Wife-starving

Posted by: keymaker

Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:09 AM

Oh yeah, that's really worth dying for - wife-starving in Afghanistan.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:18 AM

And who is dying for this — other than the victims — and are you implying this kind of maltreatment of women is not that big a deal? Do you want to clarify your point?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:37 AM

Quote:
who is dying for this

We are - 201 British soldiers so far.

km


Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:49 AM

And Americans, too. But I would argue that the rationale — right or wrong — for those deaths is a bit more encompassing than this one law. But you didn't answer the second half of my question. Is the rape and/or starvation of Afghani wives not that big a deal in your estimation? Is such treatment less troublesome, for example, than the rape and torture of the detainees that you are so vocal about. And spare me that hooey that the former is legal (according to Afghani law) and the latter is illegal. I'm asking for your moral POV on this — your reaction as a human being, not as a lawyer.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:01 AM

Quote:
Is the... starvation of Afghani wives not that big a deal

Well, it's a small deal in Afghanistan but a big deal in the West... which is why we shouldn't be fighting for it.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:20 AM

I have a feeling we'll be pulling from that "h3ll-hole" soon ( announced in 6 - 12 months)- may take 1-2 years to totally get out.. I think the pressure to leave will continue to increase as people here are suffering financially, and it will continue to add pressure to focus on our own home problems instead of these foreign wars of ideology. Esp. ones of "lost cause"... we're never going to change their POV. it was stupid of Bush et. al. to think otherwise. But I don't think that was their main reason any way... sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:22 AM

Apparently, it's becoming a big deal to more and more Afghanis. And it should be to anyone with a conscience — West, East, North, or South. So perhaps you have answered the second half of my question. No big deal for you. (Hmmm. Does Mrs. km know of your position? What if lawyer starvation were legal?)

Please remember, this is only one of many issues we're fighting over. We started this fight over the attacks of 9/11. Yes, we blew it, and should cut our loses and leave now. But the picture is a lot wider than your focus seems to be at the moment.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:26 AM

Quote:
No big deal for you

So how do you get to that conclusion?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:29 AM

Quote:
But I don't think that was their main reason any way...
You're thinking that 9/11 was a handy excuse to get the country in a shoot 'em up mindset to grease the skids for an Iraq invasion? Considering how quickly we dropped the ball in Afghanistan to go after Saddam, that's probably a strong assumption. And maybe Obama got snookered by the Time to get back on task siren song instead of the Time to get the hell out version.

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:32 AM

it's a small deal in Afghanistan"" <-- unless your a woman then it is a huge deal .

I agree that the West should NOT support laws like these . However we are fighting for is democracy and defending Afghans from the return of the Oppressive Taliban

Karzi signed it to gain votes from the hard liners , would not surprise me that the law gets amended after the elections
Posted by: starmillway

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
who is dying for this

We are - 201 British soldiers so far.
km


Tonto: What do you mean, "we", Kemo Sabe???





just ribbin' ya. . .


Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:43 AM

Quote:
However we are fighting for is democracy and defending Afghans from the return of the Oppressive Taliban
Certainly sounds noble. And I think that's what most Americans would want to believe — present company included. But I think the promise has left the room some time ago. We're fighting cockroaches. They adapt over night to every new insecticide we spray on them, and they come back stronger and more numerous. And the more vigorous our assault, the more our international standing suffers.

The Russians failed to crack the code. Doesn't look like we're having any more luck. Even diplomacy is not getting much traction. This is a text book example of being btwn a rock and a hard place. And man oh man, are there a lot of rocks and hard places over there!
Posted by: DLC

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 12:32 PM

I think a good chess play for Obama is to announce our imminent withdrawal, the righties will go Nutz !! . . totally loose their minds! laugh (if they had any).

Then he can get Healthcare passed while they're ranting and focused about pulling out of the Middle East !! wink

whatttya think ?

Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 12:41 PM

I tend to agree

IMO
The Russians failed because they were trying to break the people , instead of wining their hearts . Thats is something the Coalition only started to do recently , way to late in the game so to speak and for that I blame Iraq for the resource drain , if wasn't for 2 wars I suspect we would be out of Afghanistan a few years ago .

Not to mention we backed the Mujahadin against the Russians - which begs the question where is the Taliban getting their weapons ?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 01:30 PM

Because I asked you a very direct question — several times, as is usually the case with you — and you have yet to answer. So since you have not said that it is a big deal for, I can only assume that it isn't. Want to dispute my assumption? Give me a straight answer. DOH!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 01:33 PM

Hey, anything that might cause The Dick an aneurysm is a friend o' mine! grin
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 02:03 PM

Originally Posted By: starmillway
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
who is dying for this

We are - 201 British soldiers so far.
km


Tonto: What do you mean, "we", Kemo Sabe???



