Theking. why can't you be a man and admit that your logic is seriously flawed?

I'l prove it once and for all

1st example (fictional, but shows the point)

It's March
51% support Bush's decision to start a war
Mika blames Bush for war
(According to theking Mika also blames American people for the war)

Then it's April
38% support Bush's decision to start a war
Mika blames Bush for war
(According to theking Mika doesn't blame American people for the war, since the people have changed their mind and don't support the original decision any more, they say they were wrong a month earlier, for example, no chemical weapons were ever found anywhere )

Now how can I blame Bush for the war all the time, and in March also blame the people for the war, but not in April anymore, since the support dropped? Can it be that I blame someone for something one day, but not the next day?

If you can refute this, I'll give a more decisive argument against your stupid logic, the logic that you use in order to make me look like I blamed American people for the war

Yea? And? LOL.

You must have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit what a retarded high school kiddie who still lives at home with his mom and shares a set of bunk beds with his brother thinks.

Who's is it? The French? Germans? Canadians?

They'll all get nice business deals afterwards, so I guess it is their war too, eh?

I understand, you need to concentrate on one topic at a time. I'm sorry. I forgot for a second who I was talking to.

They're silly aren't they. I'd like to have few to keep in my closet...and then bring them out to entertain when guests come over.

notice she could never tell me what she meant by "piece of the pie" lol....She's working hard on a reply for that now...I give her the rest of the night.

That's where you're wrong, unfortunately. This isn't just your war. This war affects the entire world. And why I'm opposed to the war, is because I firmly believe that it's going to have a very adverse effect on the world as a whole, starting with the economy. I get my pay-checks from America, and I want the dollar to remain strong. I think this war is going to cause it to lose a lot of value.
I also very strongly believe that this war, and the whole war on terror, is going to cause more terrorism. And not only in the States.
So no, it's not your war...it's involving everybody.

They already explained their view on it. "Country of Free Speech. Unless it's about you."

Now they're going to call people names and try to act tough. LOL

They're funny, but that's about it.

Well, you certainly started insulting me first, like I explained, typical American, having to stick his nose in business that didn't really involve him. I gave my opinion, and you start making faggy jokes about us being little kids.

"They"?

you make it sound like we're side-by-side. Come up with something better to talk about...

yeah we are brothers...whoa....But we're not little kids, and we don't live together.

The current situation is, Bush supports the war-Congress supports the war-the American people support the war thus the American people support the President and Congress but you only want to say that you blame Bush and the Congress but you do not want to say that you want to blame the American people whom are the ultimate supporters of the whole deal. Inconsistent and illogical, end of discussion.

Possibly not wee little kids but definitely juveniles.

Absolutely not.

I blame the one who bears the responsibility for his decisions..

I thought you'd come up with something desparate, so I have to come with another example (although you didn't actually refute the first one)

I cannot expect American people to have access to same information that Bush has.

American people form their opinions based on what they see and read from newspapers, tv etc.

Bush has access to a lot more info (clearly)

Now let's just assume for the argument's sake that Bush had some information which would make the public opinion fall dramatically if they had that information

For example, Bush had inside info that there will be 50k minimum American casualties. Or, Bush knows that Iraq has destroyed chemical weapons and is lying to American people

Conclusion: Blaming Bush and American people is two different things because

i) Bush bears the responsibility of this decision, while American people don't. I shouldn't blame people for something that they are not at all responsible for

ii) Bush has more information than American masses. I can CONSISTENTLY believe, that if American people had access to the same information than Bush, then they would not be supporting the war, and thus I would be clearly blaming people wrongly.

Terrorism, yep very fucking true. I've not heard anything on the news since the war kicked off about the network of guys who were producing ricin over here.

I'm only guessing, but the longer this war lasts, or civillians are killed, the more likely we are to see a terrorist attack. My local city and surrounding towns has many immigrants from Iraq and the middle east. Some have distrubuted western hate propoganda for years, the Iraq solider who gave himself up was from Manchester, and the city also had a possible ricin link... it doesn't look none to promising. Terrorists don't wear uniforms and don't tend to give a shit about women or kids....

The anti-American movement condemns war, especially without United Nations approval. These complaints presume that (a) the use of force is usually immoral and (b) only the UN, or another collective body, can provide moral justification. Unfortunately, the assumptions are often backward. Force can be moral; and the UN can serve as a device for immoral inaction.

