Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #61  
Old 02-14-2009, 03:11 PM
chicgeek's Avatar
chicgeek chicgeek is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-19-04
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 14,188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
WhatsLeft: If you have nothing constructive to contribute, perhaps not posting at all is a better option for you.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #62  
Old 02-14-2009, 06:35 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicgeek View Post
WhatsLeft: If you have nothing constructive to contribute, perhaps not posting at all is a better option for you.
Well, this is my 88th post in the forum, and normally I would say this type of response on your part is entirely non-nonsensical and indicates a frustration on your part over the substance of my posting, and so you resort to a type of ad hominem attack. In this thread I have tried to review how Obama's desire for talks with the Iranians without preconditions is going to make the USA look ridiculous, which is all the worse with his wanting to reduce military spending over 50 billion dollars at this time, both of which will weaken our position in the world, and I noted such poor leadership paralleled his thinking in his stimulus plan, and I defended my right to review such a situation from an American tradition of prayer and faith. My last post expressed an opinion that believing weakness is a strength is naive.

However, you are suggesting I stop posting, apparently from the position of being a forum moderator. Therefore, you actually could be using your position of authority in an effort to intimidate me, to have me refrain from posting, although I have broken no forum rules. For you to note that my posting in this thread, or anywhere in the forum, lacks constructive content by all appearances is blatantly prejudicial.

If you want me to go away because you have no legitimate response to my positions -- well... you could just ask me to leave... I mean I might... I am busy enough...
 
  #63  
Old 02-14-2009, 08:58 PM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Hi Whatsleft I see your very passionate about this subject. Just a thought to quote you from your first post on this subject. "Yesterday, Ahmadinejad said the dialogue with Iran should begin with the USA apologizing for its dark background and criminal acts against Iran, and with the USA withdrawing support for Israel." this shows a response of an unreasonable ruler who intends to have zero respect for a reasonable American President who reached out In good faith. This alone is a good example of a man with patience letting a tyrant have enough rope to hang himself and show his true colors. This wins world opinion and shows who the bad guy is. Though you may disagree with my opinion I do understand your frustration with Iran. Haste makes waste and never brings Justice, Honor, or Integrity. This may be naive as well, but it's true. Cheers the NightSquid
 
  #64  
Old 02-15-2009, 03:53 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
What's an HMO? I'm self employed most of my life. Contrary to popular belief Uncle Daddy didn't create my job, I created my own. I pay my own health care, directly from my wallet, and do so hapilly, without blaming others.

Anything over 7k is picked up by my (less than) $200/mo catastrophic plan. And that's WITH 1 million life insurance.

Stop thinking you are owed and ye shall be free.
*Standing ovation*
 
  #65  
Old 02-15-2009, 04:05 AM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
yes if we can be closer to our enemy by apologizing, than by all means do it if and only if it puts us in a position to destroy him later, but No if it will not. Haven't you ever heard keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Weakness can be one of the strongest positions there is, just look at Russia.
You need to have limits. You cannot get your enemy close by any means necessary. You cannot deny your own beliefs just in order to accomplish something that might benefit you lateron. If you completely destroy the essence of your belief system by denying it in order to accomplish something that you think you will by selling out, you will lose the leg you stand on and all of your efforts will be in vain.
 
  #66  
Old 02-15-2009, 05:23 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
Hi Whatsleft I see your very passionate about this subject...This alone is a good example of a man with patience letting a tyrant have enough rope to hang himself and show his true colors. This wins world opinion and shows who the bad guy is... I do understand your frustration
Hi, NightSquid,

Your response that being reasonable with a tyrant shows patience and wins over world opinion has already been tried. As I have previously posted in the thread, it was the essence of Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler, as he was encouraged by the American ambassador, Joseph Kennedy. The world already knows what Ahmadinejad is – he has already shown himself fully. However, by negotiating with him without preconditions, what we do is give legitimacy to -- his efforts of establishing Iran as a power base equal to America -- Iran’s many utterly ridiculous views, such as denying the holocaust – his desire to uphold the American position in ridicule to world (such as Hitler did to FDR, when he wrote to the fuehrer to try to avert war). Thereby Iran promotes propaganda among Islamic Fundamentalists and we weaken America’s defense of Israel as an ally in the Middle East. In other words, we play right into his hands, rather than setting a platform for dealing with Iran based on realistic assessments of the conditions and issues involved. The responses noted by Iran already demonstrate how ridiculous Obama’s efforts appear.