..and they aren't exactly charmed
by being roped into this either...

Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 02:56 PM

Well they can just say NO - like the French , well the French took a rear support roll like training Afghan Police much like the Aussies took support rolls as well . Still much needed rolls to fill

Anyway they are not obligated , so saying Rope In is a bit of a stretch - IMO

In fact India lost some 100 civilians in the 911 attack . So if anyone would be roped in sending troops would be them via their own people wanting justice .
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 03:46 PM

Are you implying that it isn't worth dying for to refuse to have sex? What if the husband had been cheating and had a sexually transmittable disease and you didn't want to catch it?

Edit: Let's say he had AIDS? Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 04:17 PM


bulldust
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 04:58 PM

I think you've misunderstood KM's point.

Karzai signed law that allows husbands to starve wives if they refuse sex.

I believe KM's point - albeit presented piss poorly - is that we shouldn't be fighting for Afghanistan if they're going to be signing dumb ass laws like this one. I tend to agree.

You're welcome, KM :P
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 05:13 PM

Explain to me what are these obligations that the Aussies feel that they are "roped in" I bet you cannot find a single one can you .

They are there because they have always been a Alley to the US - Not because the US holds something over their heads to Rope/force them into what ever we want them to do .
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 05:24 PM

Quote:
albeit presented piss poorly
Ditto that. Which is why I asked him at the top of this thread to clarify his point. Which, of course, he didn't, any more than he answered part two of my question.

As to what you think may have been the point, at this juncture, I'm not sure if we should be fighting for Afghanistan at all. We had our chance and booted it. Time to call it a day.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter

I believe KM's point - albeit presented piss poorly
Jimminy Christmas people who cannot understand understated sarcasm and wit should not reply to Keymaker's posts. Unbelievable how literal and voraciously people took it. He doesn't even have to try anymore. Throw a tiny but of chum on the water and the sharks attack.

But I thank you Sarge, and KM thanks you. Or likely he doesn't because he so enjoys playing with his food.


Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
I think you've misunderstood KM's point.

Karzai signed law that allows husbands to starve wives if they refuse sex.

I believe KM's point - albeit presented piss poorly - is that we shouldn't be fighting for Afghanistan if they're going to be signing dumb ass laws like this one. I tend to agree.

You're welcome, KM :P


Good point. It's sort of like fighting for Hitler. But what about the wives who are being starved to death legally?

"1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for?"
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: dreed2

"1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for?"


What we are fighting for is for United States servicemen to walk around and be killed, throw in 201 British soldiers killed and for what? So that we can prop up Karzai and his laws allowing wife starving and other outrageous religious practices because that is what we have gotten ourselves into.

We should not be there. We should never have been there. We should get out today. We are doing nothing good there, only making matters worse.


Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 06:46 PM

km and wit? *cough* Whatever...
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 09:49 PM

Quote:
We should not be there. We should never have been there.


Well if 911 never happened we would have not even gone there in the first place - much like if Pearl Harbor never happened I don't think the US would have entered WW2 at all

Quote:
We should get out today.


We will get out when Afghans can defend themselves and why is that taking so long ? ?

Quote:
We are doing nothing good there, only making matters worse.


We did plenty of good like re-opening girls schools , stopped public floggings and executions committed by the Taliban , higher education for men . Better health care that is even open to woman and they have now Ambulances for the first time . Better job opportunities for teens .

You Betcha we did some good there .

Keep in mind that is in Kabul - out laying villages are still under some sort of Taliban control
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:32 PM

Quote:
I asked him... to clarify his point

The point was already clear. Yours isn't though - "fighting to defend wife-starving is acceptable because of 9/11" - that right?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:47 PM

Quote:
what about the wives who are being starved to death legally?

Well, Afghanistan has signed the Statute of Rome which outlaws sexual slavery. As co-signatory Britain has a duty to bring offenders to justice before the ICC so instead of defending Karzai we should be arresting him - whoops!

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 10:54 PM

Quote:
You're welcome, KM :P

Hehe... a rare moment of agreement between us. eek

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/16/09 11:21 PM

Quote:
... Karzai and his laws allowing wife starving and other outrageous religious practices because that is what we have gotten ourselves into.

If it's like that while we're in there what's it going to be like after we get out? Basically, the soldiers are dying for no good reason.

km
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 04:02 AM

Originally Posted By: carp

We did plenty of good like re-opening girls schools , stopped public floggings and executions committed by the Taliban , higher education for men . Better health care that is even open to woman and they have now Ambulances for the first time . Better job opportunities for teens .

