Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Regarding your suggestion that morals are important to US foreign policy.

We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

The US was doing no such moral thing. It saw an opportunity to inflict some serious damage on its arch rival and took advantage of it. That's all there was to it. You fucking well know it too, so don't try to bullshit me.

Both may exist together. Afghanistan was not the enemy of the US, and the US had an interest in helping Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was the US's enemy in the cold war, and the Soviet Union conducted an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan and annexed it. What's the moral thing to do?

[pErvinalia]

What ought to have been done in the aftermath of 9/11/2001?

Bomb Saudi Arabia' Madrassas. Liquidate the Saudi princes. Stop Raegan from arming the Mujahadeen.

Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988, and arms were provided to the Afghans at that time in order to fight off the Soviet Union which had invaded the country in a war of conquest. That's not the "aftermath" of 9/11/01.

Yes, and in doing so gave Islamic fundamentalism muscle in the region. No, that's not the aftermath of 9/11. Just one of the biggest contribution one could imagine to enabling the trouble and strife besetting that region now. Supporting the enemy of one's enemy always seems to backfire, and nobody seems to learn from past mistakes. Another one was "regime change". What the fuck were the President and the Secretary of State thinking would happen when they eliminated the strongest bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism, the dictator Saddam Hussein and his army?

In the early 1980s, nobody thought the Afghanis had anything against the US, and they were our friend. We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

[pErvinalia]

This is why it is so frustrating "debating" you. Statements and knowledge which are common knowledge to everyone else you pretend not to know (or literally don't know; not sure which is worth).

[pErvinalia]

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.
Iraq had no WMD.

and they are a far more regressive regime than Saddam's Iraq, and they actually do sponsor international terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is a "far more regressive regime than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?" LOL. How do you figure? Sure, Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, a monarchy.

And a fucking theocracy with Sharia Law! Iraq was secular and reasonably moderate in line with the other dictatorships in the middle east. You really live in an insular world.

[Forty Two]

Regarding your suggestion that morals are important to US foreign policy.

We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

The US was doing no such moral thing. It saw an opportunity to inflict some serious damage on its arch rival and took advantage of it. That's all there was to it. You fucking well know it too, so don't try to bullshit me.

Both may exist together. Afghanistan was not the enemy of the US, and the US had an interest in helping Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was the US's enemy in the cold war, and the Soviet Union conducted an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan and annexed it. What's the moral thing to do?

Yes, because you, not me, brought up the issue of morality. My point was and always have been that "both may exist together." I never have suggested that morality is the sole factor in determining whether the US -- or any other country - helps or allies itself with some other country.

Of course the US did not support Afghanistan in the 80s purely because it was such a moral thing to do. We did it because we were fighting the Soviets and they invaded Afghanistan. We also did it because of general geopolitics, global strategy, etc. If the only thing at issue was "morality" then we'd likely not have intervened. It's the same reason the US, UK, Oz, and other western countries don't go to places like Rwanda when there are genocides going on. Other issues motivating action are not present in those cases.

This is not unclear in what I've posted. You're the one trying to create some sort of a false fight about how I've said the US acts only in the service of morality. That's nothing I ever said. It's nothing I ever implied. So, cut it out.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding your suggestion that morals are important to US foreign policy.

We were helping our friend fend off an invasion. Would it have been moral to let them be conquered?

The US was doing no such moral thing. It saw an opportunity to inflict some serious damage on its arch rival and took advantage of it. That's all there was to it. You fucking well know it too, so don't try to bullshit me.

Both may exist together. Afghanistan was not the enemy of the US, and the US had an interest in helping Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was the US's enemy in the cold war, and the Soviet Union conducted an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan and annexed it. What's the moral thing to do?

Yes, because you, not me, brought up the issue of morality.

1. You were discussing this with Hermit, not me.

And 2. YOU brought up morality first!

Are you drunk??

My point was and always have been that "both may exist together." I never have suggested that morality is the sole factor in determining whether the US -- or any other country - helps or allies itself with some other country.

