Lownotes
They all float down here.   SSHOLE |
Posts: 182 Registered: 4/23/2005 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 18:31 |
Whenever I visit my dad, the discussion often degenerates into a political debate over whether or not our country is doing the right thing. I hate it. I feel I can never get through to him. He’s a conspiracy theorizing Vietnam veteran who fears his government and loves his country. But, he seems to be bamboozled by this administration’s fear mongering. I don’t know what to say.
I'll spare you all the rhetoric from both of us, but I would like some advice or just some opinions about what the logical defense to his position should be. Or, perhaps I’m the one who is wrong, but I doubt it. I'm trying to be logical and nonpartisan, but it's hard sometimes to get my point across when I know he isn't as voracious a reader and surfer as most of us are.
Ok, here's his argument in a nutshell:
“Saddam Hussein would have used nuclear or biological weapons in his immediate area should he have ever obtained them. He would have held the world hostage by controlling the oil.
It was a just move by our nation to remove him from power to avoid total global chaos. And, in the future, should Iran or any country with a penchant for extremism gain or threaten to gain nuclear or biological weapons, the U.S. should squash them as a prophylactic measure to keep oil flowing.
Although I wish we weren’t dependant on oil, the fact remains, and it will be a long time before alternatives are viable. In the mean time, this tactic is our only choice to prevent a total breakdown of our way of life and the world economy.
This argument is outside the realm of staving off terrorism. I recognize we are drawing first blood, and I am willing to support this standpoint despite its moral implications.”
What do you think?
|
| |
vogonjeltz
Tender vittles  Posts: 8 Registered: 3/10/2006 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 18:42 |
...“Saddam Hussein would have used nuclear or biological weapons in his immediate area should he have ever obtained them. He would have held the world hostage by controlling the oil.
It was a just move by our nation to remove him from power to avoid total global chaos. And, in the future, should Iran or any country with a penchant for extremism gain or threaten to gain nuclear or biological weapons, the U.S. should squash them as a prophylactic measure to keep oil flowing.
Although I wish we weren’t dependant on oil, the fact remains, and it will be a long time before alternatives are viable. In the mean time, this tactic is our only choice to prevent a total breakdown of our way of life and the world economy.
This argument is outside the realm of staving off terrorism. I recognize we are drawing first blood, and I am willing to support this standpoint despite its moral implications.”
What do you think?
As of right now we have an addiction to Middle Eastern oil, it could be possible to table that there are sources of oil in other areas.
(I meant to post this as well)
The Top Ten Countries with Proven Oil Reserves
* list in billions of barrels
Saudi Arabia - 262
Canada - 180
Iran - 126
Iraq – 115
Kuwait - 102
United Arab Emirates - 98
Venezuela - 77
Russia - 60
Libya - 39
Nigeria - 35
On 2006-04-10 at 14:26:05, vogonjeltz enjoyed furrysex |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth  SSHOLEPosts: 4464 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 18:45 |
He’s a conspiracy theorizing Vietnam veteran who fears his government and loves his country. But, he seems to be bamboozled by this administration’s fear mongering. I don’t know what to say.
I don't either. It's about as odd as jwalker's admission the other day that he was tricked by Bush.
Ok, here's his argument in a nutshell:
[...]
What do you think?
I'm afraid I think I can't argue with his logic.
Although I wish we weren’t dependant on oil, the fact remains, and it will be a long time before alternatives are viable.
He's got a point, and a real important one. It's a little hard-liner, but I'm all for securing the perimeter when necessary.
Now, is his argument relevant? I don't know. But I think it's accurate in its guts. I don't know that Saddam Hussein would have used WMDs, but I know that if our way of life is facing extinction, then we should probably do whatever we have to to halt that -- to give us some breathing time to start pursuing less idiotic ways of life.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
Senor_Smoke
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 306 Registered: 9/9/2004 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 18:52 |
Drink heavily,and when you two are good and drunk,that is the time to set off the m80`s you strategically placed around the yard.This should trigger some flashbacks.GREAT FUN!!
____________________
Look Out for #1
Dont Step in #2 |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope  SSHOLEPosts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 19:22 |
To his point, Saddam had a track record of using whatever weapons he had at his disposal on his own people. The used chemical weapons on the Kurds. This is fact.
