Yet they offer no ideas of their own

[Menchise]

quote:

---

We've tried that. He employed chemical weapons. The operation failed miserably. I think that we should just go in there ourselves and displace him.

---

It wasn't tried with much conviction. Explain to me how the US actively supported the Kurds and the Shiites in their fight against Saddam, apart from the "No Fly Zones".

quote:

---

But at any rate, doesn't that suggestion default your argument on how the US should stay out of other nation's matters (read: Chile)?

---

What kind of an analogy is that?! Comparing Allende to Saddam is totally ridiculous! Allende was democratically elected, he didn't oppress the people, and he didn't have chemical weapons! Pinochet, on the other hand, killed off his political opponents (including Allende) and oppressed the people. He is/was on Amnesty International's wanted list for human rights violations. Pinochet was a mass murderer defended by US military aid!

You say that Saddam is hopelessly unpeaceful? Fine, you've convinced me. But DO NOT try to convince me that Pinochet was not. That is a direct contradiction.

[aramike]

quote:

---

It wasn't tried with much conviction. Explain to me how the US actively supported the Kurds and the Shiites in their fight against Saddam, apart from the "No Fly Zones".

---

I dunno, perhaps TRAINING and ARMING them?

quote:

---

What kind of an analogy is that?! Comparing Allende to Saddam is totally ridiculous! Allende was democratically elected, he didn't oppress the people, and he didn't have chemical weapons!

---

Doesn't matter. You just went and tried to draw a HUGE grey line.

quote:

---

Pinochet, on the other hand, killed off his political opponents (including Allende) and oppressed the people. He is/was on Amnesty International's wanted list for human rights violations. Pinochet was a mass murderer defended by US military aid!

---

...not quite.

quote:

---

You say that Saddam is hopelessly unpeaceful? Fine, you've convinced me. But DO NOT try to convince me that Pinochet was not. That is a direct contradiction.

---

I'm not trying to. The analogy had, in fact, NOTHING to do with the people involved. It had to do with the US persuing its interests, a point which you've missed.

We persue our interests in the middle east (including Iraq), we're condemned. We don't, we're condemned. We persue our interests ANYWHERE, we are condemned. We don't, we are.

Just a little too much anti-US rhetoric this time?

[Menchise]

quote:

---

I'm not trying to. The analogy had, in fact, NOTHING to do with the people involved. It had to do with the US persuing its interests, a point which you've missed.

We persue our interests in the middle east (including Iraq), we're condemned. We don't, we're condemned. We persue our interests ANYWHERE, we are condemned. We don't, we are.

Just a little too much anti-US rhetoric this time?

---

I didn't miss any point about pursuit of interests. It is the extent to which one is willing to go in order to pursue those interests that leads to condemnation.

My anti-US arguments didn't just come out of thin air. They come from discovering a history of a nation contradicting with its own founding principles and ethics in order to pursue private interests. I use Chile as an example because it's one of the most damning of them all (democracy itself was violated with the support of the "leader of the free world", damnit!).

It is for the aggressive pursuit of self-interest to the extent of endorsing unacceptable actions that causes the USA to be condemned just as Iraq is condemned. By convincing me that Saddam has proven himself unworthy of anything but condemnation, you have also strengthened my resolve that the USA should also be condemned for endorsing similar actions. After all, Iraq is only pursuing its own interests just as America is. Why should only one side be condemned?

I don't hate the USA, I'm disappointed by what it has become. I am particularly disappointed by how the USA declares in one minute that the principles of freedom and liberty made it such a great nation, and then throws those principles away the next minute when they get in the way of self-interest. That is not how a "great nation" behaves. That is how a corrupt nation behaves.

Realists would probably say that the corruption is due to the necessity of adapting to circumstances. Many agree. I don't. If that makes me anti-American, then so be it. Personally, I think I'm more "American" than most pro-Americans think I am, because I dare to be appalled when the USA breaks its own rules.

[Guest $iLk]

Just because the United States makes mistakes does not make Iraq and Al Quada saints.

Nations are just as fallible as individuals.

That doesn't change the fact that our nation is the free-est in the world, and the liberties that are being curtailed here are done so by liberals in the name of "social justice".

If we didn't have the moral rot of liberalism in our country we would be much better than we are. But even with it, we are still better than any craphole country in the middle east.

The fact you critisize America is one thing, you attempt to justify dictators in your critisism. I critisize America too, but I don't hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on a silver pedestal. And regardless of us MAYBE breaking our ideals, perhaps our ideals were wishful thinking in such a corrupt world. We have no choice perhaps>?

[aramike]

[Menchise]

[Guest $iLk]

And I refer to my argument that everyone has the absolute right to do anything they want that isn't a provable threat on anyones basic rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Where exactly have we violated this summing up of the bill of rights?