You Betcha we did some good there .


Wonderful accomplishments but a little on the expensive side as measured in lives lost. And as Keymaker's original post points out it is not going to last even until we leave. Karzai is already rolling it back. How dare the puppet we install do that.

And what happens when we leave? We will be leaving some day? The Afghans are not cooperating with the Americans anymore. Why is that? Because they know they will be killed as soon as we leave. Anyone who helped build all those wonderful things you noted will be killed.

Better to leave now. Better to have left yesterday. Even better to have not tried to take over a country. It took the Russians ten years to figure that one out. It will take us 40.

We should have come in with overwhelming force to crush Al Queda and then left. But a police action was ridiculed by Republicans and we got the Bush plan. Quagmire.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 04:32 AM

No. That's not right. I said there are many reasons, other than wife starving, why we are fighting over there. And I said 9/11 was the reason we went there in the first place (and even that has lost its relevancy).

Yeah, I get the point — through no fault of yours.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 06:32 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
No. That's not right. I said there are many reasons, other than wife starving, why we are fighting over there. And I said 9/11 was the reason we went there in the first place (and even that has lost its relevancy).

Yeah, I get the point
— through no fault of yours.


. . . .
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 12:10 PM

Quote:
How dare the puppet we install do that.


We did not install him he was elected remember - Well we installed him at first then was later elected and running for office again and he is seeking the support from the hard liners hence the return of these Shia type laws . Keep in mind Karzai did that before and later amended the law , I sure he will amend this one too after the election

fwiw ; I don't think he will win the election , more so if the woman will vote .

Quote:
The Afghans are not cooperating with the Americans anymore


Sure they are what ever gave you that Idea ? ? If your talking about the Taliban and their cohorts of course not but look into Kabul and the larger towns they are more then cooperative . What you are seeing is the smaller villages where the Taliban still holds power , hence the big push south where the Afghan police and Afghan army has never been before

Quote:
We should have come in with overwhelming force to crush Al Queda and then left.


I agree but dumb shiit got us into Iraq instead , that war was so wrong in many ways and it servilely crippled the Afghanistan effort .

Someone else said it best;
(When the old men dies) and then the new generation takes power - We are seeing this taking place in Iran the old Mulahs are fading away and the students are slowly taking over
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 12:51 PM

Quote:
people who cannot understand understated sarcasm and wit should not reply to Keymaker's posts.


Those are the very people he's counting on to reply -- why would you want to ruin his fun like that? ;-)

Quote:
He doesn't even have to try anymore. Throw a tiny but of chum on the water and the sharks attack.


Which is why these threads are so utterly useless -- they're rarely anything but flame-bait and opportunities for people who's opinions are already well-known and not likely to change in the slightest to regurgitate them all over again ... that they *still* run on so long is pretty amazing ...

Anyways, I'm only helping in the mayhem here, so I'm out ;-)
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 01:21 PM

Your mayhem is always welcomed laugh
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one

Those are the very people he's counting on to reply -- why would you want to ruin his fun like that? ;-)


I don't mind the debates at all that Keymaker starts here. He is usually bringing up a viewpoint that gets very little air over here in the USA. It is just that people need to read his posts and possibly think for a minute or two before taking the hook, the line, and the sinker before they go on the attack.

The is no fun at all if all of his posts turn into tit for tat threads with no content.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 07:10 PM


gets tiresome watching the same person bid
according to his own personal agenda, then
everyone else mindlessly follows suit. it's
a mean game played out by a little pissant
trying to make himself feel less inadequate.

what sux is that km is FAR from the first to
be targeted by this classic schoolyard gang-
up, and since it's sanctioned by the people
in charge of preventing such behavior ..and
unchallenged by members too chickensh!t of
becoming his next target if they don't play
along with the game, ..he won't be the last.

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 07:33 PM

Quote:
I don't mind the debates at all that Keymaker starts here.


Actually, I don't either. I just came to the realization that they're crafted mostly as flame-bait and actually trying to participate meaningfully in them is largely a waste of time ...

Which is too bad, because some of the core issues are worthy of discussion ...

Quote:
It is just that people need to read his posts and possibly think for a minute or two before taking the hook, the line, and the sinker before they go on the attack.


The problem there is that if people took time to think, they'd actually see the hook, line and sinker that's being dangled before them and wouldn't even bother to respond. I still don't see why you're trying to ruin KM's fun by telling people to think ;-)

Quote:
The is no fun at all if all of his posts turn into tit for tat threads with no content.