It's also fact that the world in general beleived Saddam to be actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It never got off the ground, but he did go after it.
It's not a huge leap from that to the idea that if Saddam had nuclear weapons that he would most definately use them, probably on Iraqis and possibly to attack Iran again.
But then, this is all just specualtion. He very well may have been a benevolent and responsible wielder of nuclear arms.
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint  SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 19:34 |
I think that your dad is pretty much right, in a really pessimistic (yet realistic) global politics-type view. It's not a view I particularly like, but I would be hard pressed to argue with him. If I were you, I wouldn't even bother arguing, because no one ever "wins" an argument. If you two are interested in discussing, as in actually listening to each other and conceding points, then I guess maybe. Too often this doesn't seem to be the case though. I still argue with my dad about stuff knowing full well that I won't agree with his side in any way and that I can't win.
However, you could always take the position of the "good" that Saddam did for Iraq. Essentially, he stopped a shitstorm from brewing that is only now starting to fire up. It's an "artificial" country composed of two rival religious sects and a third ethnic group, none of which care for one another. Saddam ran that country in a crazy, fucked up way, but he kept that shit together. At the moment, there are talks of civil war, anarchy, all that shit. That is to say: we eliminated king crazy and now his crazy country can't run itself. |
| |
vogonjeltz
Tender vittles Posts: 8 Registered: 3/10/2006 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 19:41 |
CLICK THIS and tell me if the "world's oil held hostage" arguement stands up. Apparently Canada has supplied the US with more oil than any other country since 2001.
Why don't we invade/occupy them? |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 19:49 |
“Saddam Hussein would have used nuclear or biological weapons in his immediate area should he have ever obtained them.
Biologics probably, but not openly (yeah I know, he already used them. on his own people. whom he hated, and who hated him. wow surprise). Nukes? I doubt it. Hussein was a secularist thug, not a religious zealot, and if nothing else he knew how to preserve his own hide.
Israel sits fairly quietly because it's got enemies on all sides and allies with interests in the region, but it knows how to deal with aggression (read up on the 6-day war). They also have nukes that work. I'm betting the last thing Hussein would have wanted was for the jews to have all the oil (or the Shiites or the Kurds or the Iranians or the Turks or the Kuwaitis, for that matter). Not to mention the rock-solid international coalition that would certainly form to squash him if he used nukes.
He would have held the world hostage by controlling the oil.
Ludicrous. How, exactly, and to what end? Certainly not profit. I've been hearing this "oil is a WMD" argument here and there for some time now. Was this part of some talking point that I missed? What about Venezuela? Chavez hates us. Is he "holding us hostage"?
It was a just move by our nation to remove him from power to avoid total global chaos.
Yeah that worked well, huh?
And, in the future, should Iran or any country with a penchant for extremism gain or threaten to gain nuclear or biological weapons, the U.S. should squash them as a prophylactic measure to keep oil flowing.
Well, that argument is sound. It's batshit insane and history dictates that it's unerringly self-destructive, but it's sound. It also illustrates a penchant for extremism.
Although I wish we weren’t dependant on oil, the fact remains, and it will be a long time before alternatives are viable. In the mean time, this tactic is our only choice to prevent a total breakdown of our way of life and the world economy.
No offense intended, but this guy sounds scared.
This argument is outside the realm of staving off terrorism. I recognize we are drawing first blood, and I am willing to support this standpoint despite its moral implications.”
Well, that's pretty cut & dried. Your dad sounds like he's willing to sell his nation's soul so he can feel safe. Sorry. Calling him a pussy next time you argue would probably be counterproductive. Sorry.
On 2006-04-10 at 14:50:10, vladtweano enjoyed furrysex
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
Lownotes
They all float down here. SSHOLEPosts: 182 Registered: 4/23/2005 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 22:06 |
Vlad:
Look, I'm as perplexed as you. But, you must understand this is a man with a collection sniper rifles who once killed his barber. He doesn't give a fuck about DHS or what level of alert we are at. Fear is not a motivation. This is survival.
He doesn't want to wait for the muzzle flash or the whites of their eyes to make a move. The other guy is holding a gun, so you shoot him before he can shoot you.
