Two morons in a battle of wits (page 2)

nvrgnbk

H_S has illustrated very well the limits of the power and value of debating.

Both the questions and the answers can be massaged.

Ask any defense attorney that represents an admitted criminal.

How many innocents have been wrongly tried, accused, and convicted due to poor representation( debating)?

How many true criminals have laughed all the way to freedom thanks to masterful representation?

Edited to add:

To suggest that America= Good and Iran= Evil is a gross oversimplification.

stillajwexelder

These are the answers after truth drug serum has been injected.

Why did the US invade a sovereign nation? That sovereign nation ignored 13 UN resolutions - lets be honest , either disband the UN or Soverign nations have to obey MULTIPLE UN security council resolutions otherwise it is no longer a sovereign nation. Also the US economy is TOTALLY dependent on cheap oil

Did the US help to arm Iraq against Iran during their war? YES - we were pissed of and humiliated over the US embassy seige and hostage crisis

Were the chemical weapons used against Iran by Iraq during its war supplied by the US? Not all of them but some of them. We figured if our country did not make money from the sale some other country would and besides we were pissed of and humiliated over the US embassy seige and hostage crisis

Did the US back the regime of the Shah and train its torturers in interrogation techinques? Yes we did and we are truly sorry It was a bad mistake.

Was the founder of Holocaust denial an American? Yes - so what? Two wrongs dont make a right. nobody with any common sense and knowledge of history does so now

Why were Jews not allowed free social movement within the US until the 1950's as they were and are in Iran? Absolutely great question - and also African -Americans were discriminated against and still are -we are slowly (might take a few more generations) trying to right the wrongs and build a fairer society. IMHO it was another reason with Gore/Lieberman did not win - I dont think Mid America was ready for a jewish vice-president at the time

etc. etc. etc. You know the sort of thing. yes yes yes

No, leave sleeping dogs to lie. ;) NO LANCE THE BOIL AND BE TRUTHFUL

hillary_step

Stilla,

I think you must get the point. Debate on such matters demands that an even playing field be granted to both sides and the US has enough skeletons in its own cupboard to make any debate a mele not a purging, as Terry hopes.

For example your suggestion that the US armed Iraq against Iran because it was "pissed off" at the hostage situation is simplistic to say the least.

It also ignores what would no doubt be the foundation for this element of a debate, that is that the Iranian taking of US hostages was in reaction to the overthrow by the people of Iran of a cruel and torturous regime which had tortured and killed tens of thousands of innocents, financed, militarized and trained by the US. The representatives of the US working at its Iranian embassy were seen as the enemy of the people, just as the US do those it holds in Guantanamo and arguably they were justified in doing so. The embassy workers were representatives of the "company". Some terrorists would justify the actions of those fighting the allies in Iraq by pointing to its untried hostages in Gunatanamo.

As to US proponents of Holocaust denial, and US attitudes to the Jews, if you think this would be a clear cut debate you should research a little more. The US has been overly tolerant of such bigots for the reason that it needs their votes and that some serving in political stations are not above displaying these outrageous attitudes. In Europe, such people are jailed.

Any form of public debate as Terry suggested would fail for the reasons that I noted. There are often hidden depths to these issues that one needs to understand before a debate could be countenanced. I doubt whether any politician has the freedom to be so honest with information.

HS

stillajwexelder

For example your suggestion that the US armed Iraq against Iran because it was "pissed off" at the hostage situation is simplistic to say the least.

I like keeping things simple. If you seen my modus operandi on may threads especailly earlier political threads you will see I use many "one-liners" . Ridiculous over-simplifications I agree but often effective.

Why did US use atom bombs on Hirsohima and Nagasaki when the war was as good as won and USSR was about to enter. Many, many reasons that will be debated for centuries. Me I am a simple guy. Three word answer.

REVENGE FOR PEARL

The US armed Iraq because it was pissed of with the regime in Iran. Can I prove that. One word answer. NO

stillajwexelder

Please remember the American Phsyche also HS. I hear the phrases all the time from my boss

1) the moral majority:

2) Good ole fashioned "midwest values"

3) Gun Ho cowboy type attitude

every day I still hear very gung-ho simplistic "Why dont we just nuke the f-----rs" and although I think this is an almost moronic attitude, sadly it is very prevalent. It hurt many Americans feelings that the most powerful nation on earth was tied up for 444 dyas in Iran - alright you can say the US deserved it but it is not how the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth see it

hillary_step

Stilla,

For example your suggestion that the US armed Iraq against Iran because it was "pissed off" at the hostage situation is simplistic to say the least.
I like keeping things simple. If you seen my modus operandi on may threads especailly earlier political threads you will see I use many "one-liners" . Ridiculous over-simplifications I agree but often effective.

"Simple" is what the US electorate understands, that is why it got President Bush. ;)

HS

stillajwexelder

"Simple" is what the US electorate understands, that is why it got President Bush. ;) HS

AGREED

JK666

In a battle of wits, they are both unarmed.

JK

Two morons in a battle of wits

Share this