I apologize for any inadvertent confusion caused by my careless
transposition of Iran for Iraq in my previous post. All references
to Iran therein were intended to refer to the current situation in
Iraq instead.
> No, right and wrong are moral determinations, truth and falsehood
> are factuals ones.
Are they indeed. Well then answer this: The Christian God is the
only god, True or False?
----------------------
I do not have enough facts to make this determination, I will get back
to you when I have more information.
----------------------
> Truth and falsehood are based on facts. Without facts truth and
> falsehood cannot be dteremined.
> The Earth is approximately 93 million miles from the
> Sun, no matter what your emotional position on this subject is.
But is the earth flat or spherical? What is the basis upon which
those that hold to the latter position establish their truth? And
what factual evidence can you confront them with that will change
their minds? Things are not so absolute as you present.
Ultimately, are not facts only beliefs that one accepts to be true.
Is this not a tautology?
---------------------
The Earth is neither flat nor spherical. It is an oblate spheroid.
This is a cross between flat and spherical.
This can be shown by measurements from space and other methods.
If you want to digress into a metaphysical debate of what, in fact,
reality is, then I say it makes no difference what we do in Iraq,
since you have not, in fact, proven Iraq exists, or even that we are
having this discussion.
---------------------
> I will agree that I would have preferred a declaration of war prior
> to this Iraq invasion, but what we have is still within the bounds
> of Constitutionality, such as it is.
So, the enemy having surrendered you decided to continue the war
without one?
----------------------
You said nowhere I could see that the people in the house destroyed from
over 200m had, in fact, surrendered. If you had said that, then I might
agree with you.
----------------------
> Do you propose to drag a Judge and Jury out into the battlefield
> to review evidence?
The point, which you evidently are determined to evade, is that
there is no battlefield because there is no war. The United States
is presently attempting to subdue a resistance movement, not defeat
an enemy. They have already accomplished the latter.
----------------------
You are not making sense. If the resolution passed by Congress amounts
to a Declaration of War, then we are at war. You can try to play
word games and call it a not-war, but whether it is a war or not is
hinges purely on an Act of Congress. You are also trying to make
the people in this restance movement out not to be our enemy, and they
are.
----------------------
> Wars have been conducted where both sides fight by the same rules,
> and the soldier did not use 'unfair' advantages as long as his
> opponent did not, at least by and large
I would like to hear the response that that particular piece of
wisdom would receive from a professional military audience. Can
one even conceive of an advantage that would be considered "fair"
by the disadvantaged side?
----------------------
Well, I am not a professional soldier but here are a few.
One which comes to mind is the peroxide torpedo employed by the
Japanese during WWII, giving it greater range than ours.
Another is the superior armor design used by Germany during that time.
The numerical superiority of the Soviet forces.
Japanese superior fire control of their navy.
The industrial might of the United States.
German Navy advanced Radar.
German Jet aircraft.
That is just the WWII era, but will that do?
----------------------
> What you are ignoring is, deceit and surprise are only one of many
> tools of war and wars have been won without using these as primary
> tools.
I said that war can be distilled down to two words, deceit and
surprise. Wars are won by outlasting the enemy. I was referring
to how they are conducted.
----------------------
You contradict yourself. First it is deceit and surprise, now it is
endurance. Wars are won by destroying the enemy's ability to resist.
The tools used to do this are manifold.
----------------------
Anyway, as I have often said before, some people are so attached
to their beliefs that no amount of logic or evidence can shift
them.
----------------------
You have yet to point out the flaws in my arguement. 'Logic' has to
be based upon facts to be correct, as you can prove anything if you
make up your data, and nearly anything if you ignore facts which are
incovenient.
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
