# Waiting to see if Planethoth returns



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Who all thinks he will return? How long will he stay this time? What rant will he start with?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Where's my "don't care" option?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Where's my "don't care" option?


Damn you... Damn Damn Damn.  I knew I was missing something. 

Can I edit the poll?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Who all thinks he will return? How long will he stay this time? What rant will he start with?


I think he'll come back, rant about getting the chill and be chilled again in less than 3 days.
Unfortunate about his methods, he has a significant intelligence and challenged many here.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

After reading his posts, i don't know if he will come back, i voted yes though.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

I think so...he obviously likes confrontation and won't be able to stay away!

Until then, all seems to be (relatively ) quiet around ehMac.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Of course, if we were really evil, we could always bait him. What would be impossible for him to ignore? I can't believe he's not lurking...


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I say leave it alone, this thread is only fuel for his fire, maybe his Taunton ran away and the Snowbeast got him!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I'm sure if planethoth returns the first thing he will likely do is show you this link.
Prime minister given two briefings on suspected threats to Toronto Subway 
I thought we were the good guys and the Yanks were the evil empire deserving of the wrath of Bin Laden and his ilk? According to the RCMP, in the eyes of Al-Qaida we aren't. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I'm sure if planethoth returns the first thing he will likely do is show you this link.
> Prime minister given two briefings on suspected threats to Toronto Subway
> I thought we were the good guys and the Yanks were the evil empire deserving of the wrath of Bin Laden and his ilk? According to the RCMP, in the eyes of Al-Qaida we aren't.
> 
> ...


if you have noisy neighbours you can always move, but with countries it's a bit more difficult


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macspectrum that logic makes no sense.

By your logic, if a guy was in a bar fight with a thug (U.S.) sitting next to a smaller guy (Canada) that wasn't supporting the thug's actions (Iraq) it would be a good tactic to go up and start kicking the tar out of the little guy that isn't causing you any problems and even sympathizes with you in many instances just because he sits next to the thug? 

That doesn't make any sense. In fact it would make more sense to keep the little guy thinking your no threat to him because he allows you to sit next to him, that much closer to the big thug you want to beat the crap out of. He even helps you out by providing you with food and shelter and a medical plan. By engaging him you've jeopardized your foothold next to your real enemy and you've really pissed off a guy that was of no threat to you before. 

The only way an attack on "peace loving Canadian civilian commuters" would make sense is that you hate them too and see them as your enemy. Either that or Al-Qaeda has the worst terrorism tactics imaginable.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I doubt anyone who put up a 2 day diatribe like that will stay away forever...{unless barred}

And alternate personas are easier to build than maintain...

True always rises to the surface...


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Sheesh - we go on about someone starting inflammatory posts - this kind of looks like one too!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Cameo said:


> Sheesh - we go on about someone starting inflammatory posts - this kind of looks like one too!


<sarcasm> HHHmmmmmm Inflammatory? or Provocative? </sarcasm>

You decide  Please tell me you saw the irony in me starting this thread


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Yes, isn't it ironic, kind of like rain on your......  
Congrats on crossing 1000 posts Da_Jonesy!!!!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Macspectrum that logic makes no sense.
> 
> By your logic, if a guy was in a bar fight with a thug (U.S.) sitting next to a smaller guy (Canada) that wasn't supporting the thug's actions (Iraq) it would be a good tactic to go up and start kicking the tar out of the little guy that isn't causing you any problems and even sympathizes with you in many instances just because he sits next to the thug?
> 
> ...



the "logic" i was trying to show was that one must learn to live with one's neighbours, especially when you can't move away


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sorry Macspectrum

When I made the link to the article about the Al-Qaeda threat to Toronto I thought you were implying that the only reason there was a threat to Canada was because of our proximity to the U.S.

I guess I miss understood your statement. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Macspectrum that logic makes no sense.
> 
> By your logic, if a guy was in a bar fight with a thug (U.S.) sitting next to a smaller guy (Canada) that wasn't supporting the thug's actions (Iraq) it would be a good tactic to go up and start kicking the tar out of the little guy that isn't causing you any problems and even sympathizes with you in many instances just because he sits next to the thug?
> 
> ...



This logic makes no sense at all. Al Queda is not a single mind. There is no central command or unified decision making. They have people that operate more or less independently but can get support from the larger network. Some of their supporters would want to attack us, while others not.

We are very much at risk in my mind. Akmed Rassam had originally planned to blow up a neighbourhood in Montreal before deciding on LAX. 

Canadian born Islamic fundamentalists pose a risk to us, much like they did in the UK.

Our complacency is our worst enemy. 

Unfortunately I think an attack on us is only a matter of when, not if.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Canadian born Islamic fundamentalists pose a risk to us, much like they did in the UK.
> 
> Our complacency is our worst enemy.
> 
> Unfortunately I think an attack on us is only a matter of when, not if.


This is the kind of fearmongering I would expect South of the border.

Could it happen? maybe

We should look at the root causes - American foreign policy is one -


----------



## Sybersport (Jun 7, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> <sarcasm> HHHmmmmmm Inflammatory? or Provocative? </sarcasm>
> 
> You decide  Please tell me you saw the irony in me starting this thread


How about annoying. You forgot that one.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Has anyone thought about the possibility that planethoth is sitting back laughing at this biding his time until this debacle has blown over in order to try and enjoy the real ehMac?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Chealion said:


> Has anyone thought about the possibility that planethoth is sitting back laughing at this biding his time until this debacle has blown over in order to try and enjoy the real ehMac?


Or that planethoth was actually MacNutt, and he just wanted to push a few buttons and watch the fireworks go off. Then he sat back, and laughed his ass off at the resulting wreckage.

A far out theory, I know.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

gwillikers - AFAIK, Macnutt is still on SSI and not in GTA which is where the IP for planethoth originates.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Chealion is correct......................unless Macnutt (aka planetoth aka Superman) flies back and forth with his superpowers. How come we never see the two of them together??? How come planetoth was seen changing into drag racing gear in a phonebooth in downtown TO???? How come Macnutt claims to be "more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings with a single bound" and always being correct?????? 

True is stranger than fiction, my friends.

Actually, Chealion, I think you were more accurate with your contention that they are both busy and just waiting for their moment. We shall see.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Chealion said:


> gwillikers - AFAIK, Macnutt is still on SSI and not in GTA which is where the IP for planethoth originates.


Oh okay, but it's fun to dream! Everyone loves a conspiracy theory, after all.  

Sorry.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Chealion said:


> Has anyone thought about the possibility that planethoth is sitting back laughing at this biding his time until this debacle has blown over in order to try and enjoy the real ehMac?


I would hope he's laughing at/with us.
Can't wait to have him/her back.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> This is the kind of fearmongering I would expect South of the border.
> 
> Could it happen? maybe
> 
> We should look at the root causes - American foreign policy is one -


I agree with looking at root causes, but we still need to be diligent for preventing and responding to attacks. 

