Reason to 'invade' Myanmar?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Would you be truly or correctly represented by others in the absence of your words?

Sometimes, sometimes not. I have never attempted, nor would I, to put words in anyone's mouth. Juantoo is a man I have great respect for here despite that often the only agreement we ever reach is to disagree. But we do not come here to massage each others ego's, we come here to talk and debate about this common interest we all share.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sometimes, sometimes not. I have never attempted, nor would I, to put words in anyone's mouth. Juantoo is a man I have great respect for here despite that often the only agreement we ever reach is to disagree. But we do not come here to massage each others ego's, we come here to talk and debate about this common interest we all share.

Tao

If you don't put words into anyone's mouth, then why do you say their silence conveys you information? How is it that you know everyone's intentions and interests here?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If you don't put words into anyone's mouth, then why do you say their silence conveys you information? How is it that you know everyone's intentions and interests here?

It is you that gives it definition not me. It is you that puts forth an implication not me. As for your last point, work it out for yourself, it is not rocket science. This place is after all called Comparative Religion.

tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is you that gives it definition not me. It is you that puts forth an implication not me. As for your last point, work it out for yourself, it is not rocket science. This place is after all called Comparative Religion.

tao

I agree that assumptions and assertions are not science... or rocket science... though a hypothesis is common in science. More specifically this is a thread in the politics and society section with the topic, "Reason to 'invade' Myanmar", in which you seemed to have an interest to discuss US presidents. Juantoo3 it seems had a different interest, and so did I.

[Tao_Equus]

Assumption again!! I had no desire to discuss US presidents. I only set out to correct a glaring error that appeared to attempt to put the blame for Iraq on Clinton. Perhaps, since you are able to think for Juantoo you might also believe only a democrat President can be blamed ?

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Assumption again!! I had no desire to discuss US presidents. I only set out to correct a glaring error that appeared to attempt to put the blame for Iraq on Clinton. Perhaps, since you are able to think for Juantoo you might also believe only a democrat President can be blamed ?

Tao

Did you come here to talk and debate this common interest that you share with... with former US president Clinton?

[Tao_Equus]

I come here to respond to other peoples posts from my perspective.

Why do you come here?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I come here to respond to other peoples posts from my perspective.

Why do you come here?

I came to this thread because you were responding to someone's silence... from your perspective.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I came to this thread because you were responding to someone's silence... from your perspective.

Well that's that cleared up then. Now what are we going to do?

[greymare]

shake hands and go to different corners, and wait for the bell.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by greymare

shake hands and go to different corners, and wait for the bell.

[Tao_Equus]

Back on topic,

It seems that there is growing evidence that not only are the junta in Myanmar preventing foreign aid but also preventing relatives of those affected from trying to get help to them. I say it needs an immediate UN mandate to go in whether the generals like it or not and with use of force to prevent interference if necessary.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I say it needs an immediate UN mandate to go in whether the generals like it or not and with use of force to prevent interference if necessary.

Your kind words earlier make me want to blush...

I am confused though. I take it you are averse to war? Yet, here you pretty well advocate it? Is this a conscious distinction? War is OK under certain situations, perhaps those that suit one particular moral code, but not another? It is OK to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to bring one moral standard to bear, but not the moral standard of protecting one's own citizens? This sends a really, really mixed signal to me...

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Back on topic,

It seems that there is growing evidence that not only are the junta in Myanmar preventing foreign aid but also preventing relatives of those affected from trying to get help to them. I say it needs an immediate UN mandate to go in whether the generals like it or not and with use of force to prevent interference if necessary.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Your kind words earlier make me want to blush...

I am confused though. I take it you are averse to war? Yet, here you pretty well advocate it? Is this a conscious distinction? War is OK under certain situations, perhaps those that suit one particular moral code, but not another? It is OK to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to bring one moral standard to bear, but not the moral standard of protecting one's own citizens? This sends a really, really mixed signal to me...

My exact reasoning for this contemplation. the whole slippery slope and fine line...who defines it. When it goes right folks are heroes, humanitarians and liberators, when it goes wrong they are invaders and occupiers??

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by wil

My exact reasoning for this contemplation. the whole slippery slope and fine line...who defines it. When it goes right folks are heroes, humanitarians and liberators, when it goes wrong they are invaders and occupiers??