You're trying to be logical about it, but there is no logic to be had. It's philosophical to him. He's sees Saddam as a crazy fuck who would destroy himself to destroy America, Israel, whovever.
He believes Saddam and others are willing to destroy the Middle East's oil for the sake of throwing the West into chaos. We may not only depend on the Middle East for our supply, but taking out that much oil would throw a huge monkey wrench in the machinery. He doesn't want to live in chaos, so he supports destroying nations.
It feels like much of this runs counter to how I feel, but I still don't see a scale missing yet. |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4464 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 23:02 |
Lownotes: once killed his barber.
...what?
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/10/2006 at 23:20 |
OK, scratch the fear thing then. Run with "batshit insane".
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope SSHOLEPosts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 00:07 |
vladtweano: OK, scratch the fear thing then. Run with "batshit insane".
Something that I myself have been accused of being.
I understand where Lownotes dad is coming from, sort of. I can't really explain it but I see his position. I
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4464 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 00:28 |
Wrecker: I
...what?
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
Crackalackin
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 374 Registered: 7/19/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 00:55 |
vasudeva: Lownotes: once killed his barber.
...what?
Probaby back in Vietnam.
I know some stories like that too, about soliders in Afghanistan whom the locals would share grilled lamb with and entertain during the day, only to exchange Kalashnikov volleys with by night. The stories mention a slain barber, too, and even a junior high teacher.
____________________
^ Internet Porn Star |
| |
freakbass
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 128 Registered: 2/12/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 01:09 |
So, what is your actual goal, Lownotes? Do you hope to sway him with something that will open his eyes to a more rational less_survivalist view of the world? Based on your description of him, this seems unlikely even if you were to present him with world oil production data or evidence that Iraq's meager nuclear weapon program was permanently disassembled during and after the first gulf war, for all intents and purposes, or info about Saddam being a secular leader of a nation where women have (had) rights, could goto college, and such things..
Would anything like this get through or would he dismiss your research and consider you to have been fooled?
There is a ton of data you can present to him but will it help at all?
Or is this less about changing his mind and more about having the best cannon fodder so it doesn't drive you mad and give you an anxiety attack?
That is a respectable goal but it might be best to just hear him out, roll your eyes, accept who he is, try not to let the words penetrate and get the fuck out of there as soon as humanly possible.
Just my .02 based on extensive experience with relatives inflicted by the same delusions..
____________________
Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.
-K V |
| |
Crackalackin
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 374 Registered: 7/19/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 01:10 |
“Saddam Hussein would have used nuclear or biological weapons in his immediate area should he have ever obtained them.
No evidence to support that, the past does not always extrapolate into the future. By the way, biological weapons have a way of striking back if you deploy them in your vicinity, so they are typically not used in local skirmishes.
He would have held the world hostage by controlling the oil.
Controlling oil? See the top 10 importers list provided above. He'd be very far from "controlling" anything.
It was a just move by our nation to remove him from power to avoid total global chaos. And, in the future, should Iran or any country with a penchant for extremism gain or threaten to gain nuclear or biological weapons, the U.S. should squash them as a prophylactic measure to keep oil flowing.
Wrong because of the list above. This nations and many other nations we consider a nukable threat are not vital to the survival of the US. Saudis and the rest on the list will happily take our money.
Although I wish we weren’t dependant on oil, the fact remains, and it will be a long time before alternatives are viable. In the mean time, this tactic is our only choice to prevent a total breakdown of our way of life and the world economy.
Any government with half a brain would heavily invest in alternative technologies to remove the short- and long-term dependence on oil. Unfortunately, we're run by an old boy's club of Texas oil tycoons, which will never in their lives do anything to step on their own source of profits.
What your dad is talking about here is preventing the effect of lack of oil. What we should be focusing on instead is avoiding the cause of this effect.
This argument is outside the realm of staving off terrorism. I recognize we are drawing first blood, and I am willing to support this standpoint despite its moral implications.”
He speaks of survival in the face of the shortage of a non-replenishable natural resource. Fine, let's continue the evolutionary parallel.