This isn't fearmongering. Bin Laden said Canada should be attacked for our role in Afghanistan.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I agree with looking at root causes, but we still need to be diligent for preventing and responding to attacks.
> 
> This isn't fearmongering. Bin Laden said Canada should be attacked for our role in Afghanistan.


more surveillance, guns and "diligence" won't solve the terrorism problem
the problem will be ongoing until military hardware manufacturers and other war profiteers are removed from power - but i doubt in my lifetime

again, and i keep repeating myself, military types have always said that if someone is willing to kill themselves in order to conduct violence, it is almost impoassible to stop them

and again, for an example of how more "diligence" ain't working, just check out Israel

they have a huge military budget with the most modern equipment, their secret police are 2nd to no one, surveillance and checkpoints up the wazoo
BUT
they have terrorism on a regular basis
would anyone here want to book their next vacation there?

as saccarine as it might sound, the only real long term solution to terrorism is to give terrorists something else to think about like homes, jobs, families

usually the prospect of a future laden with hope is the best weapon against future recruitment of terrorists, ergo terrorism
how else can on explain suicide bombers?
think about it.
people so disollusioned and desperate that they are willing and do kill themselves - let's face it - it ain't the 72 virgins that makes them do it - as much as the media wants you to believe that

the Pandora's Box has been opened. the last thing left was hope


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There is also the message that terrorism does not work and that killing innocents will not further their cause. Indeed, implicit in this message but often overlooked by the authorities that profess it, is that we need to measure our response to the terrorists such that they do not affect our liberties and democratic standards. The relative risk associated with terrorism is tiny compared with many other risks and the only way they can impact us is by converting their limited carnage on innocents into widespread paranoia and implementation of draconian, but typically ineffectual, counter-measures. Let us not be afraid of these people, let us show them a better way.

That does not mean not taking important precautions (airport security, surveillance of suspected individuals, etc.) but there are limits beyond which we actually fuel the terrorists goals.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Surprise!*

I've just found out who planethoth really is...he and I actually go back quite a ways! 

http://appleswitcher.com/viewtopic.php?t=16431&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

"planethoth" is actually "Otto Boners"...used to be on DealMac until he got banned and then he moved on over to AppleSwitcher where he's tolerated.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> I've just found out who planethoth really is...he and I actually go back quite a ways!
> 
> http://appleswitcher.com/viewtopic.php?t=16431&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
> 
> "planethoth" is actually "Otto Boners"...used to be on DealMac until he got banned and then he moved on over to AppleSwitcher where he's tolerated.


Nope, sorry Iron Mac, that is actually wrong.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Nope, sorry Iron Mac, that is actually wrong.


Which part? BTW, you may want to check on that thread...it's a bad day for you, buddy.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Which part? BTW, you may want to check on that thread...it's a bad day for you, buddy.


Which part? How about all of it? I have never posted on any other Mac message board, including Apple Switcher and Deal Mac, and I have never used this name Otto whatever. End of story.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Which part? How about all of it? I have never posted on any other Mac message board, including Apple Switcher and Deal Mac, and I have never used this name Otto whatever. End of story.


Otto...anyone looking at this thread and the other one can make the connection so stop lying. 

Deny it all you want but the truth is out.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Otto...anyone looking at this thread and the other one can make the connection so stop lying.
> 
> Deny it all you want but the truth is out.


Give me a break, bro. You can keep lying yourself, and you would be in good company with a few of your friends on here. But that ain't me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Well I guess that answers that...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well I guess that answers that...


You people obviously attribute your own behaviours to me... such as wasting your time on fifty different message boards posting trivial crap. I don't go on all these stupid Mac message boards. I have never called myself Otto anything, at any time or anywhere. And the fact that this thread exists is a testament to the mindset of the people who started and perpetuated it.

So I don't care, keep saying what you want about me. It's a real laugh, as Chealion said, to see it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Nice to have you back Planethoth....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Yeah, and your reappearance here so soon after our "discussion" on the other board and your dredging up my old threads here is simply a coincidence? Look, you may think that people here are "brain-dead" but they're really not.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Welcome back Planethoth. Don't believe all you read, the left leaning folks here really missed you. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Yeah, and your reappearance here so soon after our "discussion" on the other board and your dredging up my old threads here is simply a coincidence? Look, you may think that people here are "brain-dead" but they're really not.


"Brain-dead"... please do not attribute quotes to me that I have never made. That's your invented adjective, not mine.

"Dredging up your old threads"? I have no idea what you are talking about bro, I have never even READ one of those message boards. I just got my first Mac shortly before I joined this board. I have never posted on any other message board that deals with Macs or for that matter, any computers. You are being ridiculous on this, especially by accusing me of lying.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> So I don't care, keep saying what you want about me. It's a real laugh, as Chealion said, to see it.


Absolutely... welcome back. We are anxiously awaiting to hear some more of _your_ "Talking Points".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> "Brain-dead"... please do not attribute quotes to me that I have never made. That's your invented adjective, not mine.
> 
> "Dredging up your old threads"? I have no idea what you are talking about bro, I have never even READ one of those message boards. I just got my first Mac shortly before I joined this board. I have never posted on any other message board that deals with Macs or for that matter, any computers. You are being ridiculous on this, especially by accusing me of lying.


Methinks thou doth protest too much. If people are curious, they can read the thread that's been referenced and they can make up their own minds.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Methinks thou doth protest too much. If people are curious, they can read the thread that's been referenced and they can make up their own minds.


Yep, go ahead, make up your own minds. If I wanted to post in another forum, why would I need to hide my name or lie about it here? Come on, this makes no sense. Believe what you want.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

I've remained silent through all the "planetoth" threads, simply because the threads were and continue to be EXTREMELY CHILDISH on both parties' behalfs.

Stop this waste of bandwidth please.

THE WHOLE of the ehMac community suffers because of these silly, non-productive pissing matches.

Mel


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

What I've just realized is that, while planethoth and I were banned at the same time, everyone else seems to be welcoming him back.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

IronMac said:


> What I've just realized is that, while planethoth and I were banned at the same time, everyone else seems to be welcoming him back.


A belated 'welcome back' IronMac!


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

gwillikers said:


> A belated 'welcome back' IronMac!


Ditto, Bro!


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Good Grief!

Me thinks some people need to stop sweating the small stuff. There are bigger fish to fry then harping on one person. If you don't agree with what or how that person has stated something then feel free to point it out in a civilized manner - why go on harping? Don't you have anything better to do or say?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> more surveillance, guns and "diligence" won't solve the terrorism problem
> the problem will be ongoing until military hardware manufacturers and other war profiteers are removed from power - but i doubt in my lifetime
> 
> again, and i keep repeating myself, military types have always said that if someone is willing to kill themselves in order to conduct violence, it is almost impoassible to stop them
> ...


I don't think you can ever eliminate 100% of terrorism. How much terrorism would be happening in Israel if they weren't as diligent as they are? BTW... I am not advocating a police state or having the type of security Israel has.

What I am suggesting is that we can do a hell of a lot more than we are doing now. An increase in due diligence could save 100's or 1000's of lives.

I would say our security right now is more than lacking.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

We like to reserve threads that name members for our very favourite people... MacNutt has been honoured with several I believe. 

--

It's a tough balance but I do think we err on the lax side in Canada. I was in Ottawa Airport a few years ago (before 9/11) and noticed a suitcase in the corner that no one had claimed. After fifteen minutes I reported it... but the security guard said that someone had probably left it there while they had a meal. He didn't follow up or anything. We're pretty lucky to live in a country where we haven't had to pay for that complacency but we take it for granted at our peril.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> Otto...anyone looking at this thread and the other one can make the connection so stop lying.
> 
> Deny it all you want but the truth is out.


IronMac - I can back up planethoth on this. His name isn't Otto for starters.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gwillikers and iPetie...thanks but I've already commenced the process of disengagement from ehMac. Cheers!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

IronMac said:


> gwillikers and iPetie...thanks but I've already commenced the process of disengagement from ehMac. Cheers!


That would be a big loss, I sincerely hope you'll reconsider IronMac. Maybe take a break, but don't just disappear. I enjoy your input here, and I know I'm not alone. Think about it man.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

gwillikers said:


> That would be a big loss, I sincerely hope you'll reconsider IronMac. Maybe take a break, but don't just disappear. I enjoy your input here, and I know I'm not alone. Think about man.


