A few things

[doug]

So. First of all i have a few handy links to circulate.

Who really caught Saddam? .

Please note the fact that they won't be getting their hands on that $25 mil. How alturistic. Those of you who are both american and anti-war should be pleased that this sacrifice saved you further gouging at the hands of your evil masters.

Second link: in Iraq.

Please note the following: "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning."

Demonstrators risk a year in jail and, if they work for the state as civil servants or teachers, they will loose their jobs, the message said. All demonstrations are illegal in the U.S.-occupied province.

"They are not allowed to go around kissing pictures of Saddam in this city," Russell said. "It will not happen."

Yay for Liberty. Anybody want to tell me what happened in "pre-war" iraq when the country was a destitute land of horror and rape when you protested the unwanted government? Supposedly, death or jail.

The american version is so much better. I can already hear venom's excuse "At least we're warning them!"

Now i have some more questions. Venom and Corey seem to believe that the war in Iraq was a smashing success. I want to know if you guys have the nuts to categorically deny/disprove the assertion that iraq is in turmoil. Basically all the news i read, from all over the USA and the rest of the world, is painting that picture.

If they love you so much why are your boys still dying? Is America safer? Now that we know Saddam obviously didn't have a massive weapons program, how can you argue that he was a threat? What gives you the right to invade his country and topple his government if he doesn't have weapons and doesn't pose a threat to america?

What gives you the right to shoot Iraqi demonstrators for disliking you? Why is america right to be fighting this war? Why is america never wrong?

[Axtech]

[nelison]

[Axtech]

[nelison]

[I AM ME]

[Narbus]

You know what I like a lot? The way doug cries and moans about "amerikan propoganda" and how the government distorts the truth and blah blah blah and then goes around throwing out terms like "evil masters."

I also like how his entire moral system as a bane to mankind, then he cries foul when the government isn't as altruistic as he feels they should be.

I like how he ignores that the turmoil in Iraq was there before American troops ever set foot over there thanks to Saddam and his influence, and refuses to acknowledge that the Iraq's and former Baathist party members are the ones toppling the most power lines and destroying the most hospitals.

I like how he preaches that "you own yourself," then refuses to acknowledge that the "american boys" over there signed up for the military of their own free-will fully aware that being in the military means you may get shot at.

I like how he preaches logic above all else, and then slaps these impossible, illogical double standards on everything he doesn't like, just to prove a non-existant point.

[starvingeyes]

[doug]

[Bandalero]

[Narbus]

[doug]

[doug]

[Narbus]

Because I spared more than the cursory glance you threw at that website, I see that the site takes into account deaths they feel the occupying force should have prevented, but did not directly cause. Two thoughts.
1a. You yourself said many times that inaction is morally neutral. By your own admissions the occupying forces are not responsible for the terrorist car bombs, the terrorist gunfire, the terrorist suicides, etc. The terrorists are responsible.
1b. You have provided no facts to show how many people Saddam and his party have killed. Since you couldn't be bothered to, Some highlights:
--Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.
--The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000.
--More recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

I realize you're not a math major, but as an engineer I can assure you that 300,000 is much greater than 1,500.

PS: Since saddam was out of power, well no shit he had a hard time killing people. You may as well ask how many people Stalin's killed over the last year to support an anti WWII stance.

Also, explain the following from your "the kurds got him" link:
1. claim that Saddam was "talkative" at the time of his capture. Your report claims he was "drugged and lethargic."
2. He was carrying $750,000 in Amercian dollars with him. If he was drugged and forcibly locked in a hole, why?


Moving on.

I'd like to point out an article in the most recent issue of Wired magazine. It details some of the neuroscience behind autisic children and the "savant" syndrome, where a person lacks in some area of brain development, but makes up for it with some sort of incredible leap in other areas (see "Rain Man").
Over the past several decades, a lot of information about the brain has been uncovered, including the following tidbit, provided by this article: "The brains of typical childrengrow in response to lessons learned from the enironment - that was one of the significant upgrades in the evolution of Homo sapiens. As new stimuli are absorbed, the neurons in the cortex adapt gradually, and synaptic connections rae forged or eliminated. Our brains are cast in the image of our experience."

In short, we think the way we do because of the life we lead. It follows that just as a child who listens to jazz everyday for 18 years will have a hard time disseminating prime factors, a child raised irrationally will be irrational.

It also follows that the brain is continually evolving, never complete, and never perfectly rational. In fact, from the same article, it seems that the most creative, irrational people are those in whom the brain comes together as a whole to push forth new ideas. Your philosophy, it appears, is self-defeating.

In regards to the possibility of anarchy. I have several thousand years of empirical evidence to suggest the people without rules turn into giant assholes. I suppose that the "well, we've never really tried anarchy" argument will be pulled out here, but I'd like to point out that you've never really tried to leap off a cliff and fly.
You're ignoring all this evidence. I'd like to know why.
PS: Fictional anecdotes are not proof of fact. While I appreciate the effort, there is a very large chasm I like to call "reality" between an author creating an entire world that does what she wants it to, and real life.
PPS: In the same vein, please point out how a society whereupon everyone accepts the Christian faith will not succeed. Or where everyone accepts the "Narbus's joy is paramount" philosophy. (Please be noting the "everyone accepts" bit when formating your answer.)

I'd also like to point out that my OPINION was backed by what actually happened. A lot of people sat down with a coke and listened to Janis Joplin, and yet here we are.