If it's merely a trap waiting to be sprung, why are you expecting content? That's like expecting an entire wheel when in reality there's just a crumb of cheese as bait ...
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
[…] I asked you a very direct question […] and you have yet to answer.
[…]
Give me a straight answer. DOH!
On this, steveg, i agree completely with you crazy, km is a bit of a manipulative provocateur. Like in this very post.

That may not bother me until a certain point is reached, the point where the exchange ends and the result is like an unfinished conversation… where further —and sometimes even the original— questions are ignored and left purposely unanswered.

Although i tend to agree with km on most of these discussions —and have posted a few times my views in backing of our common ones—, on occasion when i have asked direct questions looking for clarification on his purpose or opinion regarding a given one of his posts, i have rarely received an acknowledgement of my question and, i think, never an answer.

In that respect it's less encouraging to participate because i feel that i'm playing into this other person's post because there is a common point of view, but i'm not getting much support from him in exchange. [/rant]



[so this post is for you too (even mostly), km. cool ]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/17/09 11:54 PM

Quote:
Quote:
asked you a very direct question […] and you have yet to answer.

On this, steveg, i agree completely with you

I completely disagree... first of all the original post wasn't flame bait but a protest about our involvement in Afghanistan against the background of a rising death toll among troops.

His reply was flame bait. Not only was the answer to his stupid question built in to the original post but my position on human rights is well known from everything I've ever posted.

Quote:
on occasion when i have asked direct questions looking for clarification on his purpose or opinion regarding a given one of his posts, i have rarely received an acknowledgement of my question

Do you have an example of that?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:49 AM

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how to express exactly what you just said.

Yes, I am guilty of taking the bait. Because, just once, I would like to see km make a point in a straightforward, transparent manner. Just once I would like to see him actually take a challenge head-on instead of twisting the dialog like a t-shirt being tie-died. And just once, I would like to not be reminded that "we lot" are somehow incapable of being proper citizens of the word.

Paul, stop whining about how others choose to debate a point. Arguing with a wall built of alternating layers of arrogance and egocentricity is no fun either. Yeah, the answer is don't get sucked in, which, to six's point, results in dead air.

And to the other half of the km fan club — the one with the persecution complex and the big rock in her hand — your tin foil hat is too tight. Nobody is telling you what you can or can't say here. Nobody is sanctioning anything. And nobody controls anything here. It's all in your head. As carp might say, <--- Do you get it now?

Sheesh, what a freakin' soap opera!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:55 AM

Few people are capable of drawing a believable caricature of themselves. But I congratulate you — and even thank you — for succeeding in doing just that. Mazeltov! You should sign it, frame it, and hang it on your wall.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:59 AM

Yup. I've agreed with or supported a number of his points in other posts. The problem is that even agreeing must be unconditional and on his terms only. Tends to flatten otherwise multi-dimensional debates. Very frustrating.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 05:21 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg


Paul, stop whining about how others choose to debate a point.
You ask KM to change his way of arguing a point but I can't ask you to stop being a sucker and personally attacking KM every chance you get most of the time without even thinking like this thread? (Not going to point out the irony of you also demanding I stop whining Officer.)

KM is pretty clear about what he wants to talk about. Like this thread it really is pretty obvious. No flame bait, but a modest amount of reading comprehension necessary. Does he have an obligation to answer you? No. As much as an obligation to pat kattalbo on the head if they are in agreement.

And your reference to Celandine's point is about as endearing as a dead rat which you normally bring to any discussion with her. But she speaks the truth. You have over the years belittled (for example your post to Celandine just now) people who do not agree with you. Bashing people with flags come to mind and no, as you have asked me, I won't forge or get over it. It's just an example of your, as you call it, "give as good as you get" bullying.

Of all the contentious things that have occurred in this forum over the years the most common denominator is you. Has it ever occurred to you that you post like a complete åsshole sometimes? I do it too on occasion but I usually figure it out if I cannot convince others of their reading comprehension problem. Then I admit I am a jackass at times. You've been a total jackass to Celandine and KM for example but have you ever admitted it?

But it's one hour before flood tide and the fishies call.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 05:55 AM

Quote:
I've agreed with or supported a number of his points

Oh yeah, in a grudging and carping fashion when cornered with no way out... I even had to explain who was dying in Afghanistan - as if you didn't already know. smirk

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 06:39 AM

Quote:
but I usually figure it out if I cannot convince others of their reading comprehension problem
Speaks volumes about your self-assumed intellectual superiority, and brings me right back to you're either with me or you're stupid approach to debate. No pattern of belittlement there, right? Nah... 'course not. crazy

Regarding your fellow fan club member, keep in mind that since I ended my hiatus from this forum more than a year ago, I have not once engaged or referred to her unless first confronted. And when referred to as a pissant or by the size of my nose or lack of height — or most most entertaining, my "ringleadership" — you better believe I will engage.

