• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

forget it, its not worth it.

you lied about my comments & beliefs, you refuse to admit it, and that is that.



In otherwords i was correct, you feel we should respect the dead taliban who tried to kill us troops, who should be condemned for snapping a picture.

Clear as day. Thanks for playing.
 
so you admit you are just playing childish games, meant to provoke & offend me.

how pathetic Rev.




Right. I just responded to your comments that yhe dead taliban who tried to kill americans need to be "respected" while us troops who snap a picture of said taliban savage should ve condemned....

And icing on the cake, you wont say that what they did was not a "war crime".


No games, just taking you at your word :shrug:
 
Is this thread about the trophy pics? or about inner DP personality squabbles? Because if it is the latter, I have better things to do.


j-mac
 
...And icing on the cake, you wont say that what they did was not a "war crime"....

that would be like me saying:

"you have failed to say that you don't eat babies.

why do you refuse to say that you don't eat babies?"

are you done playing childish & pathetic games, Rev?
 
Last edited:
that would be like me saying:

"you have failed to say that you don't eat babies.

why do you refuse to say that you don't eat babies?"

are you done playing childish & pathetic games, Rev?




I don't eat babies. :shrug:



Now did these soldiers commit a war crime or not?

Again. Your position which you are not denying is that the soldiers should ve condemned and the taliban that tried to kill them should be respected....

Correct me if i am wrong.
 
Thunder said:
so that means that for the most part, except for China, the Republic of China is a real state, governed by a legitimate government with legitimate rulers.

So you're essentially arguing argumentum ad populum.

You must consider the Congo Free State to have been "legitimate" as well, who was recognized as "legitimate" by the majority of European nations at the Berlin Conference. :roll:
 
Last edited:
So you're essentially arguing argumentum ad populum....

argumentum ad populum is not a logical fallacy in all cases.

when it comes to non-scientific facts and non-historic truths, such as the legitimacy of a nation's govt., popular support by the international community does indeed have serious weight.
 
I never said that they did.

Are we done here, Rev?


Well, then Thunder, let's review what started this back and forth, because after some 12 damned pages of denial, and attack, some may not know what the hell you are talking about here....

YOU said...

Thunder said:
I think I have a right to condemn them when they take smiley photos next to the mangled bodies of their enemies.

So without me parsing what you are saying here, why don't you explain it further so that we can be clear.


j-mac
 
Is this thread about the trophy pics? or about inner DP personality squabbles? Because if it is the latter, I have better things to do.

j-mac

for once, I totally agree with you. This is one childish game that you should probably avoid.
 
it means that a petty, childish, pathetic, and ignorant game is being played here, and you should probably avoid it...as its pointless to get involved in.


Oh, ok, so you are just lookin' out for my best interests eh? I hardly think I am involved by just asking a question.


j-mac
 
most of the other nations on Earth, do.

Legitimacy and illegitimacy have nothing to do with it. These are punch lines to the international joke. Power makes all things legitimate. The UN has power because the U.S.A. created it and allows it power. The laws of soveriegnty were first created to legitimize kings, kasiers and tsars. In other words, to preserve dictators from the threat of other dictators. In even more other words, it made bad behavior legitimate as long as it remained behind borders. This sorted out the need to preserve tyranny quite nicely until the world became globalized, starting with European colonization up through the Cold War to present day. Now we have an organization of our own creation telling us what is and is not legitimate and soveriegn in the world. The problem is that these international laws are ancient and the modern world is enslaved to them. Could this be because the United nations is an old man's country club full of dictators that rely on those ancient laws to preserve a false idea of stability? Well dictators die. Economic prosperity throughout the world relies on consistancy, which impies that true soveriegnty is less about a border and a king and far more about a people's ability to commercially preserve it. The U.S.A., as an example, goes from one leader to the next. But what remains constant is "the people."

Saddam Hussein being legitimate or not had nothing to do with his threat to the oil flow from the Middle East to the rest of the world. He was obviously legitimate enough to preserve for over a decade later. The Taliban siezing power of Afghanistan (their country) made their power legitimate. Were it not for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden's power resided in blowing up our embassies (unmolested) and murdering our troops abroad. Attacking New York City in front of the world made his power legitimate.

Our ideas of legitimacy, soveriegnty, and stability have been so twisted over the course of history that we haven't come to the realization that today's modern era demands a modern defintion. A surgeon wouldn't insist on open heart surgery with the surgical tool of the 19th century. Why in hell do we keep insisting that we approach international issues with 17th century laws and perspectives?
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Why in hell do we keep insisting that we approach international issues with 17th century laws and perspectives?

Because people get boners over the "founding fathers" and every single word that they ever said as if it's still applicable 300 years later in the exact same way.
 
well, that's Contract Law. It's pretty solid - but your own attempt at mirroring breaks down: the Founders left us an explicit venue to alter the contract as changing conditions demanded: the Amendment Process.

What MSgt is pointing out is that the world is more interconnected and interdependent than in the days of Westphalia.
 
Because people get boners over the "founding fathers" and every single word that they ever said as if it's still applicable 300 years later in the exact same way.


The "Founding Father's" argument is so global that it should be a sure sign of our simpleness. Russians looked back to Stalin for answers in the present day. The Chinese and Japanese used to look back on former emperors for guidance. Islam's disciples look back on the Rashidun for guidance. And we look to our Founding Father's arguments to explain away every opinion under the sun. The problem is that none of these people or eras (so called "Golden Eras") lived in the modern day where everything is different on virtually every level. Hell, even the game of Monopoly has had revisions. Every basic rule doesn't apply today.
 
Back
Top Bottom