Ditto here!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Fink-Nottle said:


> We like to reserve threads that name members for our very favourite people... MacNutt has been honoured with several I believe.
> 
> --
> 
> It's a tough balance but I do think we err on the lax side in Canada. I was in Ottawa Airport a few years ago (before 9/11) and noticed a suitcase in the corner that no one had claimed. After fifteen minutes I reported it... but the security guard said that someone had probably left it there while they had a meal. He didn't follow up or anything. We're pretty lucky to live in a country where we haven't had to pay for that complacency but we take it for granted at our peril.



We're also pretty damn lucky we had a Prime Minister who doesn't dream of forgotten days of "Empire" and decided to politely tell the U.S. to illegally invade Iraq on their own
sorry, there was that, now dwindling, "coalition of the willing"

we've got to stop the Gen. Hillier before he does something or says even more stupid things

to quote Donald Trump; "You're fired!"


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> We're also pretty damn lucky we had a Prime Minister who doesn't dream of forgotten days of "Empire" and decided to politely tell the U.S. to illegally invade Iraq on their own
> sorry, there was that, now dwindling, "coalition of the willing"
> 
> we've got to stop the Gen. Hillier before he does something or says even more stupid things
> ...


Really, Empire? What empire? Guam and Puerto Rico?

"Illegally invade Iraq"? So I guess you are a international law jurist now and you can pronounce on the legality?

Man, I see paranoia and conspiracy theory is common to you. That explains why you threw in the thinly veiled anti-semitic reference to "the Rothschilds" a while back, a good ol' meme that really hasn't had much traction since the Nazis drudged it out. Nice to see you are doing your part.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Really, Empire? What empire? Guam and Puerto Rico?
> 
> "Illegally invade Iraq"? So I guess you are a international law jurist now and you can pronounce on the legality?
> 
> Man, I see paranoia and conspiracy theory is common to you. That explains why you threw in the thinly veiled anti-semitic reference to "the Rothschilds" a while back, a good ol' meme that really hasn't had much traction since the Nazis drudged it out. Nice to see you are doing your part.


planethoth, you're the man! Welcome back boss. Love your posts, keep disagreeing with the masses. As one person said, "For there is one thing we must never forget: the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards."


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM,

You know that's rubbish on several counts:

1. There is no empire and no one is dreaming of one, least of all Blair. If you think he is, I challenge you to come up with one of other course of action he has taken that would support your thesis. Opposing your conclusion, I would point out his policies on Northern Ireland, Europe and aid to the third world... which he has raised to a level significantly ahead of our own PM, Bono's kind words notwithstanding.

2. Bali have never had an empire but they were still bombed. Or perhaps it was aimed at the Australian tourists. If so, we're very lucky to have no American tourists or businesses in Toronto... 

3. The Dutch didn't participate in the Iraq War but that didn't stop a young radical from a Dutch terrorist cell from gunning down a film director who had criticized the treatment of women under Islam and then slitting his throat. 

If we make any decisions based on a fear of terrorist reprisals, then they've already won...


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> There is no empire and no one is dreaming of one.


America is the most imperialistic country in the world today, and has been for some time. (Need to find the essay I wrote on this topic for an elective!)

It's important to understand what imperialism is. It is both
a) extending a stronger nation's authority by territorial acquisition -- which the U.S. is not interested in
b) extending a stronger nation's authority by the establishment of economic and/or political hegemony over other weaker nations -- which America has actively been doing for decades

A few examples (there are many more)....

- Maintaining political control of the Middle East to secure stable oil supply/prices via wars in Iraq, creating economic alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in exchange for security. You may argue that it's strictly an alliance, but the U.S. is imposing its will on a weaker country nonetheless. Sure, countries like Pakistan could say "no way", but that would leave their country much poorer as a result. Much easier to cede to the will of the super power, eh!

- Spreading democracy throughout world by fighting communism in Russia, Vietnam, Korea and fighting Islamic governments in Middle East. What right does America have to force, through physical strength, diplomacy, or other means, its form of government on other countries? And please, don't tell me because of security reasons. Democracy is not the be all and end all.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Really, Empire? What empire? Guam and Puerto Rico?
> 
> "Illegally invade Iraq"? So I guess you are a international law jurist now and you can pronounce on the legality?
> 
> Man, I see paranoia and conspiracy theory is common to you. That explains why you threw in the thinly veiled anti-semitic reference to "the Rothschilds" a while back, a good ol' meme that really hasn't had much traction since the Nazis drudged it out. Nice to see you are doing your part.



Yikes! Here we go again.....


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

IKV,

I was not talking about America in my post... I was talking about the UK. 



> - Spreading democracy throughout world by fighting communism in Russia, Vietnam, Korea and fighting Islamic governments in Middle East. What right does America have to force, through physical strength, diplomacy, or other means, its form of government on other countries? And please, don't tell me because of security reasons. Democracy is not the be all and end all.


I'm going to disagree with you there.



> "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government"
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Any government that does not accept this AND follow it does not have an inherent right to exist. I would go further and say that other countries have a responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens in countries that egregiously ignore their rights and commit attrocities. Hypothetically then, I believe that military action to oust regimes such as Saddam's are quite justified... in his case we are now well aware of what he did while in power. Whether the actual invasion that occured was justified hangs on two questions:

1. Were the human rights of the Iraqi people better respected during the invasion and now, than under Saddam? Was invasion the best option?
-Here you would have to balance the number of civilian casualties against the number of people killed by Saddam while he was in office and project the outcome of other options, as well as looking at the state of the country today. It's a nasty equation and I'd say any conclusions would be highly debatable.

2. Is the invading force attempting to create a real democracy or retain control of the country and its resources?
-A number of economic decisions have been taken by the US administration which suggest the latter. However, they are expressing a committment to turn the country over to an independent, democratic government. We should carefully monitor this to ensure it happens. 

Clearly, from a protection of human rights standpoint, neither the invasion nor its outcome was ideal... but neither was doing nothing. I'm not convinced that there were other, reasonable options... although if someone wants to make a case for them I'm open to reconsidering. (more sanctions? negotiations? ultimatums? incentives? limited military action? assassination!?) 

Were the costs worth it for the Iraqi people and the world? We may never know for certain... but things will become clearer with time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - being a tad imperialist are we. 
Is sovereignty meaningless??

How does the Vatican fit in this world view.....??

C'mon ....without a world body that is acceptable to the vast bulk of the nation states to over see this Universal Human Rights it's meaningless blather.
Being part of Canada we accept the rights and responsibilities embedded in the Charter.
Just what is a "world citizen" and under what Charter does it operate?? It's even more phantom than the European one just dismissed by France and the Netherlands.

To achieve this there needs to be due process especially regarding interfering in a sovereign state. We are nowhere close as a species to getting this structure.

Jeez did Chaney slip in and bite your neck while we weren't looking. 

Clearly Vincente Fox risked much in refusing to join the US "invasion" of a sovereign nation......ask why he did and you'll know why the vast population on the planet says the US action was wrong regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MacDoc (Defender of the Faith?)

Are you leaping to the defence of the Vatican MacDoc? This must be a first!  

It is obviously a unique case and more an institution than a country... people who live there are all citizens of other countries.

