Proof of Life was really a good movie, vastly underrated. Russell Crowe is an artist, really.

---
What others say about boorite!

CC 226 : As the Crowe Flies by Kevin_Keegans_Perm 12-25-03

Dec 31, 2003 Right. Thats it. 2004, will be the year i stop doing Russell Crowe comics And the year i stop making socio-political comments on the conservative party. Jan 1, 2004 "Michael Howard has something of the night about him. I hear hes the lead vampire in the new Russell Crowe movie"

boorite's response is pretty normal for someone wanting to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead of making realistic decisions.

What I don't comprehend is that you don't understand the importance protecting the security of peaceful stable democracies.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Name me some peaceful, stable democracies. A Democracy ceases to become peaceful when it goes to war. It further comes into play that said democracy may never have been peaceful in the first place, considering the economy tends to be war-driven.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

As I said, the most basic moral equation is outlandish nonsense, angels dancing on pinheads, according to Makk's mentality (which happens to be the orthodox one). The idea that our own rules might be applied to our own behavior is the most implausible fantasy, not a basis for "realistic decisions."

Note how the US is "peaceful" even when it is the attacker. Never mind the pre-emptive violence, which in other contexts might be duly recognized as barbarism. None of that counts. The US is peaceful-- it just is.

Note also that measures seemingly custom made for undermining the security of Americans are portrayed as "protecting [our] security." Never mind that even the White House acknowledges the risk we've incurred with this war, and never mind the bodies coming home in bags. Never mind also that the "threat" that got us to war turns out to be somewhat less than it was talked up to be. None of that counts. It's still about our security.

And Washington's concern for democracy is a given. No need to examine the record here. None of it would count. After all, evaluating our own behavior is just so much debate about angels on pinheads. It's not realistic. What's real is that Washington stands for democracy, because that's what our leaders say.

Such is the mentality. We see it right here in all its glory. I don't think I've parodied it-- hell, I don't think I could. Unbelievable as it seems, there it is, and it is immune to any kind of reason that I've been able to find.

---
What others say about boorite!

MaKK, the difference between you (commonplace mentality) and boorite (positive, progressive, becoming-commonplace mentality) is that boorite uses philosophy. Without philosophy, your pathetic ass wouldn't have this kind of democracy to toss about your faulty and imperceptive reasoning in.

Boorite is a forward-thinker, and maybe he IS a little idealist. But so were the most influential and respected philosophers. I am not referring to the modern, pretentious definition of philosophy, either. Boorite is the kind of thinker that allowed previous civilizations to spread in knowledge and culture.

You, MaKK, are the kind of thinker that has made forward-thinking people toil and exhaust themselves on the shores of ignorance. Meaning that you DON'T think. Please, don't even try to knock philosophy and how it's a pansy thing or stupid, or whatever. As I said, in history, philosophy has led to some of the greatest democratic achievements EVER.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

Well, the major players in the organised democratic opposition in Iraq - the INC, the PUK - backed the invasion (with caveats). Apart from that, how exactly do you poll Iraqis on something like this?

---

OK Andy: Here's how the Kurds (not just the PUK but apparently the KDP too) felt about a large-scale US invasion to topple Saddam (from the NYT, July '02). Not sure where you got the idea of all this widespread Iraqi or Kurdish support for the war.

---
What others say about boorite!

Defending an oppressive dictatorship over the United States is progressive?

Uninstalling Saddam wasn't uninstalling an aggressive, unpeaceful regime?

Disciplining a regime for violating international peace doesn't make the enforcer of peace unpeaceful.

I care more about democratic citizens' rights to peace and happiness than I do the rights of a dictator to oppress its people and hold a region of the earth hostage and in chaos.

Boorite you are the one playing selective morality, not me. You're ignoring a lot of the very real details to fit your very stilted "philosophy". We didn't invade Iraq out of the blue, they parked their tanks in Kuwait City if you don't remember. I don't remember the United States invading Mexico City, then burning their agricultural fields on our way out.

It wasn't preemptive violence, it was a continuation of the military action taken in the first Gulf War..FOLLOWING SADDAM'S INVASION OF KUWAIT. Saddam also had plenty of time to step down after this before we invaded again.

You're right, we shouldn't have barbarically stood up to Saddam and allowed him to heroically occupy Kuwait and its oil fields, then heroically continue oppressing his people, letting his sons heroically rape and torture at will, while dragging off his political enemies and having them shot in the base of the skull with all civility, also while progressively threatening minority groups with genocide.

There were risks in going after the Taliban also. There are always risks in war.

quote:

---

and never mind the bodies coming home in bags.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, the major players in the organised democratic opposition in Iraq - the INC, the PUK - backed the invasion (with caveats). Apart from that, how exactly do you poll Iraqis on something like this?