To say that not agreeing with Neville Chamberlin or Joseph Kennedy in their desire to reach out to Hitler before WWII was based on passion and frustration, rather than a true and reasonable assessment of the situation would have been a completely absurd assertion, as now no one can deny. In like manner, to say that a review of Obama’s manner of reaching out to Iran, and that noting he is making the same mistake, is guided by passion or frustration is equally absurd.

Cheers, WhatsLeft
 
  #67  
Old 02-15-2009, 10:48 AM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler is an odd comparison. Iran will continue it's nuclear ambitions whether we talk to them or not, there is nothing wrong with talking to Iran it has no representation of weakness other than the fact you think it does and sounds more like a political statement of why you're afraid of Obama policy's, and I doubt this is his only strategy. While engaging with any adversary you must have multiple strategies of reaching and leveraging your opponent. This is a game of chess not checkers in my opinion.
 
  #68  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:18 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler is an odd comparison... there is nothing wrong with talking to Iran...While engaging with any adversary you must have multiple strategies...
Hitler was the first to start research and development on a nuclear bomb. One of his ambitions was to kill every last Jew in the world. No one would believe it. Hitler said the big lie is the easiest one.

Ahmadinejad has only said he wants Israel wiped off the map. If he gets a nuclear bomb, he will use it to accomplish his objective -- yes, he is as much of a madman as Hitler. And what else might he do with that bomb? At the talks should Obama ask him if it is OK for any Jew to live anywhere?

Hitler played Chamberlain to accomplish his objectives -- both with propaganda and the military. Only someone completely blind cannot see the parallels to Ahmadinejad. Chamberlain was naive, and the UK paid the price for it. Churchill warned otherwise, but no one would listen to the person in reality until it was nearly too late.
 
  #69  
Old 02-15-2009, 01:43 PM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Making the assumption that Obama talking with Ahmadinejad & making a peace agreement with Iran that Iran will break is a total reach and spin, I doubt Obama would make such an agreement or that he would ever trust Iran given their actions. The only thing he has said is he would try to talk to Iran. you are really reaching with your comparison and making huge assumptions based on what you assume he is trying to do. Get back to me when Obama says hey everybody we have reached an agreement with Iran and I believe he's telling the truth!
 
  #70  
Old 02-15-2009, 03:14 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
Making the assumption that Obama talking with Ahmadinejad & making a peace agreement with Iran that Iran will break is a total reach and spin, I doubt Obama would make such an agreement or that he would ever trust Iran given their actions. The only thing he has said is he would try to talk to Iran. you are really reaching with your comparison and making huge assumptions based on what you assume he is trying to do. Get back to me when Obama says hey everybody we have reached an agreement with Iran and I believe he's telling the truth!
This is a straw man argument. I never made that assumption and it is completely opposite of what I did say. So, when you resort to the straw mans, it may give you some satisfaction somehow, but it's also an admission that you are not capable of maintaining your position.

What I did say was, that when Obama tries to have talks without preconditions, he ends up looking ridiculous, weakens the American position in the Middle East, helps Iran to promote propaganda, legitimizes Iran's attempt to set itself up as a power base equal to the USA. Iran's initial response of holding preconditions that we must withdraw all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (as we should in every country in the world), and apologize for our criminal behavior first is just one example of what happens in this type situation. It makes Obama look foolish and supports the concept that Iranian policy is legitimate rather than irrational. And it forces the USA off a strong stand on real defense.

Get back to me, when you can make a response that does not rely on a straw man argument, and then, at least you should find greater satisfaction in posting.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-15-2009 at 03:32 PM. Reason: I had left the word "to" out of a sentence
 
  #71  
Old 02-15-2009, 05:22 PM
chicgeek's Avatar
chicgeek chicgeek is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-19-04
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 14,188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
(Insert long response)
My previous post was not participation in the discussion - it was a warning to you from a V7N moderator in attempt to keep the thread evolving in a healthy manner. I care not what is being argued in this thread, my concern is only how. To simply point out something as "naive" is very close to pointless. However if you posted "I feel that is a naive standpoint. <reasons for previous statement>" then there would be no issue.

Next time I suggest you just nod your head, recheck the Politics guidelines, and keep posting. Mmmkay.

Last edited by chicgeek; 02-15-2009 at 05:26 PM.
 
  #72  
Old 02-15-2009, 06:19 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicgeek View Post
My previous post was not participation in the discussion - it was a warning to you from a V7N moderator in attempt to keep the thread evolving in a healthy manner. I care not what is being argued in this thread, my concern is only how. To simply point out something as "naive" is very close to pointless. However if you posted "I feel that is a naive standpoint. <reasons for previous statement>" then there would be no issue.