I'm not sure how you have mistaken self determination for imperialism. But I do completely agree that the UN needs a process for enforcing the charter. What to do in the meantime though?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planetoth alleged:


> That explains why you threw in the thinly veiled anti-semitic reference to "the Rothschilds" a while back, a good ol' meme that really hasn't had much traction since the Nazis drudged it out.


i see your paranoia is doing very well
anti-semitism everywhere, eh?
i guess if i said i didn't like bagels, that would be anti-semitic too?
oh, i like pork too - i guess that might be considered anti-semitic too?
Oy Vey

the real shame of such a comment is that those that died in the Holocaust would not appreciate such "willy nilly" use of "anti-semitsm"

but in Canada one does have freedom of speech and so you're name calling goes unchecked

you'd better hurry up and write Abe Foxman of the ADL and let him know of my alleged "transgression"
don't forget to tell him i don't like bagels


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

fink-nottle,
the big problem with your argument is that you have bought into the lie that the U.S. and Britain have propogated 
1st is was "we need to invade Iraq because Saddam has WMD"
then, oops... no WMD (even thought Hans Blix said so) but he's just part of the UN so what does he know, eh?

now the mantra is 'removing an evil despot' from power
lots of despots in the world - why start with an oil producing one - oh right, nevermind

difficult to hit a moving target when the white house keeps changing their story

the world is LESS SAFE than it was before the invasion of Iraq which a US Congressional committee concluded had NO CONNECTION to Al Qaeda and 9/11 - why let a few facts get in the way of an invasion, eh?

and boy didn't that invasion help stabilize oil prices too, eh?

oh, and by the way, Arabic non-democracies are raking in the money with increased oil prices
keep buying those SUVs !!
the ONLY "winners" of this round of violence are the oil sellers and the mililtary hardware makers - notice how quiet they all are?
Show up to work and BINGO, a new big bag of money at your doorstep



> *Michael Scheuer, the former CIA Bin Laden analyst,* a couple of times this morning, once on NPR's Morning Edition and once on the Diane Rehm show. I thought his comments compelling.
> 
> He said that "chickens were coming home to roost" for US and UK politicians who had obscured the nature of the al-Qaeda struggle by maintaining that the organization attacks the West because "they hate our values."
> 
> *Scheuer believes that al-Qaeda is an insurgent ideology focused on destroying the United States and its allies, because its members believe that the US is trying to destroy them.* Al-Qaeda members see the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, backed by the US; US support for military regimes like those of Pakistan and Egypt; and US military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a US onslaught on Islam and Muslims aimed at reducing them to neo-colonial slavery. *That is, specific Western policies are the focus of al-Qaeda response, not a generalized "hatred" of "values."*


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> planetoth alleged:
> 
> 
> i see your paranoia is doing very well
> ...


Oh yes, I see you want to change the subject about your throwing the "Rothschilds" comment around. Sorry, I know an anti-semitic jab when i see it. But don't worry, my skin is a lot thicker than that--I won't ask for you to be banned.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No FN I'm pointing out that there is a variety. The Vatican is an anathema to ME but as long as it's recognized as a sovereign "state" and it's rules are accepted by those it rules then I have no argument with it's existence.

When it infringes on the well being of my nation or the world as a whole as it does with it's population/birth control stance I will criticize vocally and applaud nations like Ireland and cultures like Quebec in throwing off the influence.
Just as I will applaud and support S American nations that get out from under the US thumb.

Both are pernicious in not so different ways.

There are damaging viral cultures that can only be countered in our present state of governing by persuasion to a different set of values - our Charter and our example being a good one.

It's the underlying principle of free speech - I may not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

For nation states I may not like certain policies - say in Cuba - but it's up to THEM to work it out, not for me to interfere in a overt or covert manner in their governing and in my mind we must persuade by example.

ONCE we have a governing body THEN as with what Europe is attempting certain basic standards can be set as entry to the "club". Do this get that.
Be it, democratic, economic, human rights.

Then too, a world body can perhaps deal with a "rogue" or "failed state" with a set of operant principles that are agreed upon by the member states.
I very much doubt that will happen anytime soon until the planet gets down to a sustainable population.

Conditions now point to increasing isolation and protection and I think the turn down of the European Constitution is evidence of that.

The hard question for first world democracies will be tolerating intolerance in their midst by other viral memes. Radical Islamic sects being one, fundamentalist Christian sects being another.

There is an inherent conflict between fundamentalism and democratic principles that is grinding it's way forward....much to my dismay 

It's heavily compounded - as unlike Europe when this arose in the 16th, 17th centuries and the various sects departed for a fresh start in the new world - there is no more world to go to.

Of all the groups the Amish have managed a generally peaceful co-existence tho not also without it's difficulties in isolating their culture from the nation state.

I'd be interested in hearing of other distinct cultures/sects that are stable and effective yet existing within a very different nation state culture.
Quebec maybe is getting there.
Indigenes rarely.
Toronto's orthodox Jewish community quite successfully in my view.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

FN, to have a clearer understanding of what you are saying, do you agree on my definition of imperialism? If you do, do you not agree that the U.S., and to a lesser extent the U.K. (yes, sorry for addressing more the U.S. in my post), are imperialist-minded countries?

Also, what part of the following did you not agree with?



iKV said:


> Spreading democracy throughout world by fighting communism in Russia, Vietnam, Korea and fighting Islamic governments in Middle East. What right does America have to force, through physical strength, diplomacy, or other means, its form of government on other countries? And please, don't tell me because of security reasons. Democracy is not the be all and end all.


 I'll agree to disagree with you on whether democracy is right for everyone, if that is indeed your point of contention.

If that is your contention, at least consider the following: why is a form of government that is only relatively recently developed necessary for everyone?

Also, given what you have said, wouldn't you agree that more participative and less representative democracy is better (e.g. through referendums), and a better reflexion of what the people want?

People have little say in countries currently with democracies: other than free speech, all an individual can really do to affect government is vote for a single representative who more often than not follows the advice of his party rather than the opinions of those who voted for him. What about referendums? If, like you suggest, governments should serve the people's interests, why not ask what our interests are more directly?



FN said:


> I would go further and say that other countries have a responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens in countries that egregiously ignore their rights and commit attrocities. (and the remainder of your post)


If such is the case, what say you if, in so many years, the next superpower, with a participative democracy, invades North America because it practices another form of government (representative democracy) it believes infringes on its security and allows for the persecution of its people?? One could argue that the current political system in the U.S., for example, has the potential to allow government to persecute its own people via the Patriot Act and similar legislation.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'd be interested in hearing of other distinct cultures/sects that are stable and effective yet existing within a very different nation state culture.
> Quebec maybe is getting there.
> Indigenes rarely.
> Toronto's orthodox Jewish community quite successfully in my view.


Not sure if these examples go as far as warranting a "distinct" label, but what of those immigrant communities (in Canada and elsewhere) where the majority keep more to their own culture/people? One could argue the Chinese are one such community. While they gladly accept business from non-Chinese, many tend to remain in their own Chinese circles (e.g. Chinese churches, Chinese grocery stores .... just walk into a classroom in a university campus!). Interesting, I recently found out such practices are informed by Confucious thought.

Also -- and I'm not very informed on this issue, so I may have to stand corrected -- but are some of the breakaway Russian states examples of distinct cultures that formerly thrived within the USSR until they obtained sovereignty?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, I see you want to change the subject about your throwing the "Rothschilds" comment around. *Sorry, I know an anti-semitic jab when i see it.* But don't worry, my skin is a lot thicker than that--I won't ask for you to be banned.


it's not only your skin that it thick, check between your ears
and i'm not worried about being banned for daring to mention "the rothchilds"

don't worry, i won't call my lawyer to sue you for defamation of character either
i recognize stupid paranoia when i see it


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Also -- and I'm not very informed on this issue, so I may have to stand corrected -- but are some of the breakaway Russian states examples of distinct cultures that formerly thrived within the USSR until they obtained sovereignty?


they are/were breakaway Soviet states, not Russian
Ukraine and Georgia are great examples of peaceful civil disobedience that resulted in true democratic reform
movements were funded by U.S. interests and i calculate that freedom and democracy was obtained at a far better rate of return than is currently occurring in Iraq

ps - only several deaths, a few "suicided" corrupt gov't officials and one dioxin poisoned (though he survived) president, at least in Ukraine

I am not as familiar with Georgia's "rose revolution"

