Iraq is much worse that we thought.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

What are you talking about? You're not reading anything properly. Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Slow down and take your time

Here is what was stated:

Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

I pointed out
1. It is claiming to speak for someone else.
2. It is contradictory - how could one support the ending of sanctions and also support deposing Saddam and also support US policy which supported one of these said they supported the other and showed positive results for neither?

What is it specifically you accuse me of not understanding?
You quoted my whole post. what in particular are you saying I am "going too quickly" on?

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

No hes right. :v: = sarcasm. There was a thread a long time ago where I wrote something but left out the smileys and only the long standing posters knew I was being sarcastic (as pretty much everyone knows my views at this point). Was still funny people getting confused over it though.

That was not the point!
I confess that only later in the message I noticed the sarcasm. The point though is that he stated about your opinion on sanctions and on deposing Saddam. He supplied no citation for you. do you accept that whatever he says is your opinion is your opinion?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Because they do it themselves?
Because its right?
Because they deserve it?
The possibilities are endless...

I asked Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people.

It was a request for personal opinion. Not for possibilities.

Aren't you thinking of the Declaration?

Yes I was.

Besides, as supporters of the current Administration's activities will point out, that statement is only intended to refer to Americans.

Exactly my point! And they would be wrong.

I also think you'll find it only refers to all men being created equal, so it completely ignores whether or not women are equal to each other and/or to men.

Taken in context it does but women and slaves didnt for ecxample vote then. todays understanding would interpret "men" as "mankind"

I wouldn't put too much weight behind such a loaded statement.

I would! It shows the origins of the US.

Clearly, Jackson's comments were only intended to be applied to the losing side in a war. Everyone knows victors don't commit atrocities (just like winners don't do drugs).

Clearly in spite of your trying to be funny you are correct in assuming this incorrect interpretation of Us jurisprudence is entertained by a willfully ignorant or hypocritical Us administration.

Pazaz 21

Quote:
Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The way i read it, it says:

He DOES NOT support the deposing of Saddam Hussein. He DOES NOT support the ending of sanctions. Perhaps he wanted the sanctions to continue against Saddam and to solve the situation in a diplomatic matter, i do not know if that is his opinion, but it is mine. As for Sands speaking for Hobbes, i think they know each others opinions pretty well and if Hobbes had disagreed with the post i'm sure he would have let it known

The Corinthian

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The latter. Whether it’s because he’s incapable of comprehending irony or because he refuses to admit that he’s ranting for no cause is open to debate. I’ll say a bit of both.

ISAW

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Quote:
Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The way i read it, it says:

He DOES NOT support the deposing of Saddam Hussein. He DOES NOT support the ending of sanctions. Perhaps he wanted the sanctions to continue against Saddam and to solve the situation in a diplomatic matter, i do not know if that is his opinion, but it is mine. As for Sands speaking for Hobbes, i think they know each others opinions pretty well and if Hobbes had disagreed with the post i'm sure he would have let it known

The way i read it claims:

1 the poster is speaking for Hobbes. What he claims Hobbes believes is:

Hobbes did not support deposing Saddam Hussain
and also
Hobbes did not support the ending of sanctions.

I agree that it is possible that he meant that he wanted to not depose Iraq (effectively retaining Saddam in power) and also keep sanctions against Iraq. If so he could clarify that by stating it is so. If it is so I ask why were sanctions made against Iraq? They were a direct consequence of the leadership of Saddam i.e. the sanctions were opposing Saddam. Now I also accept that one can oppose Saddam and also oppose his removal by force from power. But Hobbes has clarified no of this and furthermore he hasent stated it! Sand stated that it was Hobbes position. Until both of they clarify people can pretend to read anyones mind but noone will really know what position either of them hold.

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

Actually he said he was being sarcastic.

Never mind - I'm sure you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, to avoid any confusion, that last bit was sarcasm. And this bit is called condescension.

Sand

The way i read it claims:

1 the poster is speaking for Hobbes. What he claims Hobbes believes is:

Hobbes did not support deposing Saddam Hussain
and also
Hobbes did not support the ending of sanctions.