Next time I suggest you just nod your head, recheck the Politics guidelines, and keep posting. Mmmkay.
Actually, it was your post that was not properly explained literally or by context. My post should have been entirely clear as established by context. Your objection is not valid according to the conventions of language and communication. If this is the manner in which warnings are given in this forum, then please feel free to ban me.
 
  #73  
Old 02-15-2009, 07:34 PM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Hi, NightSquid,

Your response that being reasonable with a tyrant shows patience and wins over world opinion has already been tried. As I have previously posted in the thread,(it was the essence of Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler), as he was encouraged by the American ambassador, Joseph Kennedy. The world already knows what Ahmadinejad is

(To say that not agreeing with Neville Chamberlin or Joseph Kennedy in their desire to reach out to Hitler before WWII) was based on passion and frustration, rather than a true and reasonable assessment of the situation would have been a completely absurd assertion, as now no one can deny. In like manner, to say that a review of Obama’s manner of reaching out to Iran, and that noting he is (making the same mistake), is guided by passion or frustration is equally absurd.

Cheers, WhatsLeft
again You assume far to much with your comparison to Neville Chamberlin & Joseph Kennedy why they went to sleep after reaching an agreement with Hitler is beyond me but you assert that talking to a tyrant is the same as believing him & trusting him, and that no other actions are being taken, this is spin and false. You also assume he has no other means available to him, and you have already pre-decided how he will handle every decision because he considers talking with Iran, you assume, mislead, & compare events that have happened in history with events you predict Obama is taking but you have no Idea what Obama's intentions truly are and that he has but only one solution to the issue at hand. That is spin my friend. I would much rather have the world know that while it was regretful that America had to eliminate that regime there were no other reasonable actions to be taken. Sincerely the bullet proof straw man : ) aka NightSquid
 
  #74  
Old 02-15-2009, 08:31 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
... you assert that talking to a tyrant is the same as believing him & trusting him, and that no other actions are being taken, this is spin and false.
I never said anything like that. I said without preconditions Iran will play Obama and make him look ridiculous, which they have already done. Now you are continuing the straw man argument, hoping that because you do not admit what you are doing, it gives legitimacy to your position. It's a ridiculous tactic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
You also assume he has no other means available to him,
It's not even possible to discern what you mean with this statement. It appears you just want to try to make the conversation confusing, to somehow cover up that you are not capable of defending your position. However, if you cannot defend a position, it would be better not to post until you actually are able.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
and you have already pre-decided how he will handle every decision
No, I gave you examples in the thread of how they have responded, which indicates how they will continue to respond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
because he considers talking with Iran, you assume, mislead, & compare events that have happened in history with events you predict Obama is taking but you have no Idea what Obama's intentions truly are and that he has but only one solution to the issue at hand. That is spin my friend. I would much rather have the world know that while it was regretful that America had to eliminate that regime there were no other reasonable actions to be taken. Sincerely the bullet proof straw man : ) aka NightSquid
The examples I quoted already demonstrate how Iran will make him look ridiculous and accomplish their own objectives. If Obama sets preconditions, they will not be able to use him, and they will not consent to talks. That has been the established pattern.

What is spin is your putting words in my mouth and setting up straw man arguments to cover up the fact that you cannot respond to what I truly have posted that you do not like.

Repeating straw man arguments over and over again doesn't cover up in any way what they truly are -- proof that you are incapable of responding to what I have said. Or were you hoping I would have to stop posting before I could respond to your last post. It appears your only objective in posting is propaganda. Fine, but it's obvious that you are not responding to what I have posted to make your answer.

However, the way you quoted me, it appears you are implying that I was asserting that the parallel with Chamberlain relates to every point of history in his relations with Hitler. It would help your response if you could read more into the parallel than what I asserted, but it would not be honest.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-15-2009 at 08:57 PM. Reason: spelling and take out redundant word
 
  #75  
Old 02-15-2009, 08:48 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
If preconditions are set, Iran cannot play the USA. If it is set that negotiations will not deal with the right of Israel to exist, whether the holocaust happened, whether the USA has to apologize, whether we have to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan, whether Iran has to abide by UN guidelines and sanctions... then Iran cannot use these issues in such a manner that they strengthen their position with Islamic Fundamentalists through propaganda, or with other countries in the world in asserting that their irrational premises have legitimacy... and they cannot uphold that they have an equal status with the United States in world power which legitimizes their right to have nuclear weapons. But there really is no limit to how Iran would play the USA by doing talks the way Obama has in mind, as he indicated in his presidential campaign, which he is already implementing.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-15-2009 at 08:54 PM. Reason: remove misplaced word "and" beside "or"
 