Strawman. No one ever suggested that you said it was the sole factor. We are rebutting your point that it has anything to do with morality at all!

[Forty Two]

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.
Iraq had no WMD.

I'm not saying we should have attacked Iraq. YOU are saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. My question to you was what your basis was. Saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq is not a basis for attacking Saudi Arabia, is it?

and they are a far more regressive regime than Saddam's Iraq, and they actually do sponsor international terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is a "far more regressive regime than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?" LOL. How do you figure? Sure, Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, a monarchy.

And a fucking theocracy with Sharia Law! Iraq was secular and reasonably moderate in line with the other dictatorships in the middle east. You really live in an insular world.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "reasonably moderate?" A regime basing itself on Stalinist Soviet autocratic dictatorship? Hundreds of thousands of murders -- rape, torture and kidnapping as state policy. LOL. That's what you think is "relatively moderate" in the middle east?

Recall -- I did not say Saudi Arabia was a good place or even "better" than Iraq under Hussein. I merely asked for your basis for saying that Saudi Arabia is "far more regressive" than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that Hussein's regime -- full of political assassination, mass torture/rape/murder/kidnappings as State policy, oppressive criminal laws (including the same kinds of punishments for petty crimes as Saudi Arabia has), plus, like Saudi Arabia the criminalization of Homosexuality, etc., plus Iraq's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds and others, plus Saddam Hussein invading Iran, and Kuwait, and threatening Saudi Arabia too.

I mean - "far more regressive" is the position you took. How many countries has Saudi Arabia invaded? How much gassing and mass murdering?

[pErvinalia]

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.
Iraq had no WMD.

I'm not saying we should have attacked Iraq. YOU are saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. My question to you was what your basis was. Saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq is not a basis for attacking Saudi Arabia, is it?

My point is that a country was illegally invaded. You guys picked the wrong one to illegally invade. If you have off toppled the House of Saud, there would have been less international resistance and you could have made a much stronger moral case for doing it.

and they are a far more regressive regime than Saddam's Iraq, and they actually do sponsor international terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is a "far more regressive regime than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?" LOL. How do you figure? Sure, Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, a monarchy.

And a fucking theocracy with Sharia Law! Iraq was secular and reasonably moderate in line with the other dictatorships in the middle east. You really live in an insular world.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "reasonably moderate?"

Don't be disingenuous. I said it was reasonably moderate in line with other dictatorships in the region. In line with dictatorships the US has been allied with for a long time. Saudi Arabia is on an altogether more barbaric and dangerous level.

[Forty Two]

1. You were discussing this with Hermit, not me.

And 2. YOU brought up morality first!

Are you drunk??

No, you're wrong.

Asking "what's the moral thing to do?" was in response someone else's post. As I noted "both can exist at the same time," -- in other words, we can do the moral thing without it being the main factor in why we are acting.

Now, you can keep telling me what I believe, or you can accept that what I tell you is what I believe. You love to do this shit. You misconstrue something a person says, take it out of all context, and then you latch on like dog to a bone and demand that what the other person is telling you is not really what they believe. Look - when someone explains their position to you, they are explaining their position to you. If you think they meant X, but then they say "dude, you're taking that the wrong way -- this is my position on that," then accept their fucking explanation. Stop being such a dick.

My point was and always have been that "both may exist together." I never have suggested that morality is the sole factor in determining whether the US -- or any other country - helps or allies itself with some other country.

Strawman. No one ever suggested that you said it was the sole factor. We are rebutting your point that it has anything to do with morality at all!

No, it's not a strawman. A strawman is when a person attributes an argument to you that you never made I didn't do that at all.

You have not rebutted any point that "it has anything to do with morality at all." You've ASSERTED that it has nothing to do with morality at all. However, the decision makers are people, and all people have some form of morality. And, people like to do what they believe to be the moral thing, even if the true motivating factor is economic or some other reason. So, the people doing the acting and the decisionmaking often believe they are acting in furtherance of what they believe to be morality or the moral thing to do. So, of course morality, of some form, has something to do with it. It is not the reason countries go to war, and not the reason countries ally themselves with each other, but it is a factor, like a myriad other factors, that enter into it.