The streets of Kyiv filled with peaceful demonstrators reminded one of Ghandi and his peaceful protests

but one of us on this board hates Ghandi, yet claims to hate anti-semitism
funny, i don't see those two going hand in hand


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

The Argument Sketch
From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument 
R= Receptionist 
Q= Abuser 
A= Arguer (planethoth)

M: **Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: ***Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: **No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: ****I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: **Well, what is the cost?
R:*** Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: **Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: ****Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: ***Mr. MacNutt's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. 
Ahh yes, Try Mr. planethoth; room 12.
M: ***Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: **WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: **Well, I was told outside that...
Q: **Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: **What?
Q: **Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: **Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: **OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: **Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: **Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: **Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: **Not at all.
M: **Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: **Come in.
M: **Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: **I told you once.
M: **No you haven't.
A: **Yes I have.
M: **When?
A: ***Just now.
M: **No you didn't.
A: **Yes I did.
M: *You didn't
A: **I did!
M: *You didn't!
A: **I'm telling you I did!
M: *You did not!!
A: **Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M:* Oh, just the five minutes.
A: **Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: *You most certainly did not.
A: **Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: *No you did not.
A: **Yes I did.
M: **No you didn't.
A: **Yes I did.
M: **No you didn't.
A: **Yes I did.
M: **No you didn't.
A: **Yes I did.
M: *You didn't.
A: **Did.
M: *Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: **Yes it is.
M: **No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: **No it isn't.
M: *It is!
A: **It is not.
M: *Look, you just contradicted me.
A: **I did not.
M: *Oh you did!!
A: **No, no, no.
M: *You did just then.
A: **Nonsense!
M: *Oh, this is futile!
A: **No it isn't.
M: *I came here for a good argument.
A: **No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: *An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: **It can be.
M: *No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: **No it isn't.
M: *Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: **Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. 
M: *Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: **Yes it is!
M: **No it isn't!
A: **Yes it is!
M: *Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: *No it isn't.
M: *It is.
A: *Not at all.
M: *Now look.
A: (Rings bell)**Good Morning.
M: *What?
A: **That's it. Good morning.
M: **I was just getting interested.
A: **Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: *That was never five minutes!
A: **I'm afraid it was.
M: *It wasn't.
..............and on and on and on........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:
Now back to our regularly scheduled argument.......er broadcast.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Back from a BBQ... let me respond:

MACSPECTRUM,

The existence or non existence of WMD is not really an issue for me. We know that Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds and we know he wasn't cooperating with the weapons inquiries. Therefore, the assumption he had them was reasonable but even if he didn't, he still deserved to be ousted and more importantly, the Iraqi people deserved to be rid of him.

MacDoc,

I was being somewhat facetious there but I do believe that sovereignty relies on the will of the people. You seem to subscribe to a Star Trek style Prime Directive with regard to other nation states... let them work it out themselves. We have seen the results of inaction in Rwanda, in the former Yugoslavia etc. I would argue that if the rights of their citizens are not being recognized then we have a responsibility to try to protect them, using force if necessary.

IKV,

Your definition of imperialism is far too broad. Every country is in competition with every other country and stronger countries will always assert their will at the expense of weaker countries. The US won't let in Canadian beef, Europe dumps surplus food in the Carribean thus hurting their producers, Canada taxes food imports from poorer countries at a much higher rate than taxes from rich countries and so on. By your definition, all countries are imperialist except those who are too weak to try.

I always admire a long term perspective but I think it's a stretch to call democracy a recent idea... it has been around for over two thousand years. Of course there are degrees of democracy and I would agree that our modern representative democracies are in need of improvement. I have argued before on these boards for the STV and/or PR, as well as more accountability for our judicial system. However, I would only advocate forceful intervention in cases where the fundamental rights of the people are being ignored to such an extent that the only option to improve things is to overthrown the government. If a future oppressive US government lost the support of its people and another superpower invaded to establish a true participatory democracy (rather than using that as a rationale for other aims) that wouldn't in itself be bad, but any rational government would realize that such a move would lead to death and destruction and therefore, would ignore the rights of the people it was trying to protect. I think this may be the mistake the US made... it failed to predict the consequences of its actions.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Your definition of imperialism is far too broad. Every country is in competition with every other country and stronger countries will always assert their will at the expense of weaker countries.


Any one else care to support the opinion that imperialism is more broader than simply invading/acquiring other lands/people???????????

Imperialism has changed, my friend. Countries are no longer interested in acquiring more people/territory, far too complicated. Instead, controlling economies, etc. is the new imperialism. Still imperialism, though. My opinion. Thoughts?

Actually had this debate in my U.S. history course. Very interesting topic.



Fink-Nottle said:


> I always admire a long term perspective but I think it's a stretch to call democracy a recent idea... it has been around for over two thousand years.


Sure boss, it goes back about 2,800 years ago, to Greece. But in terms of it being practiced with any regularity by any country it is a relatively recent phenomena.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wait a minute nice try - Rwanda HAD no government and was in a civil war and the UN was asked to bring the TWO belligerents to the table.

That's very very different, and Kosovo had both UN and Nato approval and participation.

The US and Britain had no business going into Iraq given their history and no UN approval to do so.

At this point about 95% of the people on the planet including a great number in the US consider it an illegal unsanctioned war.

Sovereignity is the ONLY protection smaller nations have and lacking a world body it's an important one.

Failed state status as with Haiti when there is a complete breakdown of government of any kind ( effectively what happened in Rwanda as well ) is also a very different issue and does not apply to Iraq.

If the world can at least start with effective measures for failed states and civil wars then perhaps there is a opportunity down the road to for the community to deal with the likes of Saddam. ( see Libya and I DON'T buy the scared of US attack scenario - he's an opportunist )

Bush set any world body effectiveness back decades 

Woodwards *Plan of Attack* is revealing AND damning.

Not a snowballs chance in hell the US would try that with North Korea and when you ask yourself why then you know iRaq was ONLY because they COULD.
With great power rests great responsibility.

The US has shirked it's responsibility....and stands condemned in the eyes of the world......and now by it's own populace.
And YOU know it........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Any one else care to support the opinion that imperialism is more broader than simply invading/acquiring other lands/people???????????
> 
> Imperialism has changed, my friend. Countries are no longer interested in acquiring more people/territory, far too complicated. Instead, controlling economies, etc. is the new imperialism. Still imperialism, though. My opinion. Thoughts?


Absolutely and the irony is the US due to it's profligate spending and appetite for oil has put itself in a vassal state to China and OPEC.

In my mind the US lost WWWIII tho it's by no means over yet.

The US has attempted a hegemony as broad or more than Britain's empire and has done so not by way of conquering lands/peoples directly.

Barbarians be at the gates. Time to go home Yanqui.

••••

*Communal* living has been around....since there were multicelled interdependent colonies of algae.
You see any "democratic" structures in nature????Perhaps we should take notes. 

It's a fiction in human society any ways.....tribes and alpha leaders still rule.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

IKV,

I'm not your friend (yet), I'm not your boss (yet) and you're not arguing on Oprah... 

Economic imperialism is hardly new; the British and Dutch East India Companies were both private companies that dragged their countries into the Imperial scramble. I accept that imperialism isn't just about acquiring other lands but your definition is so broad as to be next to useless. I don't see Canada as being imperialist but we flex our muscle at the expense of weaker nations, as do all the G8 countries. At the recent summit in Scotland, a start was made to addressing this.

--

Blair made an excellent speech today... excerpt below and click the link to read it in full:

If it is the plight of the Palestinians that drives them (the terrorists behind the recent bombings), why, every time it looks as if Israel and Palestine are making progress, does the same ideology perpetrate an outrage that turns hope back into despair?

If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first ever election? If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?