---

Not the INC, according to the Independent. Quite the opposite. And isn't the PUK the largest constituent group of the INC?

---

quote:

---

Makk's attitude is (and has been throughout the thread) pretty much normal, not just for this country, but for any power, ever, anywhere. The attitude is that our standards do not apply to ourselves as to our enemies. In fact, when it is suggested that they do, the reaction is incomprehension. There is no simpler or more basic rule of decency. Jesus goes on about it at some length in his sermons on hypocrisy. Yet very few seem able to see it when it applies to us. It's as if the question cannot even make sense. We did it, so it must be right, by definition.

Take for example the justification for bombing Afghanistan. The justification is that we were attacked. Does this generalize? Is any country who is attacked by terrorists allowed to go bomb another country in response? If so, then many countries have even stronger justifications for bombing Washington, which has been carrying out this sort of thing for many decades. According to the logic, bombing America is the good and just and right thing to do. But anyone who points this out is dismissed as insane. The principle, simple as it is, cannot be grasped.

How about our justification for attacking Iraq? We hear that they were possibly willing and able (able, only in the remotest stretch of imagination) to carry out attacks against us. So that permits us to bomb and invade. So does that principle generalize? Is any country that faces a possible, potential threat permitted to bomb, invade, overthrow? Not if the potential threat is posed by the US or UK, even if that threat is far greater and more likely to be carried out. The principle does not generalize. The very idea that it might is greeted with ridicule. It's the easiest thing to understand, but does anyone understand it? No.

It's said that we're accomplishing wonderful things through all this violence. We're overthrowing Talibans and Saddams and protecting governments from extermists in Central and South America and the Middle East and Asia. But that's exactly what every imperial power has said. German and Japanese leaders marched to the scaffold at Nuremberg saying it. It never occurs to us to ask the beneficiaries of our invasions and terror wars-- the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Colombians and Nicaraguans, the Vietnamese-- if they would like to receive the dispensation of our righteous violence, for their own good. Nor does it ever occur to us that we would not like to be bombed for our own good. We neglect to undertake the most elementary moral exercise. Indeed, anyone who does undertake it is attacked, or dismissed with contempt.

So the whole discussion of the "war on terror," as it takes place here in the States, is just a monumental hypocrisy of the most transparent sort. Transparent though it is, few manage to see through it.

---

You are a much more accurate parrot.

I guess my response is worth repeating also:

quote:

---

Uninstalling Saddam wasn't uninstalling an aggressive, unpeaceful regime?

Disciplining a regime for violating international peace doesn't make the enforcer of peace unpeaceful.

I care more about democratic citizens' rights to peace and happiness than I do the rights of a dictator to oppress its people and hold a region of the earth hostage and in chaos.

quote:

---

The idea that our own rules might be applied to our own behavior is the most implausible fantasy, not a basis for "realistic decisions."

---

Boorite you are the one playing selective morality, not me. You're ignoring a lot of the very real details to fit your very stilted "philosophy". We didn't invade Iraq out of the blue, they parked their tanks in Kuwait City if you don't remember. I don't remember the United States invading Mexico City, then burning their agricultural fields on our way out.

quote:

---

Note how the US is "peaceful" even when it is the attacker. Never mind the pre-emptive violence, which in other contexts might be duly recognized as barbarism. None of that counts. The US is peaceful-- it just is.

---

It wasn't preemptive violence, it was a continuation of the military action taken in the first Gulf War..FOLLOWING SADDAM'S INVASION OF KUWAIT. Saddam also had plenty of time to step down after this before we invaded again.

You're right, we shouldn't have barbarically stood up to Saddam and allowed him to heroically occupy Kuwait and its oil fields, then heroically continue oppressing his people, letting his sons heroically rape and torture at will, while dragging off his political enemies and having them shot in the base of the skull with all civility, also while progressively threatening minority groups with genocide.

quote:

---

Never mind that even the White House acknowledges the risk we've incurred with this war,

---

There were risks in going after the Taliban also. There are always risks in war.

quote:

---

and never mind the bodies coming home in bags.

---

It's a war! And those bodies volunteered.

quote:

---

Never mind also that the "threat" that got us to war turns out to be somewhat less than it was talked up to be. None of that counts. It's still about our security.

---

Yes thank you for agreeing with me.

quote:

---

What's real is that Washington stands for democracy, because that's what our leaders say.

---

Are you saying we aren't a free democracy? How many political opponents have you heard of being thrown into meat grinders? How many elections have we had with a 99.9% outcome for the victor? Give me a break boorite.

---

AWOL-Gate

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

He basically showed that he did meet all his requirements for the service.

Thanks for defending the country, Bush!

;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Yeah, things were getting pretty hairy with all those VC in downtown Houston.

