Forums | MacLife

I'm certain registered_user is simply macul posting under a different nick. Both have a hard time with a difference of opinion and prefer talking to a mirror.

Franklin Roosevelt, who led the Western world to victory in World War II, once said "Democracies don't start wars." The idea is, a free people lack the desire to dominate others.

I'm amazed by the lack of debate or examination of the upcoming war and its possible consequences. How long will US troops have to occupy Iraq? Will they be targets for terrorists? What will be the impact on oil prices and the economy? Perhaps most important of all, this attack violates a principle which has served as the foundation for international relations for the past four centuries: that wars are only justifiable as a last option, and only for self-defense.

What's going to happen when other countries, like, say, Iran, China or North Korea, see that it's suddenly okay to attack other countries with only flimsy evidence and rhetoric?

Even if 90% of the human race supports this war -- and let's admit that America is going to attack Iraq, no matter what -- it's imperative, given the stakes, that people think about the consequences.

Here's an excellent article that everyone should read: it basically examines all the claims of the White House in support of the war. It's from the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/ … 24220.html

Franklin Roosevelt, who led the Western world to victory in World War II, once said "Democracies don't start wars." The idea is, a free people lack the desire to dominate others.

I fail to see how liberating the people of Iraq would be demonstrating the desire to dominate others.  Removing Saddam from power is as simple a decision as turning on the lights when you pee at night, so that you don't go all over the seat.

No its gonna kick our economy in the nuts even more than it already has been.

Nice article Shnacky. I wonder how many of the rabid bushistas on this forum will bother to read the entire article. It pretty much shows the lie that the Administration is perpatrating about the whole "Imperitive" for war thing. One paragraph is succinct:

The term 'pre-emptive war' isn't strictly accurate. As Steven Miller explains:

"Though Bush's approach has been almost universally described, in the media and elsewhere, as a doctrine of preemption, this is incorrect. Preemption refers to a military strike provoked by indications that an opponent is preparing to attack. The logic is: better to strike than be struck. But no one is suggesting that Saddam is preparing to strike the United States. There are no indications that this is the case. Bush is instead making the case for preventive war, for removing today a threat that may be more menacing and difficult in the future. The administration may prefer to label its policy preemption because that is an easier case to make. But it is not an accurate use of the term as traditionally defined."

According to international law specialist Michael Byers, "there is almost no support for a right of anticipatory self-defence as such in present-day customary international law". To the extent that pre-emptive action is permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter, it requires very strong evidence and there is a heavy burden of justification. The United States, for example, would have to be facing a specific, grave and imminent threat from Iraq which could only be averted by the use of force. According to the test established in the mid-nineteenth century by US Secretary of State Daniel Webster - criteria applied in 1945 at Nuremberg - the need for pre-emptive action must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".

Otherwise a unilateral strike not authorised by the UN Security Council would be an act of aggression and a breach of international law. As claimed earlier, Iraq has a stronger case at this point in time (given US troop and equipment movements in Qatar, to say nothing of Bush's stated threats).

Read the WHOLE article. Argue the points it makes ... if you can. Lets see how you can twist the logic.

It's becoming quite apparant of late that this forum has been hijacked by a few knee-jerk conservatives that resort, to anyone that doesn't swallow their party line whole, by calling them trolls and disparaging or bellittling either the position or the person posting. Like school yard bullies.

Remember ... diversity of opinion is not a crime or difficiancy. Debate is creative and healthy. Attempted domination of opinion and over-bearing dismissal of the different views of others is not what this forum is supposed to be about. So give it a rest. You are becoming very boring.

After all ... it's Ministry of  Free Thought.  Not Ministry of One Thought. 

It's becoming quite apparant of late that this forum has been hijacked by a few knee-jerk conservatives that resort, to anyone that doesn't swallow their party line whole, by calling them trolls and disparaging or bellittling either the position or the person posting. Like school yard bullies.
|

I've only been here a few days, and the whole 'troll' thing is confusing me...

I have yet to see what I've come to know as a 'troll' from the other boards I post on...but it certainly isn't normally used as a title for someone who has different beliefs as you.


:?:

I consider a troll to be one who would rather call people names and stir up trouble than participate in intelliegnt discussion.

By that definition, you Jayhawk are a troll.

People often confuse obstinance, opposition and poorly thought out argument with "trolling". That is incorrect.