What was September 11, 2001 the reprisal for? Why even after the first Madrid bomb (in March 2004) and the election of a new Spanish government, were they planning another atrocity when caught?

Why if it is the cause of Muslims that concerns them, do they kill so many with such callous indifference?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Why if it is the cause of Muslims that concerns them, do they kill so many with such callous indifference?


replace "Muslims" with "democracy" and "they" with "the U.S." and I could ask you the very same question.

Collateral damage is a rich man's terrorism, especially when it's from 20,000 feet or from an off shore ship launched cruise missile.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Economic imperialism is hardly new; the British and Dutch East India Companies were both private companies that dragged their countries into the Imperial scramble.


finally, we've recognized the root of the problem
"Follow the money"


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Macspectrum and Macdoc suffer from the same fate as other demagogic pseudo-marxists, excessive licence with terms such as "imperialism". These definitions of imperialism are so pliable as to basically describe any country. After all, any country seeks to extend its economic sphere of influence, and rightfully so!

It is rather like MacDoc claiming he doesn't want to make more money or find new customers for his business. Well, he could say that--and given how he posts politically contentious comments under his business name, I could even believe it--but then he wouldn't be much of a businessperson!

How dumb the United States would be if it DIDN'T seek the expansion of its economic influence. Ditto Canada, or Cameroon for that matter!

What you people call "imperialism" is in fact not imperialism but rather rational economic self-interest.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> replace "Muslims" with "democracy" and "they" with "the U.S." and I could ask you the very same question.
> 
> Collateral damage is a rich man's terrorism, especially when it's from 20,000 feet or from an off shore ship launched cruise missile.


What a cheesy claim. Yes, I suppose the Americans always try for as many non-combatant casualties as possible. That's sooooooooo their plan. Just like the jihadists, right?

Your equivocations are pure farce.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I think I have figured out the formula for the dominant philosophy on this message board:

* Everything is relative, everyone is morally equal---except the Americans and Israelis, they are evil.

* Every system is just as good as the next. Except capitalism, that is evil.

* Imperialism =anyone who makes money, except us.

* The people who claim to be victims are ALWAYS right.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MacDoc,

So if there is a brutal civil war going on and no obvious government, then intervention is acceptable... but if one side starts to win, slaughters its opponents, consolidates its grip on power and declares itself the People's Republic of XYZ, then it gains the protection of "sovereignty" and intervention is unacceptable?

If any nation, large or small, abuses its citizens and fails to live up to the UN Charter it signed, how is it in the people's interest that the regime continue? If we can topple it relatively peacefully (admittedly not what has happened in Iraq) then shouldn't we do that? Did we have a responsibility to the people behind the iron curtain to fight for their freedom or should we have ignored them and looked after our own? Did the allies have a responsibility to the people of France after the Germans overran them in WW II? The right of human beings should surely be paramount over the rights of any nation to sovereignty.

MACSPECTRUM,

Your point is taken but look at the numbers:

CIVILIAN DEATHS RESULTING FROM MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAQ:
-Around 26,000 so far, according to 
IRAQ BODY COUNT who are certainly not US apologists and are providing a count with clinical research and precision. These numbers include "collateral damage" as well as all the victims of terrorist attacks.

CIVILIAN DEATHS RESULTING FROM THE RULE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN:
-Between 50 000 and 100 000 Kurds, according to Human Rights Watch International
-Between 50 000 and 70 000 Shi'a Muslims, also according to Human Rights Watch International 
-Over 100 000 other people have "disappeared" from various groups including Barzani men, Muslim clerics, other Kurds, Kuwaitis, leftists and other "targeted" groups etc. (See the previous link.)


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

planethoth said:


> I think I have figured out the formula for the dominant philosophy on this message board:
> 
> * Everything is relative, everyone is morally equal---except the Americans and Israelis, they are evil.
> 
> ...


LOL!!!
Gee it didn't take you long to figure that out. Welcome to ehmac!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Cheers MacGuiver, lol!!! 

Btw, it wasn't my definition of imperialism, but dictionary.com's: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imperialism. Also shared by Oxford, Webster, countless historians, and MacDoc!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> I think I have figured out the formula for the dominant philosophy on this message board:
> 
> * Everything is relative, everyone is morally equal---except the Americans and Israelis, they are evil.
> 
> ...



Well I figured out your formula: Put false words in your opponents mouth (screens). You pretend to argue but really you are throwing aroung the phillosophical fallacy of deflection.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> CIVILIAN DEATHS RESULTING FROM THE RULE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN:
> -Between 50 000 and 100 000 Kurds, according to Human Rights Watch International
> -Between 50 000 and 70 000 Shi'a Muslims, also according to Human Rights Watch International
> -Over 100 000 other people have "disappeared" from various groups including Barzani men, Muslim clerics, other Kurds, Kuwaitis, leftists and other "targeted" groups etc. (See the previous link.)


This is missleading. Sadaam was in power a hell of a lot longer than 2 years.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> CIVILIAN DEATHS RESULTING FROM MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAQ:
> -Around 26,000 so far, according to
> IRAQ BODY COUNT who are certainly not US apologists and are providing a count with clinical research and precision. These numbers include "collateral damage" as well as all the victims of terrorist attacks.
> 
> ...


and again


> This is missleading. Sadaam was in power a hell of a lot longer than 2 years.


Good point, Martman.
Pro-rata, "the Coalition" are ahead of the game! (Even assuming max. figures from the quote about Saddam's innings.)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> and again
> 
> Good point, Martman.
> Pro-rata, "the Coalition" are ahead of the game! (Even assuming max. figures from the quote about Saddam's innings.)


there you go again
letting facts get in the way of a good rant

btw, WMD count = 0, still


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Shuffles sheepishly … avoids eye-contact …

Sorry, didn't mean to poo in anyone's cornflakes. I'm just a bit socially awkward.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN you are ALL over the map....unanswerable.
Every empire has a bloody history.
WWII involved attacks on sovereign states that had treaties.
By your reasoning anybody can attack anyone else if they feel there is a "threat" to a minority or part of the population. ( Hmmm sounds like Hitler's reasoning )
The US could easily step into Canada given our record with Indigenes and should be entirely justified in invading about 80% of the nations on the planet, first and foremost China, certainly Cuba, Myamar, the list goes on an on. Not only because they can but according to you they SHOULD.

Once more without a world body.....sovereignty is the only protection and it's slim at best.
We can get involved in a neighbors affairs because we have a legal system backing us up.
You see a kid being abused you call a cop and the legal system kicks in.
And there are still many who hold that beating a kid or a spouse inside the family home is their right. 
We're barely past THAT concept.

THERE IS NO WORLD LEGAL SYSTEM......yet.
THERE IS NO WORLD DUE PROCESS.....yet.

There are glimmers of both. Martin has a pretty good concept of how "relief on humanitarian grounds" might be accomplished but as Rwanda shows even when there is a "process" approved and even welcomed by the factions in the warring state.......it's a joke in the reality without the full weight of world resources and sovereign interests get in the way of communal action.

If even signed treaties like the WTO are breached with hardly a care by the most powerful state......what good is a being a "signatory" going to accomplish.

We haven't even got our own provincial clashes settled nor has Europe worked out it's sovereignty versus EU issues and it took a war in the US to work out SOME of theirs.

In my mind, without a really effective world government, the only way to reign in a rogue head of state is to make ti worth their while economically to institute reforms ....exactly as the EU does for new members.

The world bank is getting better at it.


> The Bank now talks increasingly about politics, even if it does so in euphemisms such as “good governance”, “capacity building”, “voice” and “empowerment”. It is committed to understanding the political institutions of the countries in which it operates. Haltingly, hesitantly, it is also committed to changing them.


 :clap:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032601

Trade, aid, respect, incentives and as a worst case sanctions in the case of a functional but odious government in a sovereign state.