Economics is not the sole factor either, but it is a factor. Geopolitics -- complex alliances and international agreements -- those are factors too. Practicallity and pragmatism -- what can reasonably be accomplished -- those are factors --- global strategy -- another factor. Competition among nations -- national interests - the importance of those interests -- the security of a regime, government or a nation -- all those things are facts -- none of them, alone, is the only factor.

Got it? Morality is not why the US went in and supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s, but the decisionmakers were pretty happy that they could be in the position of helping the people that were invaded and attacked (looks good to be seen as on the side of right), and at the same time be advancing US global interests and hurting the Soviet Union.

Now, I'm sure your next post will be some idiocy about how I'm declaring that the US's motive is always to advance morality or some such nonsense. Go on, keep telling me what I think. Man, you are so Ratskep. It's a wonder you aren't there more. Many of them LOVE to act like you over there.

[Forty Two]

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.
Iraq had no WMD.

I'm not saying we should have attacked Iraq. YOU are saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. My question to you was what your basis was. Saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq is not a basis for attacking Saudi Arabia, is it?

My point is that a country was illegally invaded. You guys picked the wrong one to illegally invade. If you have off toppled the House of Saud, there would have been less international resistance and you could have made a much stronger moral case for doing it.

So, you're advocating an illegal invasion because you oppose a different illegal invasion? How persuasive...

As for the toppling of the House of Saud, that's a nice assertion. Care to back it up with anything?

and they are a far more regressive regime than Saddam's Iraq, and they actually do sponsor international terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is a "far more regressive regime than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?" LOL. How do you figure? Sure, Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, a monarchy.

And a fucking theocracy with Sharia Law! Iraq was secular and reasonably moderate in line with the other dictatorships in the middle east. You really live in an insular world.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "reasonably moderate?"

Don't be disingenuous. I said it was reasonably moderate in line with other dictatorships in the region. In line with dictatorships the US has been allied with for a long time. Saudi Arabia is on an altogether more barbaric and dangerous level.

Back it up -- I gave a summary of SOME of the Hussein regime's regressive behavior. You've responded with pointing out that they are a theocracy. And, that's your argument in support of the proposition that Saudi Arabia is FAR MORE REGRESSIVE than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was. LOL.

To say that middle eastern countries are "in line with" Hussein's Iraq is rather bizarre. You think Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, Oman and Yemen, Qatar and Kuwait are all gassing people by the tens and hundreds of thousands, invading neighboring countries, engaging in mass murders by the tens of thousands, using rape rooms and rape as State policy, engaging Stalinist Secret Police and black bagging the citizenry through enlisting the people in general as informants to rat on neighbors, friends and family? You think that Saddam Hussein's regime is typical of the middle east?

Nice assertion -- you've yet to back it up. Let's hear what you have to support that.

[pErvinalia]

1. You were discussing this with Hermit, not me.

And 2. YOU brought up morality first!

Are you drunk??

No, you're wrong.

I don't know why I waste my time with you. Here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1633642 is where YOU first bring up morality as a reason for US foreign policy.

Asking "what's the moral thing to do?" was in response someone else's post. As I noted "both can exist at the same time," -- in other words, we can do the moral thing without it being the main factor in why we are acting.

Now, you can keep telling me what I believe, or you can accept that what I tell you is what I believe. You love to do this shit. You misconstrue something a person says, take it out of all context, and then you latch on like dog to a bone and demand that what the other person is telling you is not really what they believe. Look - when someone explains their position to you, they are explaining their position to you. If you think they meant X, but then they say "dude, you're taking that the wrong way -- this is my position on that," then accept their fucking explanation. Stop being such a dick.

No, that's your strawman. No one claimed you said that morality was the only reason for foreign policy. YOU raised morality as one reason for foreign policy, and we pointed out to you that this is naïve bullshit. Stop being such a dick.

