OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[rextorres]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Your right, I have mentioned you twice, and that is because I was talking to you specifically.

I wanted to be clear that I enjoy and value opinions that differ from my own. You have a very strong sense of yours, and that is fantastic in my humble opinion. I just would enjoy reading them without all of the hostility.

Then again, I who am I to judge. You have made some excellent points and have stood your ground.

BTW, I think Geoschmo was talking about President Clinton and not GW senior. Just and FYI.

And you do remind me an awful lot of the guy I mentioned before. More power to you man.

Fair enough.

I do concede, however, that writing "When Bush lied people died" was meant to generate a heated discussion and I am sorry if I offended anyone who believes that Bush told the truth.

And no I am not that other guy.

BTW: Yes Geo meant Clinton, but Bush Senior invaded Somalia. I truly believe things would not have been much different if Bush had won that election.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Phoenix-D]

"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"This his how revisionist history is written. You claim that it was I who had insulted other people even though I have not."

Excuse me? CNC? Which of you is the one that implied everyone who opposes the war enjoys human suffering? You. That is in my book an insult of the highest order.

I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.


However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

---

Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering.

[ December 14, 2003, 22:15: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[Phoenix-D]

[quote]Originally posted by CNCRaymond:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
[qb]I should point out that this quote was taken out of context as I was referring to the fact that I had been insulted, and the person who had done this insulting justified it by claiming his insults were in response to my having directly insulted him. Something I had not done.


However, I can see your point Phoenix. It was most certainly not intended as an insult, but I can see how it can be taken as one. A poor choice of wording on my part. I shall, in the future, attempt to be more precise.

No, it wasn't. I fully understood what you were going for, and frankly insults are entirely perception. Which means that yes, he was responding to an insult, meant or not..

The second post was just to provide the proof without making people dig for it.

[Will]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Again, I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I forget that people often take statements literally, and not in the spirt for which they were typed.

I should have been more specific, and I was not, I stand corrected, and do apologies if I have offend those people. However, the essence of what I said does stand true. If they opposed the war, then it can be said, even if it is proven to be inaccurate, that they supported the continued human suffering that the Iraqi people were enduring by not supporting action to stop that suffering. [/QB]

So by not supporting a specific action to stop "human suffering" (not necessarily of the Iraqis), a person is therefore guilty of not supporting any action to stop "human suffering"? That is flawed logic, I'm afraid. It is quite possible for someone to believe that war is not the way to end "human suffering", and that another path can be found.

To attempt a horrible analogy that takes things to extremes (and borrowing from all the wife-beating occuring earlier in the thread):
If I do not support vivisecting the husband for beating his wife, and thus removing the threat of the husband beating his wife, then I must support the continued beatings -- even if I merely support putting him in a small concrete room for a period of time, and restricting his activities after release from said room (ie, no alcohol, counseling, curfews, community service, whatever...).

Hmm, hope that made sense...