As for the "well, it doesn't work," bit. I'd like to point out the crux of Objectivism and your personal philosophy is your version of the Aristotilean statement "A is A." The full, logical version is "Given A, A is A."
So by your truncated version, we have the following exchange:
"Man is Man."
"But what is man?"
"Well, man is man."
"Okay, but what is it?"
"It's man. Man is man."
"Man is man, huh? That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh. Which is it, I wonder?"
(with help from Terry Pratchett)

You fail to actually tell anyone what man is. Just that Man is Man and this means all this deep stuff that has no real backing at all. You started the "Just deal with it" bit. Don't get pissy when I continue it.

And the implications about free will thing stems from , which you just abandoned.

Also, people are capable of being logical, yes, clearly. But people are also capable of being cardiologists. So does it follow that I should ask the trash man for open heart surgery? Becuase that's what you're suggesting.


PS: Still not "making baaaah noises" while being blindly pro bush. Still being rather anti-you.

PPS: For someone who was "overjoyed" when he realized he doesn't know everything, you sure act like you do. It's fascinating.

[doug]

Narbus, of the reported minimum deaths caused by the iraq war, are attributed to terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for those 80. The other 7870 are "your" problem, as it were.

Secondly, you bring up iraq iran to support your "Saddam is the devil" claim?

Well... ?

I'll give you a hint:



That's Rumsfeld, in case you didn't know. He works for Dubya, and he worked for Dubya's daddy and Reagan, too.

Will you now tell me ?

Saddam's a bastard, but there's just as much blood on americas hands. Ok? You want to talk about regime change and threats to world peace? The .

Moving on:

Your "other reports" quote american soldiers. Hate to burst your bubble bud, but they about events happening in iraq. So my rinky dinky little source seems a little bit more credible right now then yours does.

To restate: Why don't i believe the americans? Because they lied and they were caught. Why do i believe the independent media? they have not been caught lying yet.

My philosophy ONLY requires man to have the capacity for reason and the ability to apply said capacity. The only reason my philosophy exists, narbus, is because man has this capacity. I do not require men to be perfectly rational all the time.

Is global anarchy possible, in the sense that everyone will prosper and live out their days happily? Likely, no. Clue in - i don't give a fuck. I want to be free, and i don't care about the resulting effect on the world.

Is a community of like-minded, rational indviduals (GALTS GULCH) possible? yes. give me one good reason why it's not.

You want me to tell you what man is? See handy dictionary reference for "man".

Be anti-me. I find it depressing that you base your entire philosophical/political outlook on what i'm doing. If i tommorow switched to pro-war, could i not make you into a giant contradiction?

[Narbus]

[doug]

Ok, Narbus, how many of the 8000 deaths would you attribute to "terrorism"?

Half? All? Like the americans killed nobody?

for the last time, and i'll bold it and large print it for you:



So stop trying to prove it. It's an old hat. I've never said the guy was innocent, just that I don't know how bad he really is because ninety percent of what's been said about him lately is utter bullshit.

that's the facts, jack.

I do place individual responsibility on the soldiers who commited the murders in Iran-Iraq just as i put responsibility on the soldiers who are commiting the murders in Iraq-America right now. It's you who doesn't. So if you're going to say Saddam Hussein should bear the responsibility for Iran-Iraq, I say Rumsfeld and friends are just as responsible as he is.

I know this is hard for you, but look at my post again and tell me where i wave my magic wand and absolve the iraqi/iranian soldiers from any responsibility. What you are doing is putting words in my mouth to try and help your argument about me.

You want an objective measurement of "threat to world peace"? How? What is the unit by which one objectively measures such a thing?

The subjective opinion of a select group of americans who felt "threatened" by Iraq is enough in your mind to justify a war, but the subjective opinion of thousands of non-americans who feel threatened by your country is totally irrelevant?

and you say i'm irational?

You're attacking my use of the word "yet". What's wrong with me being as critical with my own sources of information as i am with yours? The guys who i cite are probably slimy little shit heads, just the same as the guys you cite. Everybody's got a bias.

That's why i've taken the stance that until i see it with my own eyes, i can't fully believe anything i'm told about it.

I have never "totally accepted" anything from anybody as absolute truth. Once again, you're making shit up to try and aid your argument.

Let's point out the fundamental glaring hypocricy of government that you yourself describe in your "you can never be free, doug" paragraph. For such a smart guy, Narbus, i'm suprised that you haven't seen this already.

You say that other people, naturally, would gang up on me and take my stuff. You then use iraq as an example, and say that Saddam did it.

How did he do it?

HE WAS THE GOVERNMENT! He used these things called "laws" and the 'military' and 'police' to get his way and take away other peoples freedoms. Contrary to your self-righteous flag waver pride, america is not helping the matter just yet. they're basically doing the same thing.

You see, government requires human beings to place other human beings, no different from the masses, in positions of power. They require some human beings to own other human beings' lives, or at least attempt to govern their use.

when this occurs, there is not freedom. Freedom is an absolute. it's like being pregnant. either you are or you aren't. There's no compromise and there's no grey area.

Don't try and debate this with me, because you'll lose. We'll argue about it until we are ninety and then you'll give up because you're sick of my zealot ranting. Freedom is not a compromise. Trust me.

So you admit then that a working towards a common goal (ie anarchy) is possible? Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

You still haven't pointed out how it's not completely intellectually cowardly to base your philosophical outlook on whatever i'm not thinking.

[Narbus]

[Lando]

[thirdhour]