I agree that it is possible that he meant that he wanted to not depose Iraq (effectively retaining Saddam in power) and also keep sanctions against Iraq. If so he could clarify that by stating it is so. If it is so I ask why were sanctions made against Iraq? They were a direct consequence of the leadership of Saddam i.e. the sanctions were opposing Saddam. Now I also accept that one can oppose Saddam and also oppose his removal by force from power. But Hobbes has clarified no of this and furthermore he hasent stated it! Sand stated that it was Hobbes position. Until both of they clarify people can pretend to read anyones mind but noone will really know what position either of them hold.

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

ISAW, is there a point there? I honestly cant follow your argument clearly as your post isnt exactly very readable. At the end of the day, this thread is - or was - about the dire situation in Iraq, not about whether Im the Irish Uri Geller.

Ive a fair idea of Hobbes views seeing as Ive been arguing with him and others back and forth for about 3-4 years on this forum, and as you might imagine Iraq and various US policies are extremely well covered ground. He opposed the invasion, and still opposes it today. Hobbes, feel free to correct if Im wrong here. Support of continued sanctions is a requirement of any sane policy that leaves Saddam in power. AFAIR Hobbes was/is not in favour of allowing Saddam free access to materials needed for a weapons program. Again, correct me if Im wrong.

And I dont "speak for Hobbes", or if I do the wages for being his PR rep are ****e, and the health plan isnt exactly union standard. All I ever did was alert you to the fact that you were taking Hobbes post at face value, when it wasnt supposed to be taken that way. I.E. I was trying to help you stop wasting your own time. I can understand youd be annoyed at what you might see as people using Iraqi deaths as material for comedy routines, but as Ive learnt myself the internet is full of opportunities to get aggravated. You have to learn to shrug/count to ten and move on.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

ISAW, is there a point there? I honestly cant follow your argument clearly as your post isnt exactly very readable.

Funny? I thought I numberer the point and it was quite clear what was claimed after that?

At the end of the day, this thread is - or was - about the dire situation in Iraq, not about whether Im the Irish Uri Geller.

sorry but according to the charter it is! You can't claim something as fact without supporting it! Otherwise iot is only your opinion.

Ive a fair idea of Hobbes views seeing as Ive been arguing with him and others back and forth for about 3-4 years on this forum, and as you might imagine Iraq and various US policies are extremely well covered ground.

This is argument from authority. Not good enough I am afraid. You may well be correct in your attribution of what someone else believes but you have yet to provide evidence. Arguments like "everyone knows that" or "believe mem I know" don't count.

He opposed the invasion, and still opposes it today.

Say you! And you may well be right but you have to support you claim with evidence to establish it as a fact!

Hobbes, feel free to correct if Im wrong here.

That is acceptable but weak. I know God will agree with me on that. God feel free to post where I am wrong if I am. In the absence of God posting I suppose we can all assume I am correct then can we?

Support of continued sanctions is a requirement of any sane policy that leaves Saddam in power.

So the US were insane then when Bush senior was in charge? Given that the Us actually supplied Saddam at that time and did not support sanctions?

AFAIR Hobbes was/is not in favour of allowing Saddam free access to materials needed for a weapons program. Again, correct me if Im wrong.

Again it is only what you recall. Post a reference or accept it is only your opinion. and again asking Hobbes to post a correction if you are wroing is not evidence that you are correct! "Correct me if I am wrong" is either denying an antecedent or affirming a consequent ( i mix them up) but it does not logically follow that you are right. Absence of evidence of being wrong is not evidence of absence of absence of being right.

And I dont "speak for Hobbes",

Stating "Hobbes believes X (Hobbes correct me if I am wrong if you do not believe X)" fairly much amounts to the same thing.

or if I do the wages for being his PR rep are ****e, and the health plan isnt exactly union standard. All I ever did was alert you to the fact that you were taking Hobbes post at face value, when it wasnt supposed to be taken that way. I.E. I was trying to help you stop wasting your own time.