[Menchise]

I checked the old thread where we argued the issue of Allende, and it turns out that the debate was never resolved.

Here is where we left off...

ARAMIKE: Sure, but most people in the country didn't want those changes. Should a nation be formed based upon the opinions of the minority?

ME: I need to write my posts more carefully. Anyway, here is my answer.

Allende became the President of Chile with his 36% vote in addition to the votes received from other left wing candidates with which he formed a coalition. Therefore, his government did have the support of the Chilean majority, because while the majority did not vote for Allende specifically, they did vote for similar candidates who became supporters of Allende.

And then...

ARAMIKE: Allende's socialist government didn't ASK the people they were taking from

ME: Allende's government was taking from people who were using property for individual profit instead of serving the needs of everyone. If the complaints of those people were valid, they could have lobbied to have Allende removed at the next election. Pinochet took away the Chileans' right to lobby for anything.

Shall we continue?

[Guest $iLk]

Snipped this from Newsmax. Thought it amusing.

quote:

---

Taliban Picking Favorites for Front-Line War Coverage

Afghanistan's Taliban government is granting access to the front lines for favored U.S. TV networks, while those expected to give negative coverage are priced out of the market with exorbitant visa fees, the New York Times reported Thursday.

"Reporters on the scene and news executives in the United States said that winning entry to the [front lines] depended on being a news outlet that the Afghan rulers wanted to use to convey their message. But it was also the result of having the right connections - or in the parlance of foreign correspondents, the right 'fixer.'"

In terms of connections, CNN along with ABC News and the BBC enjoy significant advantages, reporters and news executives told the Times. "All have associations with Pakistanis who have cultivated exceptional relationships with Taliban authorities," the paper said.

Meanwhile the Afghan Embassy wanted to charge Fox News Channel up to $5,000 for a battlefield visa to tour hot spots like Khandahar. FNC declined the offer. CNN and ABC paid standard visa fees of just $30 per reporter.

CBS applied to go on the Afghan guided war-front tour, "but when the list was published, we weren't on it," news division chief Andrew Heyward told the Times.

The Taliban didn't even bother to extend an invitation to NBC News, the Times said.

---

Now why are the two most liberal stations favorites of the Taliban? Hmmmmm..?

[Guest]

OK, so for the liberals, that will be 2 E tickets, for Fox, that will be 40 E Tickets.

So nice of us to give them such a wonderful ride to charge for isn't it?

Welcome to Taliban World, ENDING SOON!! Get in while it's still around!!

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Now why are the two most liberal stations favorites of the Taliban?

---

Ask them.

I don't really care which TV stations the Taliban prefers. They all sound the same to me.

[aramike]

quote:

---

There's nothing grey about it.

---

It's a HUGE gray area. Persuance of interests based upon conditions. Without precise conditions layed out, the area is HUGELY gray. That should be obvious.

quote:

---

I brought up the Kurds because I was questioning the level of active support that the US gave to overthrowing Saddam after the Gulf War. If you want to question whether the Kurds would have been any better than Saddam, then go ahead. In the case of fighting communism, it is wrong when the people are not being oppressed, and they chose a communist leader (guess who I'm referring to).

---

The majority did NOT vote for him. I'll cover that more when I get there.

quote:

---

I said similar actions, like hiring other groups to do the dirty work for them.

---

Who's being hired to do WHAT?

And the US isn't hiring groups to take over nations nor is it hiring groups to employ weapons of mass destruction. Hardly similar.

quote:

---

I don't condemn America for that.

---

No, just for everything that puts us in a position to do that. You also don't credit the US for that.

quote:

---

I tell the one half of the story that everybody else ignores. I don't bother telling the other half because everyone already knows the other half. Besides, you tell the other half so much better than I could.

---

I know both halves of the story. I know that the US has done some crappy things in the past. Doesn't mean that I condemn them for EVERY ONE of their activities TODAY.

quote:

---

The US has evolved past such indiscretions on its own people, but if you look at how American multinationals treat non-Americans in their pursuit of private interests (like some of the gold mining operations of Central and South America), you'll find slavery of a kind that would have appalled even the Confederates.

---

That's liberal propaganda. The US purchases, fine. But the US does not OPERATE. Are you running Windows, by chance?

If so, you're PURCHASING from Microsoft, so should I blame YOU for Microsoft's indiscretions? Sure, why not?

quote:

---

Fine. I'll re-examine El Salvador too, and a few others now that I have the time.

---

Knock yourself out. And see if you can find something recent. Otherwise, you have NO argument. You can't blame the current generation and leadership for the errs of the previous one.

quote:

---

Notice the words "all Men are created equal", instead of "all American Men are created equal", that all are endowed with unalienable rights, not just Americans. The USA has a history of being destructive to the unalienable rights of non-Americans for the sake of securing its own power.

