WAR: UK and US Leaders Acted Like Nazi War Criminals

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I encourage you to learn the rules and play a few rounds, even if you fare no better at it than my beloved Raiders tend to fare at their game of choice.

Vagabond you can keep those pompous remarks in regards to intelligence for your own introspection and logical fallacies. There are no rules for rogue elements. (Regenmacher breaks out into a quantum entanglement dance and spins his synapses beyond ideas of rudimentary causation and deems logic is a facade.) I don't play your game, I play my own.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A historical record in which no one has EVER devised any system of order and societal progress not predicated upon rule by force, which is in effect violence, which is of course the defining characteristic of war.

If I put my realism blinders on, I can see some validity in your points of dialogue, but there is more than one facet in the human game. As for your finite views in an infinite cosmos, no thanks. You can keep that dualistic plain vanilla world all to yourself.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't watch Star Trek. What is a Class I society, how does it work, how are individuals brought to choose good behavior, and what would happen if an individual did not choose good behavior?

Star Trek? Try the Kardashev scale, smart aleck. The higher mission is rewarded by a higher standard of existence, and humanity will evolve beyond war and fear. Showing you that this war is an inefficient and ludicrous way to obtain these higher goals is a waste of energy, since you already made up your mind. RM kicks the dead warhorse one last time, still dead.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Do you claim that since no man is infallible that subjective opinions of men are on equal standing with logic, simply because logic can be exercised by men?

You claim logic when you you practice subjectivism, so what color is the sky, Vagabond? 2+2=5? Premises built on premises as 64,000 repetitions make a truth ehh? I suspect you will keep playing inside Plato's cave impersonating Aristotle irregardless of what anyone says. The truth is, it's really all about the closed mind and the big ego, now isn't it.

Beware of the technological singularities and paradigm shifts, they have a habit of making your pseudo-logic turn into crow pie.

Heaven Knows, and thanks for the muse.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

That's actually quite good Regenmacher. A little firm with the paddle, but direct and effective.

I'll check out the link. Thanks for posting that in advance. I'm not sure what a class 1 society is but I imagine that ours is a at least a few classes down the list from that.

On my friend Vagabond's behalf I will offer a mea culpa. I formerly was a brawler and not infrequently relied upon violence to express my ... feelings. I like to think that it was partly due to being the youngest of three sons of 1st gen. Chicagoans out of Irish immigrant parents. My family has a history of brawling to survive. I respect authority when I choose, but only when it offers intelligence in leadership and dignity in return for loyalty. None of that is part of the present regime's thang. Their hubris, and history repeats itself, is their downfall.

Can I take the moral high-ground in our debate? Answeing the question Vagabond never asked, would I ever kill another human being? Who knows. I have tried at times (in years past) with my fists to hurt other men very badly and have had some success. But I also usually hurt myself as well - hands usually. I found then that violence was not useful to me as a means of conflict resolution. This is a personal example of why I would like to see someone bloody Bush's nose. I think the main problem here is that the boys running the show have never suffered a good beating. These fellas are just spoiled whiners making amends for the taunting they received in grade school and high school. Bush the cheerleader. Heh-heh.

Am I drifting? Sorry. Off to bed.

Seattlelaw: For someone who finds war unconscionable you certainly make a point of parading your proclivity for pugilism. It both fills me with hope for supposed pacifists and at the same time reinforces my distrusts for "moralists".
On the one hand, deep down you may realize that sometimes a little violence works out for the greater good.
On the other hand it reminds me that subjective morals, grounded in nothing sterner than the whimsical emotions of a human being, can consent to horrible and irrational things which are not in anyone's interest. Were I to act entirely on emotion and morality, I can name no fewer than seven people who would not survive the week. They are men who I would deem evil, if I considered myself in possession of such authority. They are men who I am very, very, upset with. What keeps me from killing them? Only reason. Their offenses can never be retracted, they will lose, their families will lose, I will lose, my family will lose, and nothing will be fixed. Yet again my case is aided by the opposing side, which is a credit to your honesty, because if you give true information you can not avoid bolstering a true claim, even if you oppose it.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Vagabond you can keep those pompous remarks in regards to intelligence for your own introspection and logical fallacies.

