Syria 106 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,731 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,060 Posts

12 Threads

#101 7 years ago

Asheekay;5714212Perhaps.

It does not justify blind bomb droppings and the reckless strategy which is being pushed, though. If, with each one terrorist kill, you prepare 5 more for the future, it does not appear to do much about a "best of set options" claim.

Ok, but your claim that bombs are blindly dropped or that there are 5 new terrorists for each killed are just that - claims without any supporting evidence. Blindly dropping bombs, for example, is not technically possible for a drone. But that is exactly what a Pakistani jet would have to do.

It happens that legitimacy is a subjective value while legality is objective.

Who would define what is "legitimate"? You? Or me?

I don't see why legitimacy cannot be objective. And if legality was always objective you wouldn't need lawyers. As for who defines what is legitimate - usually that's by consent, not individuals.

The best remedy for bad rules, is to try and create good ones, instead of acting lawlessly. Would you actually want USSR on the map again, instead of Russia? What about China?

You are trying to tell me that TWO superpowers are wrong, the united nations is a joke (because it would not authorize the intervention) and one America is right? Hell of an argument you have got there.

You think Russia and China are good judges when it comes to questions about how you should treat your own population? You think the US is alone? You think you can simply change the compsition of the security council?

Sacrifice?!

What sacrifice did the Americans give when they assaulted Iraq back in 2003 when all the reports clearly indicated that there are no chemical weapons over there? What sacrifice are the American civilians giving, when people in Syria die?

If someone dies in Syria, how does America happen to score more on the sacrifice board anyway?

Clearly he was referencing prior conflicts.

So now he will wage yet another war because he said something stupid and would make it real? What exactly are you even trying to justify?

What he said wasn't stupid and no, he doesn't want to make it real. I explained his position to you. That doesn't mean that it is my position.

Try and read my couple of posts 5-6 posts before. I did clearly state (and will acknowledge anywhere, anytime) the blunders our government made.

I also do not try and stand up for the stupid attitude of the fellow countrymen of my land. I know they ARE wrong, when they are wrong.

I also acknowledge America, Israel, India and any other state when they do anything which appears right to me.

I do not judge actions with my mindset. Instead, I base my mindset on the actions/experiences.

Being Pakistani is my nationality, not my ethical loyalty. My judgement is not convoluted by the color of my flag.

Maybe that is how you see yourself. Think about this - if you weren't someone whose entire knowledge of foreign politics consists of very basic anti-western propaganda wouldn't you have an easier time distinguishing between my position and that of the American government?




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#102 7 years ago

MrFancypants;5714225Ok, but your claim that bombs are blindly dropped or that there are 5 new terrorists for each killed are just that - claims without any supporting evidence. Blindly dropping bombs, for example, is not technically possible for a drone. But that is exactly what a Pakistani jet would have to do.[/QUOTE]

Maybe that is why they do not drop bombs and prefer army operations instead?

You will realize the number of drone-syndrome terrorists when the crop of this hatred is ripe. Until then it would be prudent for you to wait silently and let the curtain rise.

MrFancypants;5714225I don't see why legitimacy cannot be objective. And if legality was always objective you wouldn't need lawyers. As for who defines what is legitimate - usually that's by consent, not individuals.[/QUOTE]

Legality is objective. It is called the constitution in legal terms.

When lawyers argue, they try to twist and turn the conclusion of the facts, not define the law.

For example, a lawyer never tries to admit that his client committed murder and make the law flexible about it. He always tries and makes the facts point that the murder was never committed.

On the other hand, legitimacy is defined by individuals. As what is "legal" and what is "not" can be easily defined while what is "right" and what is "wrong" depends upon the person you ask.

MrFancypants;5714225 You think Russia and China are good judges when it comes to questions about how you should treat your own population? You think the US is alone? You think you can simply change the compsition of the security council?[/QUOTE]

No. It is a very subjective matter.

But I do think its the west who introduced the concept of "democracy" and the united nations was created with the knowledge and acknowledgement of those western powers.

As long as America vetoes any resolution against Israel, united nation serves its purpose well. When China or Russia use this power ... they are evil oppressive governments and uno is a joke.

Umm ... well?

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714225]Clearly he was referencing prior conflicts.

Clearly prior American conflicts do not automatically make a new military intervention about a third state legal, neither legitimate.