Before you start, I am NOT referring to Iraq, the Taliban, or any terrorists!

---

Irrelevant to the question. I said, "how *IS* the US breaking its own rules?" Again, condemning the US for past transgressions is a flawed stance, especially considering that all of the supposed "transgressions" are debatable. That would be like punishing me because my father *MAY* have driven while intoxicated. No dice.

quote:

---

Shall we continue?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Allende became the President of Chile with his 36% vote in addition to the votes received from other left wing candidates with which he formed a coalition. Therefore, his government did have the support of the Chilean majority, because while the majority did not vote for Allende specifically, they did vote for similar candidates who became supporters of Allende.

---

Still not justified. That would be like me voting for Bush, him winning the election then falling ill, and the government deciding that Trent Lott should be president. Still not democratic.

quote:

---

ME: Allende's government was taking from people who were using property for individual profit instead of serving the needs of everyone. If the complaints of those people were valid, they could have lobbied to have Allende removed at the next election. Pinochet took away the Chileans' right to lobby for anything.

---

So the Chileans would have to wait for a later election while their government was being TOTALLY redone by people they didn't vote for? Still not democratic.

At any rate, let's take an encyclopedic look at how wonderfully Allende's reforms worked...

Quoting from here:

quote:

---

Opposition to his program, however, was strong from the beginning, and by 1972 the result was seen in severe economic problems and a sharply polarized citizenry. The situation grew still more critical in 1973, when skyrocketing prices, food shortages (caused by the reduction of foreign credits), strikes, and political violence brought Chile to the brink of chaos.

---

OK, class, what does all that mean?

Polarized citizenry: This means that the people were extremely divided on what Allende was doing. If there is *THAT* much division, is it ETHICAL to completely change a government?

Nationalization: Because of privatization (and Allende's ILLEGAL seizure of foreign assets), there were food shortages and industrial striking. Not to mention skyrocketing prices.

WOW, Nick, those Chileans were a LOT better off!

More history: While Pinochet WAS violently militaristic, the Chileans DID prosper under him which stabalized the nation. I don't support the guy but I feel it was an unfortunate side-effect of a necessary displacement of Allende.

At any rate, in 1988 civilian government was restored. Now, Chile is a rather prosperous nation with good education and affordable living necessities (things that actually WORSENED under Allende).

Now, in 2000 a socialist BARELY won the presidency, but he isn't hardly trying to do what Allende did.

The conclusion is simple: Allende attempted to change the entire FACE of a nation with heavy national dissent and just over a THIRD of the vote. That's not democratic. His proposals and changes divided (read: polarized) the nation and made food and other living necessities difficult to come by.

And now, the Chileans are relatively prosperous. Obviously the way things were handled worked out for the best in the long run.

[Menchise]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Imagine if the USA had three major candidates instead of two, and one of them got 36 percent while the others got 25 percent (the smaller parties always get some of the votes).

---

Bill Clinton, because of Ross Perot. The numbers are different, but the concept is the same.

[Menchise]

Another example is the 1968 election, which was a lot closer than the election in 1992.

Nixon: 43%

Humphrey: 42%

Wallace: 13%

[Steve Schacher]

Good one.

In both cases, the winner only had a plurality, not a majority of the voters. Looking back, you can really see what a difference that makes.

[warren126692]

FACT: CLOSE TO 6,000 DEAD IN LESS THAN 3 HOURS

FACT: LESS THAN 500 DEAD [FOR ALL I KNOW] IN THREE WEAKS BOMING

OPINION: I WANT BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS WHAT AFGANISTAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE,

OPINION: I SAY USE ALL THE SURPLUS NUKES TO STRILIZE THE CUNTRY, CIVILION CASUALTIES BE DAMED.

APEARENTLY THEY DO NOT CARE WEATHER THEY KILL OURS.

OPINION: I WOULD LIKE TO GET A PEACE OF THE GUY THAT WROTE THAT CRAP!

if the picture dose not load go to:

what afaganstan should look like:

link, [target: bin laden] then link, [osama bin laden's house after renovation]

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

[aramike]

OK, upon my return from my weekend romp with the family in the north, I bear no serious inclination to break down the arguments one by one. However, I will respond to the point that's being IGNORED.

Yes, in the US system many candidates DO get less than 50% of the vote. HOWEVER, when they reach the presidency they are NOT changing the very system of government. THAT is what is undemocratic.

[Menchise]

He didn't change the system of government, he changed the economic terrain, which was necessary in order to fulfill his campaign promises. He made the big changes through the 'proper channels' with the support of the Chilean Congress. What more could you ask for?