We all have the capacity to be assholes of one stripe or another. Good to see you can admit your own inclusion in that club. And as far as admitting my own membership, I have always owned up to what I say. But whether it's viewed as jackassian or not is entirely dependent on each reader's POV, and if you read through this and any other "contentious" threads, you'll see that those points of view do not all lean in one direction. It's called intellectual diversity. Deal with it. I do.

Now go catch fish — speaking of hooks, lines, and sinkers.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 06:41 AM

Quote:
Oh yeah, in a grudging and carping fashion when cornered with no way out
Links, please.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 08:14 AM

Quote:
Links, please

Short memory again? Just look further up the thread - "Yeah, I get the point — through no fault of yours"...

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 08:46 AM

Nay, nay, old bean. Show me where I've agreed with or supported one of your points in the manner you allege. "Getting" your point doesn't equal "agreeing" with it. I asked you to clarify a point and answer a question. Well, someone else provided the clarification, and you never answered my question.

Hint: the way to have the last word is to present an irrefutable argument. Try again.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Quote:
Oh yeah, in a grudging and carping fashion when cornered with no way out
Links, please.


LOL
I know'd there was a reason for marking your re-mark
::ABOVE:: with a FireWorks display***


yes--- YOU --- are the common denominator

and to make my point ::also directing above::
"..any member that refuses to go along with it becomes the next target"

LOL :ALSO Directly above.:

WOW! You're 3 for 3 on this one.

(or is that 4 for 4?)

now pull the famous PEE-WEE: talk about predictable


***You need to Take it out of "THREAD MODE" once in a while
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:12 AM

Seems to me that most other posts get stepped on or ignored
once the BS flinging contest gets fully underway.

Last week we enjoyed a marvelous discussion ..**
..even when someone attempted to shut it down using a Taboo
BUZZ Issue (religion) to stop it in it's tracks

lol, doanget much more "Baitable" than being called a "PANSIE"
yet it opened up a very good discussion...

I think a lot of km's topics are like that...
...granted, his style is that of a Lawyer challenging the
prevailing system... here, there & EVERYWHERE...
but it's almost always seized upon as a fresh opportunity
to begin another mindless assault.. many times having little
to do with the topic, but twisted around to suit the old BUZZ

sometimes one member or another joins in, sometimes trying to
debate the point.. but as things heat up.. everything tends to
just get trampled in the mud... AGAIN

That's usually when 6 of 1 & new kojak sign off
and everyone else there after. Yoyo took an extended leave. frown
god knows who else packed up and left because all the good's
been thrashed out of it...

... here we are again ...
nothing ever actually gets debated, said, ...or resolved.

Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:20 AM

I'll leave you to pull your own pee-wee. I'll even close the door for you.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:43 AM


you win the LAST WORD GAME for today

I know how important it is to you. smile

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 10:24 AM

Quote:
Show me where I've agreed with or supported one of your points in the manner you allege.

I already have "Yeah, I get the point — through no fault of yours"

Quote:
Getting" your point doesn't equal "agreeing" with it.

Well, the point was that when we have to support wife-starving in Afghanistan it's time to call it a day. If you didn't agree with the point why did you say "it's time to call it a day"? Make your mind up, do you agree with the point or not?

Quote:
I asked you to clarify a point

The point was already clear.

Quote:
you never answered my question.

Wrong. The question was:

"are you implying this kind of maltreatment of women is not that big a deal?"

The answer was:

"it's a small deal in Afghanistan but a big deal in the West... which is why we shouldn't be fighting for it."

Everyone knows I answered the question so you're making yourself look rather foolish.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 01:35 PM

So you're going to keep beating the wrong drum no matter what, eh?

Your point may have been clear to you and a few others, but when I asked you — not anyone else — to clarify it, all I got was the same kind of convoluted BS you're attempting to sell now. And the question was "Is wife starving a big deal or not to YOU?" Not how big a deal it is to the West or the Afghanis. You still have not answered that question. Even when I made an assumption and gave you an opportunity to upend it, you did not offer a direct answer.

"Everyone" (there's that word again) knows what I asked. And in that context, "everyone" knows that you have not answered the question. So tell me again — and I'm sure you will — just who is making themselves look foolish?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 02:21 PM

I'd point out that you've dodged the issue of whether you agree or disagree with my point?