Clearly prior "sacrifices" do not give you the authority to go and destabilize a government. [QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714225] What he said wasn't stupid and no, he doesn't want to make it real. I explained his position to you. That doesn't mean that it is my position.

So you are arguing on his behalf or are you arguing by your beliefs about legality, legitimacy and international ethics?

Whom exactly are you trying to defend? Yourself or Obama? [QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714225]Maybe that is how you see yourself. Think about this - if you weren't someone whose entire knowledge of foreign politics consists of very basic anti-western propaganda wouldn't you have an easier time distinguishing between my position and that of the American government?

As I have stated twice already, I do acknowledge the noble deeds of every government and nation.

Did I not mention the flood and earthquake relief funds?

The children education funds? The higher education scholarships?

There has been a devilish act by the taliban recently, of blasting up a church in which more than 80 Christians have died (in KPK). I denounce it here and everywhere and clearly declare that calling the perpetrators "sons of bitches" would be to disgrace the bitches.

This does not, however, justify millions of destroyed lives in Iraq and Afghanistan by the American troops.

If you can understand what I am expressing here, that is.




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,731 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,060 Posts

12 Threads

#103 7 years ago

Asheekay;5714242Maybe that is why they do not drop bombs and prefer army operations instead?

You will realize the number of drone-syndrome terrorists when the crop of this hatred is ripe. Until then it would be prudent for you to wait silently and let the curtain rise.

Shows how much you know. The Pakistani air force flew thousands of bombing runs over the last couple of years. Their COIN capabilities were virtually nonexistant at that time, so you get jets dropping 1,000kg bombs in missions planned with google earth (no, that is not an exaggeration). Thanks to the US a lot of the bombs they dropped were laser-guided, so that must have helped keep civilian casualties low, but noone knows how many died. Why do you think your government doesn't tell you about this but goes into great detail about US killings?

Legality is objective. It is called the constitution in legal terms.

When lawyers argue, they try to twist and turn the conclusion of the facts, not define the law.

For example, a lawyer never tries to admit that his client committed murder and make the law flexible about it. He always tries and makes the facts point that the murder was never committed.

On the other hand, legitimacy is defined by individuals. As what is "legal" and what is "not" can be easily defined while what is "right" and what is "wrong" depends upon the person you ask.

I disagree, but I don't see the point in discussing this further. The issue here is not simply one of an action being illegal, it is one of a partial judge not ruling over an illegal action, which legitimates someone else taking over for him.

But I do think its the west who introduced the concept of "democracy" and the united nations was created with the knowledge and acknowledgement of those western powers.

As long as America vetoes any resolution against Israel, united nation serves its purpose well. When China or Russia use this power ... they are evil oppressive governments and uno is a joke.

Umm ... well?

The UN is not a democracy. You don't have a majority vote in the security council. And as for Israel - that is one of the best examples of the UN (in this case the general assembly) being a joke. But we can discuss that in another thread.

Clearly prior American conflicts do not automatically make a new military intervention about a third state legal, neither legitimate.

Clearly prior "sacrifices" do not give you the authority to go and destabilize a government.

No shit. Clearly noone suggested as much. The issue was that you, again, took a single word from a speech out of context and used it in one of your rants. You have tried that three times so far and every time you have failed utterly. Here's an idea - don't quote US presidents as long as you don't understand what they are saying.

So you are arguing on his behalf or are you arguing by your beliefs about legality, legitimacy and international ethics?

Whom exactly are you trying to defend? Yourself or Obama?

I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm trying to correct some of your misconceptions. Looks like a futile task given your obstinacy, but I think despite your behavior here you will eventually see these issues in a different light.

This does not, however, justify millions of destroyed lives in Iraq and Afghanistan by the American troops.

And noone thinks or claims that it does, outside of your muddled mind.




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#104 7 years ago

MrFancypants;5714250Shows how much you know. The Pakistani air force flew thousands of bombing runs over the last couple of years. Their COIN capabilities were virtually nonexistant at that time, so you get jets dropping 1,000kg bombs in missions planned with google earth (no, that is not an exaggeration). Thanks to the US a lot of the bombs they dropped were laser-guided, so that must have helped keep civilian casualties low, but noone knows how many died. Why do you think your government doesn't tell you about this but goes into great detail about US killings?[/quote]

Source? Link?

If you don't even have stats on the casualties, what are you even arguing about?