Belligerent or failed states are different matters and quite frankly for the forseeable future will be handled by the major power(s) in the region .....with or without UN sanction. ( Kosovo was largely a EU exercise in this )

If states of any size feel their sovereignty is at risk at a whim then they will arm to the teeth........and we are seeing that already. 

•••••

PT.......ESL candidate comments....has trouble with concepts.....remedial reading recommended


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Bravo MacDoc,

You ignored my points, misrepresented my positions and tried to associate me with Hitler... I think there could be a bright future for you as a Liberal politician.

You talk of sovereignty as some mystical protection that all states enjoy and small states rely on. I put to you again it means nothing unless the rights of their people as eloquently defined in the UN Charter are respected. I wish there was a way to reform or destroy regimes that let their citizens starve while building their military, who kill those whose views they dislike, and who deny basic rights to all. As Bruce Cobourn sung, "If I had a rocket launcher..." Unfortunately it's not that easy in Iraq, let alone your suggestion of China. A world body would be great but we don't have one right now and we won't have one soon. So, do we live and let die or do we step in when we can make a difference?



> You see a kid being abused you call a cop and the legal system kicks in.
> And there are still many who hold that beating a kid or a spouse inside the family home is their right.
> We're barely past THAT concept.
> 
> ...


Great analogy... as our neighbourhood has no mutually agreed upon cop what should we do?

1. Leave that family to hopefully get its act in order. The sovereignty of the family trumps the rights of the child or spouse. Plus it's not like we've been a perfect husband/father either...

2. Send that family nasty letters about the problem, ostracize them and try to stop newspapers, mail, phone, internet and pizzas from being delivered.

3. Get together with some like minded neighbours and attempt to rescue the child or spouse.

Obviously, where we can make a difference and save lives, I think we should. Forget the Prime Directive, they broke it in every other episode anyway...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You act as if the Charter is some to use your words "mystical document"...THAT IS ENFORCEABLE.
It's not.
So there is no cop.....and there in lies the problem ..it's not just no cop.......no due process.
Even worse - the wannabe cop is no upright world citizen and it's motives are highly suspect in the case of Iraq in particular.

Some families will respond to b or c and you would attempt those first in my mind. Shunning has worked in small communities, unions, etc. Peer pressure is immense but not always effective. Integrating, welcoming, offering employment opportunities makes newcomers with different customs welcome......interfering alienates.

Some you try and breach a) you'll get a hole blown in you by an armed "home is castle" type.

So if b) and c) are the general rule in the 'hood then arming is not seen as needed.

You go around booting in doors...........arming WILL be the norm.

I did not misrepresent your position I extended it to it's logical possibilities and the reasoning that HAS BEEN USED to justify "interference".

Not all societies as not all people will adhere to "peaceable standards" most would like to see world wide.

Within nations states there IS a process to deal with "criminal" behaviour, flawed as it might be.

There is little or none internationally and until the major powers agree to fund and be part of it, "home is castle" is the only operant in the field and I put it to you that the vast majority of citizens of every country polled would say the sovereignty of their nation is very important to them.

It IS one generally agreed "principle" that crosses borders well and gives smaller states some comfort in that it is viewed that breaching that soveriegnity by a larger or more powerful state is as close to universally condemned as anything might be internationally.

The EU is slowly attempting to get some of the border lines dissolved.

Without a due process and enforcement/judicial procedure it's the only thin barrier to straightout colonialism.

Good article here especially on the EU efforts.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/realism.htm

Just look at the effort of First Nations to regain some faint degree of self determination to see how critical it is to "peoples".

The gov and church took it upon themselves to "improve" and "educate". 
We know how well that turned out.....

The old saw that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...has indeed some deep undercurrent of truth.

••••

I always find it amusing how quickly NeoCons want to be "do gooders" until it's THEIR sovereignity ( right to bear arms personally ) at risk. See US and World Court. US and "forgiveable homicide rules"


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Ah world government... just what I want, a governing elite farther away, more unaccountable, more unresponsive, more self-entitled to regulate our lives, more new taxes for it to collect. MacDoc has all the great ideas.

I am beginning to wonder if the real fearful enemy is not the jihadists at all, but the leftists and their ideas.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Ah world government... just what I want, a governing elite farther away, more unaccountable, more unresponsive, more self-entitled to regulate our lives, more new taxes for it to collect. MacDoc has all the great ideas.
> 
> I am beginning to wonder if the real fearful enemy is not the jihadists at all, but the leftists and their ideas.


It would figure because the jihadists have WAY more in common with right wingers than us leftys.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> It would figure because the jihadists have WAY more in common with right wingers than us leftys.


Great, at least someone fell for the bait!


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Ah world government... just what I want, a governing elite farther away, more unaccountable, more unresponsive, more self-entitled to regulate our lives, more new taxes for it to collect. MacDoc has all the great ideas.
> 
> I am beginning to wonder if the real fearful enemy is not the jihadists at all, but the leftists and their ideas.


You are sounding pretty pessimistic, when really it could be a chance for the world's nations to unite, could be a great chance for communication that does not normaly happen. Try looking at things from different angles and consider these, use your imagination. I mean I'm a pessimist all the time and thus I am quite depressed, but if you take the time to turn things around (which I shopuld do more often) then things don't look as bad, and it gives you a chance to be rational, by not focusing on what is wrong. I'm a little further left than most, only because I'm dumb enough to have hope for this stupid species I belong to.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Great, at least someone fell for the bait!


Fell for what?
You say leftys are possibly worse than jihadists and I point out that it is the right wing that is trying to push religious orthodoxy on the masses. I don't see your point. I'd say you took the bait.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> You are sounding pretty pessimistic, when really it could be a chance for the world's nations to unite, could be a great chance for communication that does not normaly happen. Try looking at things from different angles and consider these, use your imagination. I mean I'm a pessimist all the time and thus I am quite depressed, but if you take the time to turn things around (which I shopuld do more often) then things don't look as bad, and it gives you a chance to be rational, by not focusing on what is wrong. I'm a little further left than most, only because I'm dumb enough to have hope for this stupid species I belong to.


Hey look, I am not a pessimist, I am a critic. Using "imagination" is good. Relying on imagination as a basis for huge political programs is bad.

Having "hope for the species" is not tied to a political position (the terms left and right are useless for me, I only use them when they are convenient shorthand). Humanity has both good and bad in it, and I am not trying to say things are all bad. Sharp criticism is not pessimism.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> (the terms left and right are useless for me, I only use them when they are convenient shorthand).


That's funny because you come off as a card carrying neo-con.
(read: right winger)


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Gee, I said thet you were "Sounding" pessimistic, and I stand by that. Imagination and Ideas are critical to our future, and as the ruling species on the planet, it is our duty to protect all life on this planet (not just Terri Schivo's). C'mon man, these are only words, Ideas, and I'm glad you are getting defensive, it shows ...... well, I hope it makes ya think!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> That's funny because you come off as a card carrying neo-con.
> (read: right winger)


Oh great, the dreaded "neo-con" term again. Why, you and the others throw this term around like you know what it means. Look dude, more people than just the "neocons" are in favour of smashing jihadists wherever they may be. Neoconservativism is a whole ideology that is more than foreign policy. I am afraid you are incorrect, this term does not apply to me, though, why not go ahead and use it! I know you will anyway, regardless of its veracity.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> Gee, I said thet you were "Sounding" pessimistic, and I stand by that. Imagination and Ideas are critical to our future, and as the ruling species on the planet, it is our duty to protect all life on this planet (not just Terri Schivo's). C'mon man, these are only words, Ideas, and I'm glad you are getting defensive, it shows ...... well, I hope it makes ya think!