Quote:
Your point may have been clear to you and a few others,

More like you're the only the one who claims not to have understood it.

Quote:
And the question was "Is wife starving a big deal or not to YOU?"

I've already quoted the original question which I answered. What you're talking about now is how you modified it to try to keep the disruption going. As I've already said the answer to your question is built into my original post:

"Oh yeah, that's really worth dying for - wife-starving in Afghanistan".

Clue: the statement is self-explanatory.

Quote:
just who is making themselves look foolish?

You are.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 02:35 PM

Oy vey. All I can say is...

TTFN.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Do you have an example of that?
The Honeymoon...'s the example. Your opening post is:
Originally Posted By: keymaker
It's good that the Obama presidency has brought about a better atmosphere in relations with Iran but we can't expect their offer of constructive engagement to last indefinitely. Hillary in particular needs to oversee some sort of conciliatory action in our treatment of Muslims - at the very least to ensure our observance of international law in such places as Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan, otherwise the honeymoon could be over before we even knew we were married.
After that on your second post you say:
Originally Posted By: keymaker
We can't expect the honeymoon with Iran to last for ever... not without actually doing something constructive.

And that is all you offer in your thread about the honeymoon…

It's not that i need a pat on the head as polymerase suggests:
Originally Posted By: polymerase
Does he have an obligation to answer you? No. As much as an obligation to pat kattalbo on the head if they are in agreement.
and no, he [km] doesn't have to answer me but, still, he owes us all the explanation of the thread he created. When i ask for such explanation he [you, km] completely [dismiss]es me and [ignore]s me. [Maybe the internet connection wasn't working… frown , it could happen…]

I'm responding to your post [thanks for creating that opportunity to express myself laugh ] and you… what should i conclude?… are playing with us all?, or what, irresponsibility? [since there was no response]

Maybe you think my post and questions are only for my ego's consumption, to see my name on the internet; yes that is true, but i do have an interest on the subject you suggested on the thread and i expected, with my answer, to stimulate the thread so you would give me what you offered in creating the thread: the honeymoon scandal!

I didn't get anything. Not such a good investment on my part, but… cool, there's no money involved.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:04 PM

polymerase: i quote your previous post here ——> polymerase suggests
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:14 PM

polymerase: i quote this post here ——> polymerase suggests
I didn't mean to denigrate your position of wanting feedback from KM. He hasn't ever patted me on the head either. That is how KM posts and replies and I don't think we should be in the business of telling people how to post or reply (although I have done plenty of that lately.)

Demanding answers is not all the fruitful.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Is the... starvation of Afghani wives not that big a deal

Well, it's a small deal in Afghanistan but a big deal in the West... which is why we shouldn't be fighting for it.

km

Even though you claim this is an answer, to me it is not!

As far as i know you could be an Afghan national with an English Law education from a London university, i dont know you.

My expectation is that you answer the question if you want and not if you don't, tell me you will not answer the question, but don't pretend the answer is obvious when it's not. You're just saying that it depends on the point of view. And that's what we are seeking, YOUR point of view.

So i second steveg's question:

"Is wife starving a big deal or not to YOU?"
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 05:16 PM

Quote:
I don't think we should be in the business of telling people how to post or reply (although I have done plenty of that lately.)


I agree , respectfully
We do have moderators here that do a good job I think.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Celandine

what sux is that km is FAR from the first to
be targeted by this classic schoolyard gang-
up, and since it's sanctioned by the people
in charge of preventing such behavior
Give it up already. What's tiresome is you saying we don't know how to do our job, and also a bit condescending IMO. I've said it before, we are not forum police, we don't censor opinion or tell little Johnny to stop pulling Susie's pigtails. You keep bringing up this childish bullying theme. This is not a schoolyard, you're all adults, deal with society and its varied personalities, or leave if you can't handle people thinking different from you. I'm not someone's Mommy here to defend them. km's been around here as long as anyone else, if he can't be shouted off after almost 10 years I doubt he's going anywhere.

For someone who is so liberal in ideals I'm surprised you are trying to suppress free speech.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Quote:
I don't think we should be in the business of telling people how to post or reply (although I have done plenty of that lately.)


