therefore, counter to the democratic ideal.

Frankly, if you really tried hard, you might find some historical example that actually DOES represent a genuinely democratic majority-sanctioned act that is also immoral... but that of course would be meaningless. A democratically decided national decision might be immoral... but without a state of true democracy no national decision can be optimally moral.

Once again, we have the "UN distinction" that you have yet to grasp. Democracy doesn't necessarily MAKE state decisions moral. But without democracy the state's decision CANNOT be moral.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

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
No they haven't. You've accused me of basically everything under the sun, from "hypocrisy" to "twisting people's words". And you haven't come up with a single example that shows I've done any of these things you've accused me of. Accusations without proof are dismissed, Tot.

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Save the canned speeches for your fanbase.


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,


So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.


(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.
As for these snippets of petulant childishness, what can one say? They're reprehensible, Tot.

[FW] Spider AL
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,