I accept I dint notice the sarcasm and I thank you for you kind intentions. However, that is not "all" you did. Nor is it "all you ever did" in relation to your interaction with me alone in this thread.

I can understand youd be annoyed at what you might see as people using Iraqi deaths as material for comedy routines, but as Ive learnt myself the internet is full of opportunities to get aggravated. You have to learn to shrug/count to ten and move on.

I don't really have a problem with the humour side. Nor do I feel a fool (though I admit I was certainly fooled into replying and initially thinking the poster was being serious) for replying. One point I am making is that even when we can joke about things people can still ask what we really think whether we think the thing is funny or not. One can laugh at a cartoon arelating to a Prophet and still have views in sympathy with his followers. Please forgive me if I gave the impression that I was gravely offended in any way. Please also understand that whatever I may think of you or whatever you think of me the objective point about the history of US involvment in Iraq and their historic behaviour towards dictators and apparent double standards still stands.

Jim

I think its bubbles.

The Corinthian

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

I think its bubbles.

Could be. Then again you should never forget that there's a left hand side to the Bell curve too.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually he said he was being sarcastic.

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Never mind - I'm sure you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, to avoid any confusion, that last bit was sarcasm. And this bit is called condescension.

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner. This next bit is called clarification.

Originally Posted by Sand:
Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

I asked if he spoke for Hobbes and Hobbes replied:

No he's right.

I now assume that Hobbes meant he was being sarcastic.

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

Freelancer

This has a compelling hypnotic quality to it.

ISAW, try and dig up! DIG UP!

I don't really have a problem with the humour side.

Do you mean beside your inability to see it?

bottlerocket

ISAW wrote:

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Jeez take it easy, think of your blood pressure.

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner.

No it was called pedantry - on which point “correcting you condescending manner” makes little grammatical sense in English.

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

You didn’t ignore the sarcasm you simply didn’t comprehend it. Indeed, you seem to not even understand what the purpose of sarcasm, satire or irony is in political debate.

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

The rules of this forum regarding the calling of other posters buffoons, idiots or similar prevent me from expanding on this point any further.

Pazaz 21

ISAW wrote:

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Your just arguing symantics now ?

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner. This next bit is called clarification.

Originally Posted by Sand:
Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

I asked if he spoke for Hobbes and Hobbes replied:

No he's right.

I now assume that Hobbes meant he was being sarcastic.

Duh!!!!

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

I think the fact that he is not discussing the opinion he expressed is because IT WAS NOT HIS OPINION. HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC. What would be the point of discussing ( and ultimatley having to defend) an opinion he never held.

I think we should get back to the matter at hand and stop fighting over a simple, stupid, but simple, misunderstanding and total inability to comprehend sarcasim.

Now, What do people think is the real posibility of a civil war breaking out and who is trying to instigate it ?

ISAW

bottlerocket wrote:

Jeez take it easy, think of your blood pressure.

I haven't worried about it since I got the cancer.

ISAW

Freelancer wrote:

This has a compelling hypnotic quality to it.

ISAW, try and dig up! DIG UP!

LOL. Now that I find funny!

Do you mean beside your inability to see it?

No I don't.

ISAW

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I think the fact that he is not discussing the opinion he expressed is because IT WAS NOT HIS OPINION. HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC. What would be the point of discussing ( and ultimatley having to defend) an opinion he never held.

Wrong! He stated that someone else had a specific opinion about both sanctions against Iraq and about Saddam leading Iraq.

I think we should get back to the matter at hand and stop fighting over a simple, stupid, but simple, misunderstanding and total inability to comprehend sarcasim.

I ignored the sarcasm. the point whichcameafter that is about supporting sanctions and supporting Saddam which I found contradictory but which migh not actually be so.

Now, What do people think is the real posibility of a civil war breaking out and who is trying to instigate it ?

You really don't need to . If you go into a country and remove a dictator and dismantle his established force which is actively opposing muslim fundamentalists and you then take some of them back and put them with other locals in a "new" police force and introduce a constitution where anyone has the right to a gun and use chemical weapons against the locals torture and kill them and imprison them half way around the world without due process or trial, then what do you expect?