I agree , respectfully
We do have moderators here that do a good job I think.
I think so too. We don't care how one posts or replies, or tell anyone how to post or reply, just don't do anything illegal or cuss or spam the place. Other than that, work it out, we're adults.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 07:18 PM

km usually answers a question with words you have used, tweaked by km (i.e. his slant) or, he answers with another question. km does the circle dance and we have all been his partner.
Still maintain he is the reincarnation of Deep Blue - playing chess with our minds. Somebody is having a hoot with us and probably a good glass of scotch!
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: katlpablo
and no, he [km] doesn't have to answer me but, still, he owes us all the explanation of the thread he created.
I do want to say first it's always good to hear from you, an outside take on what's going on in the world. I'm not judging either side BTW, I haven't really followed the thread but the length of your post and all the quotes and bolding caught my eye. IMO no one "owes" anyone anything here. A forum is a big wall anyone can write on, then walk away from if they choose. If someone doesn't debate like you feel is fair, then just don't try to debate them, you know his MO. Let them preach and just move on.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 07:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Still maintain he is the reincarnation of Deep Blue - playing chess with our minds. Somebody is having a hoot with us and probably a good glass of scotch!
Well finally, someone else gets it. grin

He gives us something to think about for sure, there wouldn't be so much debate if not.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 07:50 PM

Quote:
Quote:
... We can't expect the honeymoon with Iran to last for ever... not without actually doing something constructive.

And that is all you offer in your thread about the honeymoon…

I can't agree with that. Before you asked your question about the Iran pipeline I gave credit to Celandine who had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it. I also offered suggestions for constructive steps that I believed were necessary for normal relations with Iran:

"I would suggest:

- Israel and US to give up nukes and accept international provision of fuel for nuclear power;

- US to stop arming Israel;

- US to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq;

- Israel and US to stop threatening Iran."

Normally I would answer any sensible question that stands to enlighten the thread and can only apologise if I gave the impression of being dismissive of yours. Looking back I probably concluded that the question had been answered in advance by the two posts I have mentioned.

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 08:49 PM

Quote:
Quote:
is the... starvation of Afghani wives not that big a deal

Well, it's a small deal in Afghanistan but a big deal in the West... which is why we shouldn't be fighting for it.

Even though you claim this is an answer, to me it is not!

Yes, it's an answer. His claim that I didn't state my personal morality, not that he's entitled to it, is entirely bogus because to say of wife-starving that "we shouldn't be fighting for it" is to express a subjective judgment.

Quote:
As far as i know you could be an Afghan national with an English Law education from a London university, i dont know you.

I only expect my posts to be considered on merit.

Quote:
don't pretend the answer is obvious when it's not.

I'm saying that the answer is obvious when it is. If I object to troops putting their lives on the line to protect a person promoting sexual slavery it's obvious I'm opposed to sexual slavery - yes?

Quote:
You're just saying that it depends on the point of view.

Not really, I've raised legal objections to sexual slavery in the thread - Statute of Rome

Quote:
And that's what we are seeking, YOUR point of view.

My point of view, expressed in the thread, is that British soldiers should not be dying to defend perpetrators of sexual slavery whom we have a duty to arrest and prosecute under international law. I believe that's been clear all the way through.

km


Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:22 PM

Quote:
"I would suggest:

- Israel and US to give up nukes and accept international provision of fuel for nuclear power;

- US to stop arming Israel;

- US to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq;

- Israel and US to stop threatening Iran."


I would suggest you bring that into another thread - like before I have already gave the true answers to those ideas
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:35 PM

Quote:
I would suggest you bring that into another thread

It came from another thread... I would suggest it belongs in any thread where it's existence is challenged. smirk

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:42 PM

Just did not want to hick this blood feast

No really a thread should contain a single thought subject and not go from airplanes to pigs as an example
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:48 PM

Quote:
a thread should contain a single thought subject

Well, you'd better have a word with those who morphed and personalised my original post.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 09:55 PM


nup

if it's only a matter of opinion,
then I'm allowed mine as well. smile
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/18/09 10:41 PM

You can't agree that that was all you mentioned about The Honeymoon…? Where else do you mention The Honeymoon…?


Instead of being dismissive to my question, when i asked —then and now—, if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have said: "No", since the article about the pipelines was not what you meant.

About the other article you say to Celandine: "That's interesting - I hadn't seen that one.". So that article wasn't really the one you implied in the original post, even though you now credit that: "… Celandine […] had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it.".


OK.…

Thanks for acknowledging my contribution. I had come upon another article —about supposed talks with US that would allow Iranian nuclear refinement— which i then thought could be the honeymoon you where refering to. Apparently you're not telling and you'll ignore that detail about your original post.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 01:51 AM

Quote:
Where else do you mention The Honeymoon…?

Everywhere. The honeymoon refers to a period of relatively good relations between the US and Iran so my four suggestions were offered as formula for prolonging it.

Quote:
if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have said: "No", since the article about the pipelines was not what you meant.

What?

Quote:
About the other article you say to Celandine: "That's interesting - I hadn't seen that one.". So that article wasn't really the one you implied in the original post, even though you now credit that: "… Celandine […] had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it.".