Sigh... couldn't think of any other cliches, had to throw Terri Schiavo in there for good measure?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ( Hmmm sounds like Hitler's reasoning )


So have we officially moved from Godwin's Law to Miller's Paradox now?


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Didn't mean to be Cliche', I just find it real interesting that that issue made so many headlines (Head-lies ) while diverting so many people from hearing about the lack of WMD's, oh, another Cleche'... 

America is a Theocracy not a Democracy, that's my point, the religious right is in charge.

And the reason statements become Cleche' is because there is often truth to them, I'm baffled why Bush is Not Impeached, They fired Clinton for much less, and it wasn't because he bombed a Daycare!?

I hope the American Dream is worth all that suffering!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> Didn't mean to be Cliche', I just find it real interesting that that issue made so many headlines (Head-lies ) while diverting so many people from hearing about the lack of WMD's, oh, another Cleche'...
> 
> America is a Theocracy not a Democracy, that's my point, the religious right is in charge.
> 
> ...


Oh yes, theocracy, sure it is, right. Not too much rhetorical overkill, is that?

I guess words truly are meaningless now.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oh yes, it is "cliche" not "cleche" and impeachment does not mean being "fired".

But I guess those were minor violations of meaning compared to your use of "theocracy".


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

It's all good man

the·oc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s) n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

No, that's what I ment.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, it is "cliche" not "cleche" and impeachment does not mean being "fired".
> 
> But I guess those were minor violations of meaning compared to your use of "theocracy".


I haven't seen an argument from you in a long time just riddicule. This is a fallacy. How about an argument insted of simple derision? Or is that too much to ask?
The statment put forward is that the Christain right is in control of the US gov't. Counter this or please go away.
thanks.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

At least he is up front about spelling corrections, I would just have edited the original post and left it at that. I knew impeachment was different than getting fired, but "fired" sounds stronger to me, so that's why I chose that word. America's reaction to sex on the Job as opposed to the bombing of a foreign daycare.... Sounds rightwing to me!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I suspect that what you refer to as the "christian right" is actually a rather large segment of like minded individual US voters who all choose to actively cast their votes in a similar manner. Like, for a President or a Senate or a Governor or something.

Which might explain the large increase in George W's power base during his second term as President. They like the guy. They believe in what he's doing.

Oddly enough...so do I.  

Let the flailing begin....


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

*back to the Title of this thread*

Who is Planethoth and why should I care?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

rhino said:


> Who is Planethoth and why should I care?


no need to worry
as you were


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

MacNutt, you've got to be joking! You actually approve of the way Bush is running the U.S.?

BTW, glad to see you back.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Results of AP-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about President Bush, the nation's direction
> Associated Press
> *August 5, 2005* POLL0806.METH
> 
> ...


Seems America is waking up to what most of the rest of the world knew along.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lotus said:


> MacNutt, you've got to be joking! You actually approve of the way Bush is running the U.S.?
> 
> BTW, glad to see you back.


you expected him to say something else?
i just checked in with Hell's gatekeeper, Dick Cheney, and he says things are as warm as ever down there


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Letterman had a cute one liner the other night.

"To show he's conserving energy Bush, is changing White house lights to fluorescent and turning Cheney's pacemaker off at night " 

Was accompanied by a perfect shot of Cheney apparently asleep at his desk. Made me laugh.

•••••

Interesting that the NeoCon support numbers in the US are approaching the Death Valley region of those in Canada  ....'bout time.

and I beleive that poll was before the 17 or so Marines from the same town were killed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, is holding a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

"The president expressed sympathy for Sheehan and others like her, saying he's 'thought about their cry and their sincere desire to reduce the loss of life' by pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. But an immediate pullout, said Bush, would be a terrible mistake.

Sheehan responded by saying, 'All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq'."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/4839463/detail.html


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*No Planethoth, but we got MacNutt ...*

... and he's back on the pro-Dubya bandwagon.

Maybe his posts are meant as comedy, as Lotus suggests. Like this one from another thread:


MacNutt said:


> Just the other day I was having a beer with Robin Williams and he was shaking his head and bemoaning how many of the "B-List" Hollywood types were now moving here since it has become one of the 'favored places'. I mentioned the "Bridge Thing" to him and he almost had kittens. Right before my eyes.


OK, I'm trying to imagine the notorious Bush-lover MacNutt, amicably sitting over a pint in Fulford with the notorious Bush-hater Robin Williams. Hmmmm ... sounds like quite a comedy to me.

"Hey Robin, old buddy, wanna meet me for a beer?"
"Sure Gerry, old pal. Hey dude, I need to hear you do that deadpan bit again, you know the one where you praise the Shrub, I almost fell off my freakin' chair, man!"

Here's a few of Williams non-R rated opinions about his Commander in Cheif:


> Funnyman Robin Williams has launched a scathing attack on President George W. Bush and his decision to go ahead with war on Iraq.* He says, "America is broke, basically, but Bush wants to wage a war that costs pretty much a billion dollars a month. "We have a president for whom English is a second language. He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself.* "In America, we have orange alert, but what the hell does that mean? We're supposed to be afraid of Krishna? Of orange sorbet? Then it's like, 'You can't go out and shop, it's too dangerous out there,' but if that happens then the economy falls. "The message is so mixed: 'Be afraid, but not too afraid.'"
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

CIndy Sheehan says "if President George W. Bush really feels compassion for her, he should meet with her." (from the article Dr. G Linked).

Funny thing about that, since Bush did meet her last year. And she seemed perfectly fine with him back then.

Here's an article from the Drudge Report detailing her change of stance: http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

Granted, the Drudge Report isn't exactly what I'd call unbiased news, but its hard to spin such a drastic change.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... and he's back on the pro-Dubya bandwagon.
> 
> Maybe his posts are meant as comedy, as Lotus suggests. Like this one from another thread:
> OK, I'm trying to imagine the notorious Bush-lover MacNutt, amicably sitting over a pint in Fulford with the notorious Bush-hater Robin Williams. Hmmmm ... sounds like quite a comedy to me.
> ...


Gee, if I posted the kind of stuff that Robin Williams allegedly said, I'd be branded as anti-American.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Funny thing about that, since Bush did meet her last year. And she seemed perfectly fine with him back then.
> 
> Granted, the Drudge Report isn't exactly what I'd call unbiased news, but its hard to spin such a drastic change.


Bush has a Reality Distortion Field too?!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... and he's back on the pro-Dubya bandwagon.
> 
> Maybe his posts are meant as comedy, as Lotus suggests. Like this one from another thread:
> OK, I'm trying to imagine the notorious Bush-lover MacNutt, amicably sitting over a pint in Fulford with the notorious Bush-hater Robin Williams. Hmmmm ... sounds like quite a comedy to me.
> ...


C'MON GA...you weren't taking me _SERIOUSLY _...were you??

Too silly!  

(It was actually Al Pacino I was having beers with. The Governator was at the table that night too. I'd have included Ahhh-Nold's comments as well, but he was busy barfing in the can from an overdose of Jagermeister. Guy is a lightweight. Steroids will do that to ya.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> It was actually Al Pacino I was having beers with. The Governator was at the table that night too. I'd have included Ahhh-Nold's comments as well, but he was busy barfing in the can from an overdose of Jagermeister. Guy is a lightweight. Steroids will do that to ya.


What, Randy Bachman couldn't make it? I hear he's turned into a real homebody these days.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Randy is a notorious cheapskate. And he neither drinks nor does any drugs. Which might be why he is such an authority on the sixties. He actually REMEMBERS that period in history because he was sober the whole time! 

That's why you won't likely find him an any bars. And he drinks Carley Spring Water in his studio when he's working.

I know this because we deliver it to him.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I'm just trying to imagine some of planethoth's threads if Christopher Walken becomes president of the US...


----------