Trolling is the deliberate posting of (usually) false or exagerated claims to a thread (typically starting one) who's SOLE point is to inflame and "get reaction", and with no other redeeming value otherwise. The attention the poster receives, even if it's a litanny of "You're such an idiot!" is the payoff for the troll. 

Note, once more, that simply being of an opinion that differs from the reader's viewpoint, even if poorly worded or presented, is NOT trolling, that's simply having an opposed viewpoint.

Here's a perfect example of TROLLING, brought to you by BestBuy:
http://www.macaddict.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5263

(Sadly, my pointing this out is probably a booster to his demented ego.)

Traditionally, a troll is considered one that registers for the purpose of posting opinions or topics  merely to incite hate or misinformation. Or someone who put up a topic to do the same , whether they are a regular on the forums or not, if they post an obvious sore point that has been hashed to death like the Florida election farce for example.  OOPS I think I just violated a "troll bait" decorum!!

oh I know 'what' a troll is...I just haven't recognized any troll-like behavior in the folks being called trolls here.

Then again, I've figure out there is a decidedly younger set that posts here...

Ya I don't mind the disagreement of opinions ... hell that's what democratic princilpe is all about. Debate. I get a little bent when certain members feel that their conservative viewpoints are somehow more patriotic or commonsense than other, more liberal views. It shouldn't be that way, but lately the same few people are jumping on every post made by those that usually exppress a liberal slant. Their main criticisms are implied inferiority, which is not conducive to constuctive debate.
So the clique-ish bullying by the few that feel they have the 'superior' outlook and intellect is taking the fun and interest out of this forum.
They seem to have staked it out as their very own bully-pulpit, and therefore, the some others are harrangued and belittled for expressed views.

This practice needs to be acknowledged, adressed and rectified for the common good use of the forum by all to be restored. IMHO that is

also, i'm sick of all these anti-bush, anti-war people...  i mean i don't love war, but sometimes you have to do it.  then all these hippies saying "drop bush, not bombs", etc...  why don't we drop hippies in the bombs?  they wanna sit back and do nothing.  i want them on the front line when something does happen back to us because it'll be all their fault when it does happen.

I don't want to offend you, but I must say that this is a demonstration of profound ignorance.  You onyl need to watch TV at this point to know that it isn't hippies marching.  How have you managed to miss that?  I have been at every major anti-war demonstration on the east coast since Bush attempted to resume the war with Iraq.  I have joined a massive and growing movement comprised of people from every social, economic, racial, etc., class.  Yes, there were hippies in the crowd (and it was great to see them come alive again), but they were hard to find in the hundereds of thousands of others that are difficult to classify in the dismissive manner you have done here.  I marched and discussed a broad range of topics with just about anyone you can label.  Perhaps that's why you are disturbed enough to start a thread.  This is bigger than a handful of washed up leftist hippies.

You aren't even able to dismiss the massive crowds as leftists.  The front page of most news Websites depict the leaders of France and Germany united against this stupid initiative.  Are they hippies, too?  Perhaps you'll say who cares about those countries.  This past Saturday in D.C. I marched with many staunch conservatives (the very opposite of hippie), for instance, who have very different reasons for opposing such a war.  We found something in common, though:  We demand public discourse and democratic debate on this issue before any decision is made on our behalf.  But that's the point, isn't it?  This war isn't being conducted on our behalf.  The Bush administration has over-ridden anyone who has pushed for discussion of alternatives, deeming people traitors, terroists, un-Americans, etc.  Screw that.

Aren't "hippies" like 50-60 year old grandparents now?

And  why are they not allowed to speak out against something they find to be a terrible threat to society and the world in general? Why are they supposed to shut up about it as the war-happy types pound the drums and invade other countries?

Where is it written that We The People are not allowed to disagree - and VOICE this disagreement - with the actions of the gobmint? Sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy to me.

Well ... KF ... I've noticed that denigration and obfuscation are an important tool in the conservative's efforts at mis-direction. If the stated particulars, whether they be opinion or even fact, cannot be actually refuted with real logic and pointed discussion, there's always the character assasination and focus shift methods. Keeps the argument off balance and stalled at the name calling stage.

You forgot to mention that when their tactics don't work and there is the presence of some clarity they simply abandon a thread and start a new one.