Imagine that there was a type of a badger in the prehistoric times which could only digest a specific kind of eucalyptus leaves. As Ice Age set on, this particular eucalyptus species became more and more scarce. The badgers would ferociously attack other competing animals to obtain their required daily dose of these delicious, aromatic leaves.
Who won in the end? The animals which weaned themselves off this type of leaves, evolved and migrated south.
On 2006-04-10 at 22:51:53, Crackalackin enjoyed furrysex
____________________
^ Internet Porn Star |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 06:42 |
Iraq was the poorest nation in the region when we invaded. There are many other dictators much more dangerous. I mean, the evidence is everywhere if you want to write a cited dissertation to him on it I'm sure you could, but I doubt he'd listen. You could mention that Hussein is in fact the sworn enemy of Bin Laden and that just because they have the same color skin doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. He shot his barber? WTF?
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
freakbass
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 128 Registered: 2/12/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 08:01 |
was the haircut that bad??
actually, I was hoping that it read as him buying sniper rifles from someone who killed his barber...
which is still disturbing.
unless it was one of those clit butchering barbers. fuck them..
____________________
Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be.
-K V |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 09:00 |
The desire to change has to come from within. You can't press somebody to change their beliefs if you can't motivate them by their desire to be respected by you or others who share your beliefs. Or at least that's what I think.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
Lownotes
They all float down here. SSHOLEPosts: 182 Registered: 4/23/2005 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 14:48 |
I suppose I can't change his worldview; I just hate that he clumps my opinions in with those of Michael Moore and Tim Robbins. I don't see his opinion that way. I only want a viable alternative to his "crush your enemies" standpoint.
I started this thread after a two hour shouting match over lunch. So, my blood was up. Now that I've had time to cool off and hear some advice from the Swarm and my friends (only child), I think I know where I'm headed with my ultimate rebuttal. But, I really just want to drop it. I'd rather we argue about something else while he's still cognizant.
The barber? He was killed in a sapper raid. My dad was on patrol, nothing more dramatic than that.
Also, he plays the shit out of BF2, Counterstrike and Quake 2. Go figure. |
| |
Steel
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter!  SSHOLEPosts: 506 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 16:35 |
vogonjeltz: Apparently Canada has supplied the US with more oil than any other country since 2001.
Why don't we invade/occupy them?
Our attack beavers would knaw you into a bleeding, blubbering pulp! |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope SSHOLEPosts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 17:29 |
Our Salvation Army could take Canada.
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
Steel
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter! SSHOLEPosts: 506 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 17:39 |
Your Salvation Amry couldn't take Canada's rectal temperature! |
| |
wolfer
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 455 Registered: 12/1/2003 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 17:55 |
I know Im jumping in this kind of late and didnt read every post...Its not that we depend on the oil, its that the government depends on the money it brings in to them. If you remember there was a link submitted about full on electrical cars but then all of a sudden they were all demolished and no one can make these vehicles. Why, because it would crush the government funds. There are plenty of alternatives out there to be used in vehicles besides oil but for some reason we cant use it.
As far as your dad having guns and shit...good for him. better to have them and not ever need em then to need em and not ever have em.
____________________
You Don't Know Me! |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope SSHOLEPosts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 18:17 |
Steel: Your Salvation Amry couldn't take Canada's rectal temperature!
LOLZ
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4464 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 19:28 |
Lownotes: Also, he plays the shit out of BF2
What's his username? I will KICK his ASS.
The resulting humility might render him pliable to your commie pinko thoughts.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope SSHOLEPosts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 19:35 |
vasudeva: Lownotes: Also, he plays the shit out of BF2
What's his username? I will KICK his ASS.
The resulting humility might render him pliable to your commie pinko thoughts.
Don't get too cocky. Old age and treachery will ALWAYS overcome youth and skill.
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 21:17 |
Then it will be a draw.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4464 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/11/2006 at 21:54 |
Q: Hey Pops, how's your BF2 lately?
A: SOME FAGGOT KEEPS HEADSHOTTING ME AND TYPING LOL AFTER!
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
Lownotes
They all float down here. SSHOLEPosts: 182 Registered: 4/23/2005 Offline
|
4/12/2006 at 13:31 |
His all purpose handle for all FPS gaming is 4mitable. |
| |