There are no rules for rogue elements. (Regenmacher breaks out into a quantum entanglement dance and spins his synapses beyond ideas of rudimentary causation and deems logic is a facade.) I don't play your game, I play my own.

Play with yourself all you like. Neither you nor your cheerleader has been able to assert a single point in any sound or demonstrable manner. You appear to believe that you can "feel" truth and state it as absolute, with utter disregard for unknown and even unknowable quantities which would be required to prove such an absolutist model. I on the other hand advocate questioning, trusting only what can be demonstrated. Deny some ignorance buddy.

As for your finite views in an infinite cosmos, no thanks. You can keep that dualistic plain vanilla world all to yourself.

And there, if one looks carefully, the difference between you and I is demonstrated. We each arrange our words well, but I arrange them around meaningful ideas, while yours are supported only by the power of your lungs (or in this case your fingers). Finite views to an infinite cosmos- that's pretty and clever sounding until you bring it down to reality. Something is true or it is false. Even if you buy into some theory on infinite coexisting parallel lines of events, each line has true and false within its own finite limits. Ultimately there is no escaping the existence of fact. Fact is inherently absolute and non-contradictory, which makes logic, if pursued flawlessly, the potential source of virtually any answer for which adequate facts are available. Consequently, your contentions fall far short of the highest standard of proof, while mine, if not perfect for lack of perfect information, certainly come far closer by virtue of sound methodology.

Star Trek? Try the Kardashev scale, smart aleck. The higher mission is rewarded by a higher standard of existence, and humanity will evolve beyond war and fear. Showing you that this war is an inefficient and ludicrous way to obtain these higher goals is another story.

It is not enough to dismiss war as inefficient (which it is). An alternative must be proposed. As I have already explained, every system so far conceived by humanity, or even by any supposed deity which humans worship, operates on the principle of force. I'm all for evolution. Invent something better, and not only will you be the greatest genius in human history, but you will also have my full agreement- so long as your alternative can not be shown to be in anyway simply a restructuring as opposed to removal of the long-standing trend of rule by force.
So far you offer only a scale of theoretical levels of energy production produced by a Russian astronomer. Perhaps you look forward to something like communism in which all people can have all that they desire based on the full efficient use of the planet's, the solar system's, and eventually the galaxy's energy. If this is the case, and if past is truly prologue, you're in for a disappointment. Technological revolutions in history might have provided what for the time would have been a high standard of living for all the world, but that was not how it was used. Instead technology was used to fight over that which the technology itself could not provide. Kings desired greater empires, Religions desired to convert others by force, every expansion for the greater harnessing of energy lead to a war over the resources in question. And let us not forget the minor battles- for not all wars are fought between nations. How shall you stop men from killing one another over women, over jobs, over minor traffic offenses, or just for sadism's sake? You must quite literally reinvent humanity in order to stop war. If war is an obstacle to human evolution, and yet a great leap of evolution is necessary to end war, you face a paradox.

You claim logic when you you practice subjectivism, so what color is the sky, Vagabond?

What color indeed. Energy at certain frequencies is absorbed or reflected, waves passing through various materials change speed and refract, but what color are they? They are no color. They are energy. They are described by subjective terms which refer to one appearance to me, and quite possibly another to you- how can I know that "blue" in my eye looks the same in yours? Perhaps every human being has the same favorite perception of "color", but we experience that perception at different points in the spectrum, causing variations in favorite color to be completely illusory. You make my case for me. What is measurable has real use. What is subjective is simply a convenient aid for communication, which brings us back yet again to the true nature of our dispute on at least some aspects of this debate- mere words.

Premises built on premises as 64,000 repetitions make a truth ehh?

Not only repetition, but mechanical explanation which has predictive value and is not countered by anomalies deemed impossible by the explanation. You're not entirely unclever, but you've stood against reason and naturally you've lost ground, you find yourself now at the precipice where to escape from reason you must deny all knowledge, all proven absolutes, even at the expense of the most fundamental science and math, and you are apparently quite willing to make the leap, though I suspect you do this purely as a devil's advocate now for the purpose of saving face.

Beware of the technological singularities and paradigm shifts, they have a habit of making your pseudo-logic turn into crow pie.

Heaven Knows, Vagabond .....thanks for the muse.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Time will tell. By the way, I don't believe in Heaven either .
(strangely, I do believe in hell, but that's a matter of cynicism, not logic.)


Gentlemen, it's 4AM, I'm awake, I'm sober, and there isn't a woman in the house- there is something wrong with this picture. I think I will go to bed now... right after I do my victory dance.
If I see something interesting in this thread I may reply again, but this is becoming rather repetitive, so we shall see.

I guess one aspect of the distinction for me (yes it is subjective) is that while I may be sympathetic with one man's desire to kill a few people, my mind cannot grasp or accept the type of violent anger or fear necessary to commit genocide or even mass murder. When we begin, as a species, to kill for reasons other than emotion erupting on a person to person level we lose our humanity. I am fortunate not to ever have killed a human being. I believe it changes a person in unfathomable ways and ultimately comes to no good.

And while I agree that there are times when killing appears to be the best option that appearance, like fear itself, is an illusion. It is not reality. And it does prevent our evolution to whatever the next level is.

[Come on, Vagabond, you've got to acknowledge that Ragenmacher's parry was effective. ]

holy essays, batman!

too much to read.

however, i think you're both right.

on one hand, what a 'fact', or 'truth' is, is NOT determinable. humans can only focus on one aspect of the elephant. (you know, the blind men and the elephant parable?)

on the other hand, for all logical purposes, there IS an elephant.

war is not necessarily necessary. the real cause of war is insecure elites who are addicted to power. ALWAYS. is that necessary? no, but it is a recurring pattern of human nature, so, in a way, it IS inevitable.

is there an alternative? yes.
WAR ON THE ELITES!!!!!

Billybob is speaking my language, hopefully not in sarcasm (which is my second language). How do you stop unjust wars? Fight a just war against those who started the unjust wars.

I'd also like to point out about the blind men and the elephant parable that reason did not break down, but that it was excercised with insufficient information, which is in large part the point of the parable.
If the blind men had felt over the entire elephant and communicated before declaring what they believed it to be, they may have perceived truth correctly. So I interpret it not so much as a syllogism for demonstrating truth as unknowable, but as one for demonstrating truth as mistakable.

And as for Regenmacher, Seattlelaw: I do not dismiss either of you as being "ineffective". You're bright people and your view is probably the more appealing side of this debate to human emotion. Good on you for that I suppose. I just happen not to agree because I place such a high value on logic. To say that I believe the very system you advocate is in large part responsible for the current plight of the human race, and that I do not trust the means by which you have arrived at your conclusions, is not to say that I find you unintelligent or ineffective.

Thanks for the input, Billybob. We are so close and yet so far apart.

Regarding the elephant and the blind man, I would say that accurate information is indeed necessary to answering some questions but that accurate information in terms of facts is not necessary to know that murder is wrong. The blind man would not have to feel the face of an Iraqi child to know that killing the child would be wrong. Some decisions involving personal behavior in life are so fundamental that they constitute standards which changes in the quantity or quality of information received will not affect in any way. Thus is morality formed. It is similar to the fact of what the animal is.

You see, it is an elephant whether the blind man perceives it or not. So too is mass murder wrong whether the neocons or anyone else perceive it or not. A change in information will not change the wrong of what they are doing. If information changes our behavior on such a basic level then we are no more than automatons receiving new input and making adapatations based upon that input. Action - reaction : Cause - effect. Fortunately, this is not reality for us. We are much, much more than that.

Incidentally, I do not believe that admitting to past violence supports your thesis, Vagabond. Rather the opposite is the case. It is an example of changing morals and shows the path to the change that waits for everyone who presently believes that violence is an appropriate response to fear, anger, or loss. The urge to do violence is latent within all animals. The question is, do we choose to continue to behave like animals or do we choose to take the next rung on the ladder of evolution?

Violence is either right or is it wrong. There is no in between for one simple reason which is that every person would feel justified to commit the violence they are motivated to act upon regardless of an objective view of the rightness of that violence. There is not one killer out there who did not feel justified killing when the killing took place. And yet violence, when viewed by non-combatitants, is nearly always viewed as wrong objectively unless it is in revenge. But the motivation of the perpetrator of violence should not gain our sympathies. It is either wrong or it is not. Logic won't help you. Logic won't do you no good.

'morality' is too subjective, in my eyes.

another parable?

two transients go to a rich man's house and offer to do some work in exchange for a night's keep.
the rich man agrees, but treats them terribly, feeding them stale bread and water. he let's them sleep in a dank basement.
in the morning, one transient wakes to find the other just finishing up a patching job on the basements concrete wall.
the two travel down the road and stop a poor farmer's place. they offer to work for their keep. the farmer agrees. the farmer and his wife prepare a huge feast for the pair. they let the transients sleep in their bed, while they sleep on the floor.
the next morning, the farmer is furious. the same one who had patched the wall, had killed the farme's only cow in the middle of the night. he asks the men to leave.
as they are walking away, one asks the other, "why did you do that? two days ago, we were treated horribly, and yet you worked extra hard for that evil man. and, last night, although they treated us like kings, you murdered the man's only cow!? what gives?"
"well, while we were at the rich man's house, i noticed a crack in the wall. i could see something behind the wall. it was gold. so, i got the gold out, and then sealed the wall back up.
last night, death came to take the man's wife, so i gave him the cow, instead".

i don't know if that helps, but it's kind of a neat story. 'morality' is a fuzzy, relativistic concept, ....very subjective.
is it wrong to shoot a baby in the face? i think so.
is it wrong to shoot a serial rapist/murderer? i don't think so, although i personally wouldn't relish the job of executioner, there are times when murder is 'right', imho.
is it okay to shoot someone ACCUSED of being a serial murderer/rapist, but not proven? i don't think so. i think if some rapid animal needs to be put down, it needs to be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty.

in the case of either osama bin laden, or saddam hussein, there has been no TRUSTWORTHY information. just a lot of inuendo, propoganda, spin, and even outright fabrication and lying.
real reporters, as opposed to 'embedded' ones, are literally being murdered by american forces.
there is no friend anywhere.

s it wrong to shoot a serial rapist/murderer? i don't think so...Billybob

This is the prototypical example and the one which persuaded me that the death penalty is the wrong approach. It says that murder is acceptable under certain circumstances. In this instance, murdering the murderer. While I am sympathetic to the family of the raped and murdered victim, I cannot condone the same abhorrent treatment of the perpetrator. You say, but we're murdering him because he did x and y. Believe me, the perpetrator has his own excuses for why he murdered his victim as well. I say killing him is as wrong (worse) as raping him would be. The question is, are these behaviors acceptable? The answer has to be 'no' every time and for every circumstance.

The real hard one is self defense. When you are being attacked do you respond with equal violence? I cannot say I would not respond with violence to a personal, physical attack against my family or friends (or even a stranger). But you can see it's a slippery slope and I believe that the truly conscious person would not resort to violence for any purpose. I'm just not 'there' in this lifetime.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 17-10-2005 by seattlelaw]

Originally posted by seattlelaw

s it wrong to shoot a serial rapist/murderer? i don't think so...Billybob

It says that murder is acceptable under certain circumstances. In this instance, murdering the murderer.
The real hard one is self defense.