There are two separate articles, one I'd seen and one I hadn't seen. The one I'd seen which rumbled my post was about Hilary in which she is quoted as saying that US engagement was 'not indefinite'. The one I hadn't seen was about Obama.

Quote:
which i then thought could be the honeymoon you where refering to. Apparently you're not telling and you'll ignore that detail about your original post.

The honeymoon I'm referring to is the one Iran is willing to engage upon with the West. My post was saying that we can't expect them to stay engaged forever unless we take constructive steps to allay their concerns - I think that's clear from everything I said in the thread.

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 02:34 AM

Instead of being dismissive to of my question, when i asked —then and now—, the one asking if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have said answered: "No.", since the article about the pipelines was not what the honeymoon that you meant.

—————————————


i understand you much better now.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 03:55 AM

I actually have a theory that KM is not a single person but a group thesis final in a debate class somewhere ... either that or a Psych course, I haven't quite made up my mind yet ;-)

/tinfoilhat
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 04:22 AM

Agreed: Show me just one thread in the history of forums in general that stays exclusively on topic once there are three or four responses.

Disagreed: The thread morphed because I asked you for a clarification of your point, and then asked for YOUR position on the issue you presented as the basis for that point. Someone else offered the clarification, and you never answered the question.

As Reboot has so aptly stated, no one owes anyone else an answer for anything. But when you make a very pointed statement and then refuse to offer your own POV, it calls your rationale into question.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 04:32 AM

Not obvious at all. "I am opposed to sexual slavery, but I do not believe that our troops should be putting their lives on the line to stop it." would have been crystal clear. Why the persistent obfuscation? Why not just say the red car is red and diffuse all the skepticism and suspicion?

Think about it.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 05:28 AM

You're not allowed to comment until you've answered whether you agree with my point. cry

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 05:31 AM

Quote:
"I am opposed to sexual slavery, but I do not believe that our troops should be putting their lives on the line to stop it."

So you still don't get it even after Sarge explained it... the troops aren't putting their lives on the line to stop it but to support it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 06:42 AM

IMHO, there are two ways to look at it. If Karzai is enabling this law because he believes it's the right thing to do, we are dying to support it. But if Karzai is doing it under hardline Taliban pressure, we are fighting to stop it, because if the Taliban is defeated, such laws can be repealed. Whichever rationale you go with, sexual slavery is just one of many, many issues, and the wisdom of sending anyone in harm's way for just the one is flawed.

So sue me for looking at it from two perspectives. And, BTW, I see that the first six words of my hypothetical quote are still being ignored. Hmmmm...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 06:54 AM

Quote:
I see that the first six words of my hypothetical quote are still being ignored. Hmmmm...

No, if you look at my first three posts you'll see I dealt with that. You haven't yet dealt with the question whether you agree with my point, however.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 09:22 AM

As I've already stated throughout this thread, I don't agree with the narrow focus of your point, but I do agree that we're wasting too many lives there within the bigger picture. And I've said it here, here, here, and here. And in most cases, you can skip right to the last sentence in each post. Whether to support it or stop it, wife starving is only one small piece of a war that we ought not prosecute any longer.

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours. Show me one post where you implicitly say that sexual slavery is or isn't a big deal to YOU.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 10:19 AM

Quote:
I don't agree with the narrow focus of your point

At last you've admitted your indifference. What you call the narrow focus of my point is that British forces should not be dying to support a regime promoting sexual slavery. It has a clear duty without more to bring an end to all such support and arrest those in charge. The point stands on its own.

Quote:
Show me one post where you implicitly say that sexual slavery is or isn't a big deal to YOU.

In my opening post I said :

"Oh yeah, that's really worth dying for - wife-starving in Afghanistan"

meaning that in my opinion having regard to our values and obligations wife-starving is the kind of deal for which British forces should not be sacrificing their lives.

In my third post I said that because sexual slavery was a big deal in the West:

"we shouldn't be fighting for it"

meaning that in my opinion if being there means supporting sexual slavery contrary to our values and treaty commitments we need to get out to give opponents a better chance of defeating it.

In my sixth post I said:

"As co-signatory Britain has a duty to bring offenders to justice before the ICC so instead of defending Karzai we should be arresting him"

That meant that in my opinion we can't go on allowing troops to die fighting to defend an illegality. Whether you consider sexual slavery a big deal or not is up to you... as far as I'm concerned it's a false dichotomy because our obligations are clear either way.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Wife-starving - 08/19/09 10:27 AM

So sayeth His Minus, Lord of Ambiguity.