  #76  
Old 02-15-2009, 09:00 PM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
No, I have no intentions of putting words in your mouth. I am just clarifying your statement that Obama's position to talk to Iran is in your words not mine (it was the essence of Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler) and how that it is in no way comparable and what you said is absolute rubbish and jumps to conclusions with out any fact. : )
 
  #77  
Old 02-15-2009, 09:20 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
No, I have no intentions of putting words in your mouth. I am just clarifying your statement that Obama's position to talk to Iran is in your words not mine (it was the essence of Neville Chamberlain’s approach with Hitler) and how that it is in no way comparable and what you said is absolute rubbish and jumps to conclusions with out any fact. : )
The problem Chamberlain had with Hitler, and it was Joseph Kennedy as well, and the Vatican as well, (who helped put Hitler and Mussolini in power by the agreements they signed with them), is that he did not understand who Hitler really was and what could be accomplished with him, based on the philosophy he had. Churchill warned the nation about Hitler, and told the nation how to deal with him -- by preparing for war. Obama is clueless about Islam. To understand Islam, one has to read the Koran and understand the literal interpretation Muslims have returned to due to the recreation of Israel. And, like Chamberlain let Hitler play him, so Obama is on the same track.
 
  #78  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:39 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Two days ago Barack Obama gave a television interview to a Muslim cable TV station, in which he said too often the USA has communicated with Islamic nations by dictating instead of listening. He wants to start a discourse with them by listening first, and he wants to begin a dialogue with Iran.

Yesterday, Ahmadinejad said the dialogue with Iran should begin with the USA apologizing for its dark background and criminal acts against Iran, and with the USA withdrawing support for Israel.

What do you think –
Is it smart for the USA to apologize to Iran and to stop supporting Israel?
If Barack does apologize, do you believe then he could organize the community in the Middle East?
If Barack does not want to apologize, how should he formulate a smart response?
Hmmm. Should Obama apologize? That's a tough one.

Hmmm. I guess the he could display bigger machismo by apologizing. Yeah, that just might do it. Then, hopefully some kind of understanding could be reached by the US and the Iranians.

Apologizing for the sake of guts and the future -yeah why not?
 
  #79  
Old 02-15-2009, 11:57 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
What I did say was, that when Obama tries to have talks without preconditions, he ends up looking ridiculous, weakens the American position in the Middle East, helps Iran to promote propaganda, legitimizes Iran's attempt to set itself up as a power base equal to the USA.
Sorry to pop in here again man, but I've read just about every post you've made in this thread here. And I must ask, what is your position on the question you brought up here in this thread?

I must say, out of all the debating you've done here I haven't been able to find even one sentence by you that says something like this:

Quote:
I think Obama should apologize to Iran because...
Or
Quote:
I think Obama shouldn't apologize to Iran because...
What's left with that?
 
  #80  
Old 02-16-2009, 12:07 AM
NightSquid's Avatar
NightSquid NightSquid is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-10-09
Location: at home
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Whatsleft, do you really believe that the USA would ever agree to deny the existence of Israel, or State that the holocaust never happened, and that this is what Obama's Intentions are just from him saying he wants to engage in talks with Iran because that is absurd, or are you saying that if he talks to Iran before they agree that the holocaust was a fact of history that this somehow says Ahmadinejad's statements are true, As this is really really a far stretch and still a totally unrealistic statement and seems more like an attempt to imply that Obama is weak, and seems to be a scare tactic. As to the comparison with Chamberlain I still see no comparison other than the fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler and Obama is willing to talk to Ahmadinejad this is the only comparison but as far as the rest of the story goes Obama has made no agreements and there is no proof that he is not ready for war or that he believes reaching out to Iran will bring any sort of peace. The rest is just rhetoric!
 
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama South Controversial Social Issues 172 11-09-2008 05:43 PM
Are you an Obama bot? sitetutor Controversial Social Issues 41 10-08-2008 09:07 AM
I would like to apologize to HostNine for my previous statements. 3DProf4online Web Hosting Forum 9 09-25-2008 09:25 AM
Apologize... dee_el07 Forum Lobby 33 02-21-2008 07:38 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC