Pro-US rallies ignored by leftist Media

[nemafakei]

"The one race of people...the ONE RACE of people I could not find, however, were Iraqi's. There are plenty of Iraqi's that do not live in Iraq."

True, but what percentage of the population of those free to march do you think they make up? Hence you see few.

Not only that, those who are not in Iraq are not there for a reason. Could that reason possibly just be that they do not like the man runnin things? Could it possibly be that they want rid of him? I think it could, and that thsi would be the case for almost every Iraqi who has left Iraq.

Therefore, it really is hardly surprising.

[emprworm]

Not only that, those who are not in Iraq are not there for a reason. Could that reason possibly just be that they do not like the man runnin things? Could it possibly be that they want rid of him? I think it could, and that thsi would be the case for almost every Iraqi who has left Iraq.

Therefore, it really is hardly surprising.

hardly surprising meaning that your argument not to remove Hussein "for the Iraqi people" is fully invalid. The iraqi people who have fled for their lives have testified uniformly the desperate desire for freedom that the people in Iraq have. THey are more credible to tell us the opinion of the people than whiteys from Europe, America, etc. And we know from history that people do not like oppression and dictatorship.

THere is no reason...no good reason not to remove Hussein. This is what the IRAQI'S WANT. My point is: Who cares what the whiteys want. The war will happen.

and you will see how glad the people will be when they are free.

just like the gladness you saw in Afghanistan. People celebrate freedom. You will see this celebration again in Iraq.

[emprworm]

"The one race of people...the ONE RACE of people I could not find, however, were Iraqi's. There are plenty of Iraqi's that do not live in Iraq."

True, but what percentage of the population of those free to march do you think they make up? Hence you see few.

Not only that, those who are not in Iraq are not there for a reason. Could that reason possibly just be that they do not like the man runnin things? Could it possibly be that they want rid of him? I think it could, and that thsi would be the case for almost every Iraqi who has left Iraq.

Therefore, it really is hardly surprising.

you know, i just realized how morally horrible your argument is nema. It is really sickening. Here is how I see your argument going- i TRULY hope this isn't what you are saying:

its like a slave managing to escape a slave ship and swimming to be picked up by a well-armed vessel with white military on a military patrol.

Freed Slave: PLEASE HELP! Help us! They are killing us on that ship!

Whitey: What do you want us to do?

Freed Slave: My family is on that ship. Please help me. The captain of that ship is killing us, throwing us overboard and cramming us into tiny compartments. People are dying and suffocating!

Whitey: Well, duh, its pretty obvious you'd be against that ship since you escaped. It goes without saying that your opinion would be negative of that captain. My verdict: let them be. If we try to stop them, bloodshed would result. And we don't want that. Besides, your opinion is obviously biased anyway.

[Edric O]

This is what the IRAQI'S WANT.

No, that's what the FEW IRAQIS WHO HAVE FLED IRAQ want. And it's obvious, because otherwise they wouldn't have fled in the first place.

and you will see how glad the people will be when they are free.

just like the gladness you saw in Afghanistan. People celebrate freedom. You will see this celebration again in Iraq.

Of course they will. Mostly because those who don't celebrate their "freedom" and praise Bush will have a tendency to dissapear without a trace...

[nemafakei]

"hardly surprising meaning that your argument not to remove Hussein "for the Iraqi people" is fully invalid."

Empr, please TRY not to twist people's words, or sound like you're twisting them.

"i TRULY hope this isn't what you are saying"

I am merely pointing out that your evidence is in one way a little biased. I am not suggesting the case you have suggested.

I also pointed out the fact that it is biased in another way - do I take it that you agree with it?

The point to which you have replied is not solely conclusive, but it contributes slightly. And it is still logical, no matter what situation you would apply it to to make it look immoral.

[emprworm]

how is it different? A slave in 1820 escaping from a slave ship begging for help only to have the response be "well its hardly surprising your opinion of that slave ship would be negative. You seem a bit biased to me. Therefore, not credible so we will do nothing. Besides, if we intervene there will be bloodshed, and we don't want that do we?"

You tell me how that is different from the 3,000 Iraqi's who fled for their lives, escaped, and are now living in one refugee shelter in Arizona, most of whom have family back in Iraq that they will never see again so long as the country is under servitude to a dictator. How is that any different from a freed slave? You tell me.

ANd then, how is it a moral argument to reply to a freed slave "its hardly surprising your opinion of your slave owner" as justification to do nothing?

for a Jew who survived the holocaust : "Your opinion of Hitler is hardly surprising" ....is that now a reason not to do something, simply because their opinion is "hardly surprising?"

Not only do I see that an immoral argument, I see it as an evil one. Take it not personal, it is just how I see it. To me, that kind of response to an oppressed person freed from tyrrany is utterly vile. Now, perhaps you have an angle on your argument I am not seeing. Explain to me how it is different from my illustration, and how it is moral in your view. I am listening.

[Acriku]

how is it different? A slave in 1820 escaping from a slave ship begging for help only to have the response be "well its hardly surprising your opinion of that slave ship would be negative. You seem a bit biased to me. Therefore, not credible so we will do nothing. Besides, if we intervene there will be bloodshed, and we don't want that do we?"

Illogical, because you start off with the assumption that the person who made the response knows that it was a slave ship, and that this person was a slave. With evidence of this slave ship's existence and that this person escaped as a slave, then doing something would be reasonable.

[emprworm]

"Illogical, because you start off with the assumption that the person who made the response knows that it was a slave ship"

Yes, we know that Iraq is a dictatorship.

And that the people are not free

And that thousands of its people have been gassed at least on one occasion

And that the people are oppressed

And that the people are not free

And that the people are not free...

" and that this person was a slave."

We know that the 3,000 refugees in Arizona (3,000 seperate distinct pieces of evidence in one place) came from Iraq.

Where the people are not free...

Where the people are not free...

what was illogical again?

[nemafakei]

"how is it different?"

It is different because it is not the whole argument.

It is different because the slave may in fact have been a criminal in chains, with a grudge.

"....is that now a reason not to do something, simply because their opinion is "hardly surprising?""

It is not a reason in of itself, but a reason that your evidence may imply more than actually is - a slight refutation of your argument (to be coupled with others). Can you not see this, or are you deliberately twisting my words?

"and how it is moral in your view"

It is not moral or immoral. It is simple statistical evaluation.

Do you realise yet how this is different, or am I going to have to spell it out in words of one syllable?

[Acriku]

You do not know, all you know is that people fleeing from that country speak bad things of it, and that in the past Hussein has used gas on his own people. You don't know what is happening right now, not to say that there is no oppression, but your evidence is from accounts of people from there, not first hand experience. That is why your analogy was wrong. If the person responding to the escaped "slave" went out and saw these ships bringing slaves to the country and that those people on the ships were slaves, then he would do something.

[TMA_1]

why is it our business though to force freedom on other nations? kinda a paradox dont you think?

[Acriku]

It isn't forcing freedom, we don't put soldiers in their country to inflict harm to those who do not use their freedom, we take out the oppression and give them a chance.

[emprworm]

"It is different because it is not the whole argument.

It is different because the slave may in fact have been a criminal in chains, with a grudge."

ohh, I see. Maybe 30,000 Iraqi refugees, including amongst them women and children are all a bunch of criminals? How many refugees testifying to brutality does it take until the "its hardly surprising your opinion of a dictator" becomes an immoral argument?

1 million? 20 million? How many unfree people (i.e. slaves) does it take to escape Iraq and testify to its oppression before Nema will start to lend their testimony as credible, instead of "biased?"

"Do you realise yet how this is different, or am I going to have to spell it out in words of one syllable? "

yes, you are. Because we have thousands upon thousands of people giving testimony in contrast to a dictator giving testimony. You are lending credibility to the dictator and not the refugees?

We have thousands of people who were slaves. THis is imperical fact. We know factually Iraq is a dictatorship.

Where the people are not free...

where the people are not free...

I bet you enjoy your freedom, don't you?

You are a free man. And here is what we have here.

A free man is telling me "the ex-slaves opinion of their Dictator is hardly surprising"

So yea, you are going to have to spell it out for me how that kind of response is moral in light of tens of thousands of seperate individuals- women and children included, testifying to the Iraqi oppression.

I truly see this as white oppression. That is my view. I know you do not share it. BUt this is nothing more to me than whites doing what they do best.

[Acriku]

White oppression by not advocating war? Emprworm you are making racist remarks not to be taken lightly...

[emprworm]

why is it our business though to force freedom on other nations? kinda a paradox dont you think?

because they want it and are asking for our help.

It is the white man who doesn't want to help them.

Typical white man oppression.

Ask any Iraqi you see in America. They are asking for your help, TMA, and you don't want to give it to them. THe slave has escaped the slave ship and asking for you to help their family who are still slaves.

and you dont want to help them.

Sad.

[emprworm]

White oppression by not advocating war? Emprworm you are making racist remarks not to be taken lightly...

yes, just like those who protested the slave rebellions. they wanted to avoid conflict to keep the slaves in servitude.

freedoms price is blood. those who oppress want to prevent the spilling of blood so that freedom is not gained.

[Acriku]

It's the white man who wants war. It's the white man who doesn't want war. It's the white man who oppresses them by not advocating war. It's the white man who oppresses them by going to war. Please emprworm.

[TMA_1]

I am not an extremist.You are

Dont say in return though, that extremism is good. There are times for it. Now is not the time. I am not a bully.

[emprworm]

It's the white man who wants war. It's the white man who doesn't want war. It's the white man who oppresses them by not advocating war. It's the white man who oppresses them by going to war. Please emprworm.

huh? It was the white man who wanted slavery to continue in 1820 by protesting slave revolts (majority)

It was the white man who wanted slavery to end (Quakers) in 1820 by encouraging slave revolts (minority)

please what?

[Acriku]

It's the white man who wants war (an american view, which according to you means the white view). It's the white man who doesn't want war (already said by yourself). It's the white man who oppresses them by not advocating war (said by yourself). It's the white man who oppresses them by going to war (view of many europeans about USA's imperialistic methods, thus white man's view).

[nemafakei]

I did not say that we should not trust the men from there. I said the fact that they fled means the chance (from the view of the rest of the world) that it shows the truth **a bit** less.

I know that there is a bad rule there. But I can - and since it might help, *do* - try to make you use facts in the best way, a way which shows the truth in the most true way.

All in words of one syllable (apart from this sentence, and the one after it).

I am not gong to quantify; I am merely trying to get you not to misrepresent things with the data you use.

I agree that there is oppression there, but you imply that I would use this slight doubt of your data as my one and only reason why we should not attack!

"How many unfree people"

30,000 is more than enough to convince me that it is credible that there is oppression. But things can be credible as evidence and biased at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive, nor logical opposites.

"You are lending credibility to the dictator and not the refugees?"

Certainly not.

AND you have ignored my other point! Do you agree with it,or have you now forgotten it?

[emprworm]

It's the white man who wants war (an american view, which according to you means the white view). It's the white man who doesn't want war (already said by yourself). It's the white man who oppresses them by not advocating war (said by yourself). It's the white man who oppresses them by going to war (view of many europeans about USA's imperialistic methods, thus white man's view).

you leave out the most important view of them all: the slaves view.

[nemafakei]

Empr, read it again. He means you're contradicting yourself... it doesn't matter that he leaves out the slaves view.

[Nyarlathotep]

i called no country a pisshole. I am against France being on the Security COuncil, not France as a country. I acknowledge the historical fact that their military endeavors were utter failures and their credibility regarding world security has not been established. UNless you want to specifically tell me what country I bashed, stop putting words in my mouth. thanks.

LOL.. I never said you called another country a pisshole.. talk about putting words in people's mouth... LOL

Anyway, won't start the discussion here, cause it'll only result in you locking this thread again :)

You said " I just stated that you can't condem others of something you do yourself as well. " So tell me specifically what it was I condemned then what it was I said that was the same as the condemnation. That is two posts in a row you put accusations in my mouth that were vague and unclarified. Why do you speak for me? You know that is not in good taste. Right?

Please, don't put accusations in my mouth unless you are willing to specify what they are, thanks. I wont lock the thread so long as you are willing to clarify the specific, exact words of what I "condemned" and then the specific, exact words of what I supported. Now, if all you are going to do is make another post putting accusations in my mouth, (the ole' typical circular argument from prior locked threads) then yea, another locked thread will most likely result.

Your next post will hopefully be the specific words or drop it. Thanks.

LOL, learn how to debate.. I never put an accusation in your mouth, I accused you of bashing other countries/nations and therefor you shouldn't condem others if they do the same. To remind you:

i would think that Canada has more military authority and historical military credential to be on the security council then impotent France.

So calling France impotent isn't bashing them I assume then ? No, you'll probably explain it as that it means you'll love what they are doing and they are okay ? I thought so ::)

Please, if you want to debate with me, get your facts straight and stop replying to me with twisted words (here it is again :)) and please reply properly whe you do. Thanks :)

Btw, ask me all the prove you want. I actually can backup what I state or accuse you from ;D

[emprworm]

But I can - and since it might help, *do* - try to make you use facts in the best way, a way which shows the truth in the most true way

the facts: IRaq is ruled by a dictator.

In which the people are not free...

In which the people are not free...

Does this not adequately represent a fact?

Fact #2:

Tens of thousands of people have fled and testified to the internal brutality, oppression and desire for freedom (no surprise there...people desiring freedom).

THese refugees come from Iraq.

Where the people are not free...

I fail to see how I am misrepresenting any fact here or twisting any fact here. These are plain, simple, objective facts. The only assumption I am making is that it is no surprise that people desire freedom. Do you agree with this?

Now to answer your question:

regarding telling a freed slave "your opinion of your dictator is hardly surprising" you say "t is not moral or immoral. It is simple statistical evaluation."

I agree with that. But that wasn't what I was calling immoral. See this post here to find the following statement:

"ANd then, how is it a moral argument to reply to a freed slave "its hardly surprising your opinion of your slave owner" as justification to do nothing?"