MrFancypants;5714250I disagree, but I don't see the point in discussing this further. The issue here is not simply one of an action being illegal, it is one of a partial judge not ruling over an illegal action, which legitimates someone else taking over for him.[/quote]

Partial judge. So you think.

Isn't it again that legality is objective and your bias is subjective?

MrFancypants;5714250The UN is not a democracy. You don't have a majority vote in the security council. And as for Israel - that is one of the best examples of the UN (in this case the general assembly) being a joke. But we can discuss that in another thread.

Yeah. Why doesn't america withdraw from that joke anyway? What's the point clinging on uselessly?

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714250]No shit. Clearly noone suggested as much. The issue was that you, again, took a single word from a speech out of context and used it in one of your rants. You have tried that three times so far and every time you have failed utterly. Here's an idea - don't quote US presidents as long as you don't understand what they are saying.

Ummm ... ok, thanks.

Oh ya. How do the past sacrifices relate to the situation in syria anyway? How do they even relate to bypassing the uno regulations too?

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714250]I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm trying to correct some of your misconceptions. Looks like a futile task given your obstinacy, but I think despite your behavior here you will eventually see these issues in a different light.

And noone thinks or claims that it does, outside of your muddled mind.

Aw. Such a noble task you have undertaken and such a failure I am, helplessly trudging in the dark.

Do you always stand up to such glorious causes as to end up political ignorance, or am I special?

It appears the two things are interconnected, though.




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,731 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,060 Posts

12 Threads

#105 7 years ago

Asheekay;5714294Source? Link?

If you don't even have stats on the casualties, what are you even arguing about?

I could proivde the stats, but I doubt you would acknowledge any of that. Common sense should tell you that I'm right about the collateral damage anyway: a guided missile is more accurate than an unguided bomb. A missile has a 10kg warhead, a bomb is between 125 and 500kg. If you get over yourself and admit that much I'll consider giving you sources for your own research.

Partial judge. So you think.

Isn't it again that legality is objective and your bias is subjective?

So what exactly do you disagree with, that Assad is killing his own people or that it is wrong for him to kill his own people?

Yeah. Why doesn't america withdraw from that joke anyway? What's the point clinging on uselessly?

A sarcastic comment to avoid the arguments I provided? How clever.

Funny thing is that what you sarcastically suggest has actually happened, to some degree, when the US withdrew from some UN programs recently. Security council is a different matter, nations have tried withdrawing from it and quickly found out that their interests suffer if they do.

Oh ya. How do the past sacrifices relate to the situation in syria anyway? How do they even relate to bypassing the uno regulations too?

Try reading the speech. He doesn't refer to Syria when he speaks about sacrifice.

Aw. Such a noble task you have undertaken and such a failure I am, helplessly trudging in the dark.

Do you always stand up to such glorious causes as to end up political ignorance, or am I special?

It appears the two things are interconnected, though.

Not always, but you make it so easy. What's your motivation though? Looks like you have a grudge and are frozen in a mindset that precludes you from reasonable argumentation. I could tell you that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and you'd still reply with some knee-jerk nonsense about how the evil Americans are eating babies for breakfast.




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#106 7 years ago

MrFancypants;5714352I could proivde the stats, but I doubt you would acknowledge any of that. Common sense should tell you that I'm right about the collateral damage anyway: a guided missile is more accurate than an unguided bomb. A missile has a 10kg warhead, a bomb is between 125 and 500kg. If you get over yourself and admit that much I'll consider giving you sources for your own research.[/quote]

First, sending an air to ground missile on a civilian marriage procession would probably end in more civilian casualties than dropping a bomb on a terrorist base.

Secondly, if you expect me to take propaganda sites links as credible, you should know better.

Thirdly, usually sources are provided in an argument without condition of this and that. It is a rational responsibility in a debate, not an extra service you do to oblige your adversary.

Oh well ...

MrFancypants;5714352So what exactly do you disagree with, that Assad is killing his own people or that it is wrong for him to kill his own people?[/quote]

No. I disagree with your idea than breaking the rules of an organisation you have joined in favor of what you "think" right, is not a very good idea ethically, nor rationally.

You either quit the security council, or you follow its rules.

MrFancypants;5714352A sarcastic comment to avoid the arguments I provided? How clever.

Funny thing is that what you sarcastically suggest has actually happened, to some degree, when the US withdrew from some UN programs recently. Security council is a different matter, nations have tried withdrawing from it and quickly found out that their interests suffer if they do.

