Comments Posted By Shawn
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 70 Comments
OLMERT A CROOK AS WELL AS SPINELESS?
"At least in Israel, they are not under the throes of a dictator who defies lawful judgements with 'signing statements'."
By calling Bush a dictator you are insulting the billions of people who suffered (and still suffer) under real dictatorships. Trivializing suffering doesn't matter though, as long as it scores political points, eh?
Onto the point on the post, you think Olmert never learned anything from Chamberlain. Coddling terrorists will never work.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 9.01.2007 @ 20:17
IN WHICH IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT CENK UYGUR IS A BRAINLESS TWIT
"seeing as once there were only two nukes in the world and we dropped both of them
and we are still the only nation in the world who has ever nukes anyone"
Killing 170,000 people over the course of a few days or kill millions of them (while losing probably a million of your own guys) in a land invasion that'd take months? Which one sounds like the lesser of two evils?
Also, you ignore that we were attacked by a nation that killed 29 million Chinese (and celebrated on their front pages).
"The american people spoke clearly at the last election. They don’t want this war with iraq and I am just betting that they don’t want a war with anyone else either"
Actually is the vote was for a change in the war.
"is every single thing that Israel does the right thing?"
Of course not (though a VAST majority of the wrongs the world believes they have committed don't exist or aren't wrong). I don't want them to strike Iran. With the world so insanely anti-Israel that it'd be a terrible PR move (but absolutely correct in strategic terms), hell they have to fight their own war on terror with one hand tied behind their back thanks to that illogical and unrealistic union, the UN and Europe. The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the few times where a majority of people side with a massive genocidal, despotic force over a secular democracy defending itself from destruction.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 7.01.2007 @ 22:21
"that have elections
they elected leaders"
Actually, Mahmoud has no real power. The Supreme Leader (that's why Iran is the only theocracy left) has total control of the government and can do anything he wants - the Iranians no more have elected their true leader than the Iraqis voted for Iraq all those times.
"If the Israeli/Palestinian problem could be solved (and it can), then who would the Iranians have to target? No one!"
...you do realize the Palestinians are just pawns for the larger Arab world, right (that would be why they kept them in refugee camps instead of assimilating them)? It just gives them a "legitimate" excuse to be so utterly disgusting towards Israel. Every time there could be a resolution for the two-state solution it was the leaders of Palestine who rejected it (Arafat being the last to do so, and then instituted a series of terror attacks).
The scariest part of the two-state solution (though I agree it's the logical solution) is it won't change much. There will still be suicide bombers and cries for the annihilation of Israel because it's not about getting their own state but the destruction of the Jewish state.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 7.01.2007 @ 22:15
BRING ME THE HEAD OF JAMIL HUSSEIN
"One is a tad more serious than the other, don’t you think?"
That isn't how one discusses what is true or false. Something is true or false, it doesn't matter how serious it is.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 7.01.2007 @ 18:24
This strawman that folks like Rick believe that Iraq will be rainbows and chocolate ponds if the AP stopped their reliance on subjective belief in certain officials (no seconday confirmation of events in their stories based on Jamil) is just disgusting. He has never said anything of the sort, and the continual use of logical fallacies by the commenters in opposition to Rick is pathetic.
I also find it humorous that the same people who questioned pre-war intel because of no confirmation from outside sources (though technically the yellowcake nonsense was cooked up by the Italians) would then attack the right blogosphere for questioning the AP when there was no proof of specific incidents except for Jamil, who they couldn't prove existed.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 7.01.2007 @ 10:22
"You apparently want the left to play nice while the right continues to abuse us. Sorry, the left is not going to play that game any more. You wish for us to be like an abused spouse, who when the abuser promises never to do it again, believes and returns for yet more abuse."
Oh, so now you're switching to strawmen, Jonathan?
I said nothing of the sort, NOR did I insinuate anything of the sort. The righties shouldn't be able to abuse the left either, and saying "oh I'm using it as an offense" is childish, it's still an illogical shield. You just prove my point yet again - I explained that it was tu quoque and you just said "well, they did it, too". That is logically fallacious. I guess people aren't for the moral (or logical) high ground anymore, it's just who can snipe better.
And just for the sake of full disclosure, I dislike both left and right, but I dislike the left more (because leftist political ideas are more illogical).
Comment Posted By Shawn On 7.01.2007 @ 10:27
lose the argument by using it*
Comment Posted By Shawn On 6.01.2007 @ 13:18
Is there ever gonna be responses to these types of folks without tu quoque?
Saying "well, the righties were snarky so we can be, too" isn't a defense - it's an illogical shield. Same goes the other way - their actions have to be judge irregardless of what the "other side" did. The tu quoque logical fallacy is saying "so what? They did the same thing (or worse)!" Not only is it childish, but you lose the argument by losing it.
But as I've stated before it seems logic and politics don't jive well. If they did we'd mostly be some sort of libertarian.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 6.01.2007 @ 13:17
SADDAM'S DEATH: A SAD ENDING TO A SAD CHAPTER IN HISTORY
"Why is that?"
Because a lot of people like to pretend that we always have to be perfect. Remember in our most noble of wars, the Second World War, we sided with one of the most barbaric totalitarian regimes in history to destroy a crazed loon on a messianic quest to eliminate all the undesirable races.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 31.12.2006 @ 09:30
"with the help of the C.I.A., he was put into power in the first place."
Wrong. The CIA helped the Baathists gain power, but not Saddam specifically (which happened years later).
Also, the US gave Saddam less than one percent of his arms. Go cry to Europe and Russia, the folks that armed him up until 2003.
Comment Posted By Shawn On 30.12.2006 @ 21:52
