| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| WP is fair game. You can ask the US not too use it but the US isn't beholden to respond to your wishes. Further, you have little credible leverage if they say no. That means you can't really call them evil or cruel. |
And then when they claim the moral high ground they get it thrown back in their faces. It doesn't strike you as counter-productive? Especially since the battle for Fallujah didn't actually end in a stunning US victory but rather the first negotiated truce between US forces and Sunni insurgents. Gee, is it possible they could have reached the same objective without having to resort to WP? Maybe you want to suggest they used WP for the fun of it?
Last edited by Bulsajo on Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| WP is fair game. You can ask the US not too use it but the US isn't beholden to respond to your wishes. Further, you have little credible leverage if they say no. That means you can't really call them evil or cruel. |
Did you read this bit?
| Quote: |
| The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." |
If not, please do read it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This debate is not being waged by me alone, there are many people discussing and debating it all over the damned place. |
This is entirely irrelevant. Why am I beholden to these discussions? No one is. Whatever influence comes from these discussions is worthless. Its just a few guys on a barstool talking. Its not law in anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| WP is fair game. |
Troll. Time to start ignoring you again. You are attempting to refute facts already in evidence. Troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Its just a few guys on a barstool talking. |
You just wanna steal my avatar ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
If not, please do read it now.
|
Yea, I read it but I discarded it fom consideration because the claim is unsubstantiated, unreferenced and very likely taken out of context.
If you have that then I have at least a dozen citiations saying the opposite.
Nyah.
I almost never cite references when I make claims. I like to have my opponents look for themselves and then at that moment when the find I am correct, my little figurative IED goes off. I make people work for their defeat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
I almost never cite references when I make claims. I like to have my opponents look for themselves and then at that moment when the find I am correct, my little figurative IED goes off. I make people work for their defeat. |
That's a wonderful theory, I wonder how well it would work if you actually started using it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian truth goes like this...
Islamonline.com prints whatever they like. Islamonline doesn't claim to be a journialist publication and therefore outside of the purview of integrity standards. AlJazeera then copies whats there since they know no Muslim would lie or be wrong. The Guardian then copies whatever Al Jazeera prints since they love Muslims and Islam and Al Jazeera has a modicum of journalistic integrity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Guardian's opinion pages are one thing, and I am rarely in agreement with them. But in news reporting, they do not misquote. If they cite a book in use by the US military and quote from it, then they are reporting fact, not giving an opinion.
That this use was originally denied (and later admitted) leads one to the conclusion that the person or persons making the original denial were aware that such use was illegal.
The real problem is that, as I have said elsewhere, the USA is perilously close to losing the moral high ground. Simply put, were WP used on US forces, there could be no logical complaint. Similarly, were US military prisoners absued and mistreated, there could be no logical complaint.
Take back the moral high ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doutdes
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| I almost never cite references when I make claims. I like to have my opponents look for themselves and then at that moment when the find I am correct, my little figurative IED goes off. I make people work for their defeat. |
Perhaps you don't cite your evidence because it doesn't exist, weakly supports your argument, or doesn't even support your argument at all ( Liberals Abuse of Blacks with Illegal Immigration). However, trying to incorporate your habit into a broader pedogy is unconvincing. Do you think googling builds character? Do you even think the readers, or your opponents, are actually going to look up the information on their own? Or does evidence get in the way of the classic, and endless, arguments that liberals are pacifist, red fags and conservatives are heartless, uptight bigots? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Providing evidence builds a good argument and if that means Googling then so be it. I would never make a strong statement without validating the evidence before doing so. I haven't brought links into this debate as of late due to the proponderance of evidence that supports my claim. When evidence is that overwhelming, providing such is unnecessary. I don't have to prove air exists every time I mention it.
I'm not sure why this topic went on for more than eight responses. The headline was "Chemical Weapons" and cited WP as that weapon. I provided negative evidence to that effect and then the argument morphed into something else with the goal of proving that the US did something wrong again and that violation has something to do chemical weapons somehow someway. Why wasn't that good enough? You should have accepted the facts and then posted about the amorality of using WP as an incendiary weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| I'm not sure why this topic went on for more than eight responses. The headline was "Chemical Weapons" and cited WP as that weapon. I provided negative evidence to that effect and then the argument morphed into something else with the goal of proving that the US did something wrong again and that violation has something to do chemical weapons somehow someway. Why wasn't that good enough? You should have accepted the facts and then posted about the amorality of using WP as an incendiary weapon. |
Still in denial despite the alternative evidence that people much more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I disagree with you? Everyone should capitulate to your position simply because you state it?
There are a number of questions you have not answered yet.
Interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There is no alternative evidence. None. Are you talking about "caramelization"? Thats wholly BS. Caramelization means turning something into gooey caramel candy. Again, there is no alternative evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
| There is no alternative evidence. None. Are you talking about "caramelization"? Thats wholly BS. Caramelization means turning something into gooey caramel candy. Again, there is no alternative evidence. |
Who unlocks the door to let you out?? First, caramelization can be used to refer to melting that does not actually involve caramel. 
Second, I was talking about the fact that others also interpret the conventions and the processes and the incorrect use the same way I and others do. So you disagree. So what? It won't be the first time you've been wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