Rwanda is the tragic example. When the genocide against Tutsis began, the UN had a peacekeeping force there that was too small to be effective. The UN Security Council (with US backing) reduced it. If France or other European nations had quickly dispatched a modest force - 10,000 to 20,000 troops - they could have contained the genocide, whose toll is crudely estimated at 800,000. France, a supporter of the Hutu government that conducted the genocide, was especially well informed.

Europe was similarly ineffective in Bosnia and Kosovo. Only after reluctant US intervention did those slaughters stop. Deaths are roughly reckoned at 200,000. Europe's paralysis produced more carnage in Rwanda and the Balkans than anything likely to occur in Iraq. Yet anti-American street demonstrations dwarf protests against Europe's own failures. This moralism is selective and self-serving.

http://afr.com/commentopinion/2003/0...X0FNT4QDD.html

certain?

Even if I am...at least I'm not blind to everything happening around me.

Since you seem to like fictional scenarios here is mine.

There are three boys...one named Bush...one named Congress...one named America. One of the houses in the neigborhood has a Cherry tree in the back yard. The Cherries look especially ripe and appetizing. The boy named Bush goes to the boy named Congress and convinces Congress to help him pick the Cherries from the tree. Congress agrees that is a good idea but they will need someone to help them both as they cannot reach the Cherries. Bush and Congress go to their friend America and tell him they want to pick the Cherries but they will need some help and they convince America to help. Congress gets ontop of his friend America's shoulders and Bush gets ontop of Congress's shoulders and begins to pick the Cherries. The owner of the Cherry tree spots the boys in the back yard picking his Cherries and goes running out. He tells Bush and Congress I blame you for stealing my Cherries but to America he says "well you were just supporting them on your shoulders so they could steal my Cherries" so you are without blame and can go home now, but these other two boys will know my wrath.

I didn't say it had anything to do with support. I said I hated polls..and I gave an example of why (that poll)..but also found it interesting that our own people don't think the way is going all that well!

To be honest..I am VERY suspect of polls. I have NEVER been polled for my opinion, and incredibly, not a SINGLE person I've ever known has either! (and I do know a lot of people..saying that cuz it'll be the usual snide comeback..not from you..but others)

Let's suppose that Bush and Congress want the cherries because they taste so fucking good and they are gonna selfishly eat them. But they tell America that they need them because Cherry tree owner has hired those 2 boys to pick the Cherries.

Cherry tree owner catches those three boys and after questioning them all he finds out that America acted in really good intention, while Bush's and Congress's intentions were bad. Cherry tree owner understands that America wasn't capable of finding out the real motives of Bush and Congress, and since his intentions were of good nature, he certainly does not blame America.

Besides, correct argumentation would require that you refute another persons argument and then maybe make your own.

But I liked the story :thumbsup

Have you heard the one about the boy that chopped down a Cherry tree and grew up to be....

Now the king told the boogie men
You have to let that raga drop
The oil down the desert way
Has been shakin' to the top
The shiek he drove his Cadillac
He went a' cruisnin' down the ville
The muezzin was a' standing
On the radiator grille

The shareef don't like it
Rockin' the Casbah
Rock the Casbah
The shareef don't like it
Rockin' the Casbah
Rock the Casbah

By order of the prophet
We ban that boogie sound
Degenerate the faithful
With that craazy Casbah sound
But the Bedouin they brought out
The electric camel drum
The local guitar picker
Got his guitar picking thumb
As soon as the shareef
Had cleared the square
They began to wail

I'm sorry King but the polls are a big fucking fabrication of the truth.

A pornographer?

It would be alright by me if you 'mericuns nuked Halifax once your'e done with Saddam.

You mean the body that appointed Lybia as the Head of the Human Rights Committe?

And the Body that planed to have Iraq head the Disarmament Committe.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

When has the UN not stood on the sidelines? Rawanda, Bosnia, and as far back as Pol Pot. :1orglaugh

1441 is MORE then enough International Support. 15 - 0 voted in favor. Not our fault they chose not to act. AS USUAL! :thumbsup

Yep, 1441 "serious consequenses"...15-0...opens the door wide...in addition there are two other resolutions that opens the door wide. If the world does not approve...they have the UN to blame.