Here, we see another crucial aspect of the mentality: Anyone who opposes or criticizes US action is defending Saddam's dictatorship. I can't imagine a more transparent fallacy, and yet it's standard issue pro-war rhetoric.

The remaining portion of Makk's argument that I can make sense of portrays the current invasion and occupation as a continuation of our reprisals for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, well over a decade ago. The provocation is Iraq's "parking tanks in Kuwait City"-- in 1990. This is a remarkable use of the concept of "the same war." I have not even heard this one seriously offered by the Administration. That we might bomb and invade a thoroughly whipped country for something it did in 1990 opens up all kinds of possibilities. Is Panama then permitted to bomb Washington in reprisal for the 1989 invasion? Of course not. The question cannot even be asked, as it would require applying our own standards to ourselves. This, to Makk and others like him (and they are in the majority), would be an exercise in "stilted philosophy" and counting angels on heads of pins.

I don't see it as a philosophy at all. It's just the barest minimum required of a decent person. Totally out of the question here, though.

---
What others say about boorite!

I'm going to Johnstown! And Louisville! And Bowling Green! And Flushing! YEAAAAAGGGHH!

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Hey, MaKK, how can you accuse anyone else of being a parrot when you have a remarkable ability to repeat the same things over and over again?

You only throw off other people because you use different words sometimes.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, the major players in the organised democratic opposition in Iraq - the INC, the PUK - backed the invasion (with caveats). Apart from that, how exactly do you poll Iraqis on something like this?

---

Not the INC, according to the Independent. Quite the opposite. And isn't the PUK the largest constituent group of the INC?

---

Er, dunno, it might be. But how can you call this "quite the opposite" of supporting an invasion?

---

quote:

---

He basically showed that he did meet all his requirements for the service.

---

MaKK, philosophy has little to do with repeating the same tired argument over and over again. Therefore you possess no philosophy whatsoever. Here's the crux of all of your arguments: Bush is right.

And I am guessing that you missed the satire on boorite's statements. He was describing the scenario from a right-wong standpoint.

Now, I've noticed that, despite so much evidence to the contrary, you love Shrub. You seem to be in denial that he has ever done anything wrong. You defend each and every attack or perceived attack against him. Why?

There also seems to be no reasoning with you. The moment someone gives you a piece of personal information, hoping you can understand them better, you try to use it against them in an argument. You seem well-spoken, but totally and completely immature at the same time. You're either a very well-read adolescent, or an older individual with a barely-hidden, immature bitterness.

Who and what are you?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

No way dougan! Bush is definitely in the clear! Score another one up for the good guys! ;)

A parrot doesn't repeat itself, it repeats other people. Bad parrot.

It's not because it's the same war, it's the same regime. If Bush Senior had taken over the U.S. after Panama, become a dictator, and threatened the borders of nations around it, then it might be a useful metaphor. The U.S. taking actions against a drug dealer and then leaving the country isn't the same thing, and once again I think you should have the common sense to know it.

Once again, we can apply these standards to ourselves. Countries would be in the moral clear to invade us to seize drug traders we are harbouring, or to uninstall a dictatorship after lengthy sanctions and U.N. negotations.

I was more addressing Mikey's point that I think was "by going to war a nation is no longer peaceful". Though I do think it was you who said going after Saddam was "barbaric". I'm just wondering why when someone who is barbaric is brought to justice, you then say the nation that brought him to justice has yielded the moral authority to say it should not be similarly invaded and bombed. Please explain to me the obvious logic you are using there.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Wow. It seems there are a LOT of things you claim to know about but happen to be pretty wrong. Parrots repeat other people AND themselves. Which is why you're a parrot. You repeat FOX News garbage, and just keep repeating it, like I said, using different words once in a while.

But I guess that's not the point, right? We should be arguing issues? Well, it's hard to argue issues when one of the parties involved is usually so fact-deprived that they have to take swipes at the rational one to attempt to invalidate their argument. You sadden me, MaKK. A lot.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, the major players in the organised democratic opposition in Iraq - the INC, the PUK - backed the invasion (with caveats). Apart from that, how exactly do you poll Iraqis on something like this?

---

Not the INC, according to the Independent. Quite the opposite. And isn't the PUK the largest constituent group of the INC?

---

Er, dunno, it might be. But how can you call this "quite the opposite" of supporting an invasion?

---

I didn't. As you can see by glancing up, you stated that INC and PUK "backed the invasion" (emphasis mine). You could only mean the large-scale invasion that was planned and executed, and which the INC and PUK did not "back." Quite the opposite.

---

Well, to set the record straight, I don't agree 100% with ANYBODY, but Spankling and boorite generally represent more of my political views than anyone else. Dougan, lately you have said a lot of things I agree with, but I almost ALWAYS disagree with MaKK. Who doesn't, though?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.