indeed.
how can a child defend against an adult rapist? if a woman catches a man raping her daughter, and shoots the man to stop him, is that wrong?
because, your absolutist solution would have her standing there watching helplessly while her daughter is raped and murdered in front of her.
if a man is PROVEN to have raped and murdered several people, what is the advantage to NOT killing him? why should the rest of us have to feed and shelter a known, proven, dangerous evil killer? there are MILLIONS of children living in abject poverty in the usa. wouldn't that money be better spent on them?
you know, ghandi wouldn't last two minutes in a war zone.
i'm VERY pacifistic. however, there are times, when i find myself in the middle of conlict, and i can actually feel my blood begin to boil. at this point, i begin to smile at my opponent, and this usually un-nerves the arsehole, allowing me to avoid further conflict.
there have been a few times in the past, where i didn't smile, and my one thought was, "it's smashing time". it's an INSTINCT. (i've only used force defensively, because i have 'evolved' somewhat)
we must give into instinct occasionally. we ARE animals, and no amount of high-falootin' philosophical concepts will change that.
we all have a breaking point where we will either lie down and die, or fight back.



[edit on 17-10-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Full Metal
Of course you don't like Scott Ritter, he thinks for himself and doesn't worship the ground Bush walks on.

Thinks for himself? Really? I thought he was bought and paid for by Saddam Hussein:

powerlineblog.com...

Bush and company supported Saddam for a number of years all the way up until the first gulf war. So what's your point?

Bush and Blair as Nazis gaining speed.

ATSNN: Mugabe Speech At UN Summit Draws Cheers

Mugabe compares Bush, Blair to Hitler at UN event

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe on Monday railed against U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling them "international terrorists" bent on world domination like Adolf Hitler.

your absolutist solution would have her standing there watching helplessly while her daughter is raped and murdered in front of her. By Billybob

Not quite. First and foremost the killing of the perp post crime when the perp is not an immediate threat is my example. Your hypothetical is a new one. My response to that is that the mother should do all in her power to stop the violence. If it requires a bullet in the back, so be it. As I said, if you read my entire post, self defense or defense of another is my exception. But I question whether in every case the perp would need to be executed to stop his/her violence against another.

I imagine the perp simply seeing the enraged parent holding the weapon would cause him to stop the abhorrent attack. It would not help the child victim to have the dead perp collapse on her spilling his guts on her. It would increase the long-term psychological harm to her IMO as well as the harm to the mother.

But in a society where violence is exalted if not worshipped, in a society where sex is considered (in most instances) immoral, in a society where we allow our mentally ill to live on the streets or in prisons because we discard them as not providing an economic benefit to the elite (as taxpayers), and in a society where a criminal conviction means you are no longer trusted or employable, violence will continue to occur in the form or rape and other assaults, including murder. When we refuse to acknowledge the humanity of others for one reason or another they will prove how right we are by acting like animals. When we treat others with the love and respect every human being is entitled to from birth we will create a society where love and respect is not only hoped for but is common-place. Try this experiment: The next time you become angry with your wife or significant other and the demon in your head tells you to say something nasty try a different approach, try a hug and a whisper that tells that person thank you for something she did right that day. Then watch how your negative emotion is transformed. Watch what happens next. And remember that you created that moment. We always have options. Each moment is a pre-sent present. We simply have to open the gift to ourselves.

i think we pretty much agree.
there is always a twilight, though. a grey area.

my new video, "when coalitions behave badly", will be coming out soon.

Glad we have found common ground.

"When Coalitions Behave Badly" is a hopeful title. Will we be able to view it via d/l or what?

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Glad we have found common ground.

"When Coalitions Behave Badly" is a hopeful title. Will we be able to view it via d/l or what?

well, to be honest, i was making that up. HAHA!
if i did have the time to make such a thing, i'm sure it would be very convincing.

Heh-heh. You had me fooled. Perhaps we should suggest it to Michael Moore?

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Bush and Blair as Nazis gaining speed.

ATSNN: Mugabe Speech At UN Summit Draws Cheers

Mugabe compares Bush, Blair to Hitler at UN event

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe on Monday railed against U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling them "international terrorists" bent on world domination like Adolf Hitler.

I'm glad you said gaining 'speed'. Considering the source it hardly adds weight to the argument. No pun and no racism intended... that's the pot calling the kettle black.