Firstly, you only expressed your own subjective views that uno is a joke. Don't call your personal ideas "arguments". Arguments are facts presented in a form that they conclude something the presenter intends to prove. Me claiming america is a country of ant eaters will not actually count as an argument, but only a claim for which I will require real arguments.

Secondly, you are implying that America would quit the security council if its interests do not suffer. This is in line with my claim that America acts for its interests, not moral obligations such as the loss of civilian lives.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714352]Try reading the speech. He doesn't refer to Syria when he speaks about sacrifice.

I will try to.

You could help me a bit by informing me how does that speech justify an assault on Syria.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5714352]Not always, but you make it so easy. What's your motivation though? Looks like you have a grudge and are frozen in a mindset that precludes you from reasonable argumentation. I could tell you that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and you'd still reply with some knee-jerk nonsense about how the evil Americans are eating babies for breakfast.

Maybe I am the one claiming 1+1=2 and you are the one negating it? You neglect the difference between subjectivity and objectivity so ruthlessly, it makes me wonder.

And no, I never claimed that americans involve in pedophilanthrophagy. You are again making a claim without sufficient arguments to prove it.

My claim was and is that the american government acts only for its interests and not moral obligations. I never mentioned eating human or wildlife babies (unless by chance an american fries a chick-developed egg, which could happen to anyone anywhere)




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,731 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,060 Posts

12 Threads

#107 7 years ago

Asheekay;5714373First, sending an air to ground missile on a civilian marriage procession would probably end in more civilian casualties than dropping a bomb on a terrorist base.

Secondly, if you expect me to take propaganda sites links as credible, you should know better.

Thirdly, usually sources are provided in an argument without condition of this and that. It is a rational responsibility in a debate, not an extra service you do to oblige your adversary.

Oh well ...

And considering the difference in surveillance technology and mission planning capabilities it should be obvious that the Pakistani air force is much more likely to bomb civilians than the US is.

You, of all people, talking about how to lead a reasonable debate is a bit of an insult. How many sources have you provided so far? How often have you answered with arrogant sarcastic posts instead of arguments? If you want to be treated like a rational being then extend that courtesy to others.

No. I disagree with your idea than breaking the rules of an organisation you have joined in favor of what you "think" right, is not a very good idea ethically, nor rationally.

You either quit the security council, or you follow its rules.

So why does Asssad get to break the rules?

Firstly, you only expressed your own subjective views that uno is a joke. Don't call your personal ideas "arguments". Arguments are facts presented in a form that they conclude something the presenter intends to prove. Me claiming america is a country of ant eaters will not actually count as an argument, but only a claim for which I will require real arguments.

Secondly, you are implying that America would quit the security council if its interests do not suffer. This is in line with my claim that America acts for its interests, not moral obligations such as the loss of civilian lives.

Of course they act on interests. Every state acts on interests. And occasionally some of them will act on moral obligations, but that is far more likely if the obligation coincides with some interest.

I will try to.

You could help me a bit by informing me how does that speech justify an assault on Syria.

I answered that in my last post. Remember, a couple of posts ago you brought up that speech in order to make the US look bad. That didn't work because it turned out that you had taken a single word from that speech out of context. No relation to an intervention in Syria at all.

Maybe I am the one claiming 1+1=2 and you are the one negating it? You neglect the difference between subjectivity and objectivity so ruthlessly, it makes me wonder.

And no, I never claimed that americans involve in pedophilanthrophagy. You are again making a claim without sufficient arguments to prove it.

My claim was and is that the american government acts only for its interests and not moral obligations. I never mentioned eating human or wildlife babies (unless by chance an american fries a chick-developed egg, which could happen to anyone anywhere)

There is plenty of evidence in this thread to support the idea that I expressed with this hyperbole. You complain endlessly about a few civilians killed by Americans, but you don't care about the masses of civilians killed by your own government or those dying in Syria. You keep taking things US presidents have said out of context to make them look evil, probably because you get your information from biased media. You ignore causal relationships and blame the US but ignore the parties directly responsible or those who share responsibility. Your anti-Americanism has a created a crude "with me or agaisnt me" mindset, as evidenced by your inability to agree even on the simplest issues, you continously mixing up my position with the position of the US government and even calling me American at times. But you still think your opinion is fair and balanced.