My point was and always have been that "both may exist together." I never have suggested that morality is the sole factor in determining whether the US -- or any other country - helps or allies itself with some other country.

Strawman. No one ever suggested that you said it was the sole factor. We are rebutting your point that it has anything to do with morality at all!

No, it's not a strawman. A strawman is when a person attributes an argument to you that you never made I didn't do that at all.

What the fuck is your malfunction?!? Why are you telling us that "I never have suggested that morality is the sole factor...." when NO ONE has suggested that you said that?!? THAT is a strawman.

You have not rebutted any point that "it has anything to do with morality at all." You've ASSERTED that it has nothing to do with morality at all.

NO, this tangent is because YOU said that you NEVER claimed morality had anything to do with foreign policy. I showed you three quotes where YOU DID JUST THAT. All your other fluff here is just a red herring to get out of admitting you were telling porky pies.

Now, I'm sure your next post will be some idiocy about how I'm declaring that the US's motive is always to advance morality or some such nonsense. Go on, keep telling me what I think. Man, you are so Ratskep. It's a wonder you aren't there more. Many of them LOVE to act like you over there.

NO ONE EVER SAID YOU SAID THE US'S MOTIVE IS TO ALWAYS ADVANCE MORALITY. Stop strawmanning. Ratskep has nothing to do with this. Stop red herring'ing.

[mistermack]

Back it up -- I gave a summary of SOME of the Hussein regime's regressive behavior. You've responded with pointing out that they are a theocracy. And, that's your argument in support of the proposition that Saudi Arabia is FAR MORE REGRESSIVE than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was. LOL.

Didn't Saddam allow women to drive?

[pErvinalia]

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.
Iraq had no WMD.

I'm not saying we should have attacked Iraq. YOU are saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. My question to you was what your basis was. Saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq is not a basis for attacking Saudi Arabia, is it?

My point is that a country was illegally invaded. You guys picked the wrong one to illegally invade. If you have off toppled the House of Saud, there would have been less international resistance and you could have made a much stronger moral case for doing it.

So, you're advocating an illegal invasion because you oppose a different illegal invasion? How persuasive...

As for the toppling of the House of Saud, that's a nice assertion. Care to back it up with anything?

Saudi Arabia is a "far more regressive regime than Saddam Hussein's Iraq?" LOL. How do you figure? Sure, Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom, a monarchy.

And a fucking theocracy with Sharia Law! Iraq was secular and reasonably moderate in line with the other dictatorships in the middle east. You really live in an insular world.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "reasonably moderate?"

Don't be disingenuous. I said it was reasonably moderate in line with other dictatorships in the region. In line with dictatorships the US has been allied with for a long time. Saudi Arabia is on an altogether more barbaric and dangerous level.

Back it up -- I gave a summary of SOME of the Hussein regime's regressive behavior. You've responded with pointing out that they are a theocracy. And, that's your argument in support of the proposition that Saudi Arabia is FAR MORE REGRESSIVE than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was. LOL.

To say that middle eastern countries are "in line with" Hussein's Iraq is rather bizarre. You think Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, Oman and Yemen, Qatar and Kuwait are all gassing people by the tens and hundreds of thousands, invading neighboring countries, engaging in mass murders by the tens of thousands, using rape rooms and rape as State policy, engaging Stalinist Secret Police and black bagging the citizenry through enlisting the people in general as informants to rat on neighbors, friends and family? You think that Saddam Hussein's regime is typical of the middle east?

Nice assertion -- you've yet to back it up. Let's hear what you have to support that.

Nah, I'm over you. You either can't debate honestly, or there's some real malfunction going on upstairs. Hermit has explained well to you link between SA and international terrorism, despite you apparently not even knowing there was a link. SA is one of the most repressive theocracies in the world. Saddam was equivalent to a lot of the other dictatorships the US has allied itself with in the region and world. This is simple stuff. To everyone but you, unfortunately.

[laklak]

Did science ever decide anything about room temperature superconductors?

[pErvinalia]

I don't know about "science", but Seth decided it was all a Marxist conspiracy to destroy the universe.