<<Killing law enforcement officers is fighting. But, of course, that was my whole point. The Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan. The fact that they are still attempting to get the land back, only a few years after their defeat, is no more significant than the fact that Canadian Indians are still having to fight for their land. The Seminoles have done nothing I am aware of in two hundred years, but still proudly point to their lack of acquiescence. >>
I think you have a hugely deficient sense of proportion. The scale of Taliban or Iraqi resistance is so far out of proportion to the examples you are citing that it's ludicrous. So too is the fact that in Canada, in Florida, and even in Ireland, the aggressors and their victims were living cheek-by-jowl on the same land - - in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the aggressors have to travel halfway round the world and maintain permanent forces there, which renders an ultimate defeat inevitable for the simple reason that the insurgents live where they fight and the aggressors come from thousands of miles away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The IRA violence prior to about the 1990's was as bad as anything we see in the middle east today. >>
That's absolutely ludicrous. There is no comparison between the casualty figures of Iraq and Northern Ireland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<So I suppose we failed in Panama because we only toppled Noriega and didn't actually make Panama our "19th Province." >>
I think your objective in Panama was to prevent Noriega from nationalizing the Panama Canal. I don't know what deals you have with the puppet government that replaced him, but I am certain of one thing - - whatever plans Noriega had for the Canal were scrapped when you removed him from power, and the new puppet government is not about to reinstate them anytime soon. As a matter of fact, I think what your plan was in Panama is similar to your plan for Iraq, only with oil substituted for the Canal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Come to think of it, the whole American Revolution was an abject failure because we failed to conquer England. Well, God save the Queen. Conquest is not always the aim of war. >>
The aim of the American Revolution was for the colonists to be masters in their own home and - - come to think of it - - is another textbook demonstration of why you can expect to fail in Iraq. The Iraqis can exploit their own natural resources and don't need colonialists half a world away to help themselves to a big piece of their pie any more than the Colonists needed the British.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs in the middle east want to conquer and retake Israel. We had no desire to own Iraq, only to depose the Ba'athist regime.>>
That's pure bullshit. Like the world's second biggest proven oil reserves just get totally overlooked in the calculation. Like the U.S. is really offended by dictatorial rulers, oppression, etc. in the Middle East. The Ba'ath regime in both Syria and Iraq was the LEAST oppressive of women and homosexuals of any in the Middle East. They were two of very few (if any other) Sunni states in which nightclubs served alcohol, women were free to wear Western dress in the street, and dance in the clubs on-stage and on the dance floor. Were it not for the oil, the desire to depose the Ba'athist state would not have existed. Israel has 400 nukes and an outstanding military and can and should defend itself.
<<The chances of that [Ba'athist] regime returning are extremely slim.>>
What's extremely slim are the chances of any kind of significant difference in regime between Saddam Hussein's and whatever Sunni power reasserts itself in Iraq after your sorry asses are finally kicked out. It may very well be Ba'ath Arab Socialist. It's as close to a pan-Arab movement as there is at present and just because the occupying powers and their puppet government have outlawed it will not prevent the Iraqi people from choosing it once they are free to choose. If contrary to my predictions a Shi'ite government ultimately takes over after the U.S. is kicked out, it will probably be run on an Islamic Republic model.
<<So when you said "Nice smear attempt" that was not an accusation of an ad hominem attack? >>
I can't get back from here into the screen in which I said that, so I'll comment on that in the next post. It sure sounds like you were trying to make an
ad hominem attack, otherwise why would I call it a smear attempt?
<<You're whining because I am calling you out for acting like a child. >>
What better cause for whining? I sure as hell wouldn't whine if you were complimenting me on my suavity and maturity. Since I never act like a child, why would I NOT complain at such a ridiculous insult?
<<It's the way you debate when you start to lose.>>
Bullshit. Provide an example, first of my alleged "starting to lose," which rarely happens, and when it does, I usually acknowledge my error, apologize if appropriate, and move on and then (if you can) provide an example of my not only "starting to lose" but also "acting like a child" when I do.
<< Now you complain about my ignoring the substance of your argument. Nonsense. i have addressed all of your points ad naseum. >>
Right. I provide specific examples, you come up with a general denial. Impressive. Convincing.
<<That does not equate to the US getting their "asss kicked." It equates to people resisting an occupying army. That's a fact of life. Again, if we use the schoolyard metaphor, we may take a few punches, but you should see the other guy.>>
When the occupying country consists of 300 million people, and has the most advanced weaponry in the world, and is unable in four years to subdue a country of 23 million people, that is what
I call "getting your ass kicked." YOU may call it anything you choose. It should be obvious to you that the cost of continuing occupation is unsustainable and that you will shortly have to pull out leaving the country by whatever means they see fit to determine who their future government will be. That will be your final humiliation, richly deserved. Don't even think at that time of comparing yourselves to "the other guy" because the comparison will only show who the
real tough guys are in this world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< . . . your assertion that I did not understand the unity of the Iranian people and how that differed from the factionalism in Iraq even though I had pointed exactly that out in the post to which you were responding. >>
Seems like a very minor point not even worth going back and checking up on. If I mistook your meaning, I mistook your meaning and you corrected me. BFD. My own recollection was that you somehow cited the difference in a way that led me to think, rightly or wrongly, you did not appreciate its significance. It just isn't interesting enough to debate further, since we both seem to be on the same page with respect to that issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Actually, the "little but crazy" part was intended to be humorous. >>
So was the "How about ROTFL" part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<So effectively, you think it is perfectly OK to call me a "fucking war criminal" >>
I didn't know you were a fucking war criminal, so why would I call you that? It never happened.
____________________________________________
<< . . . and act like a kid instead of choosing a rational debatge style >>
I don't believe that an expression of outrage and anger over Amerikkkan actions in the world is "acting like a kid." Adults can and should get outraged when faced with the crimes and atrocities of the Bush administration and I believe that one of the major faults of your MSM is that you are shielded much more than is good for you from such expressions of anger. You have literally no conception of the amount of justified anger that the world has focused in your direction, and ludicrous questions such as "Why do they hate us?" are all too common as a result.
-----------------------------------------------------
<<(which, apparently [choosing a rational debate style] you DO choose to do when faced with a possible personal response) because of your anonymity. >>
I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I choose a rational debate style in everything I post. If you can't follow my reasoning, you have only to ask and I will spell it out for you. The idea that I customarily debate in childish gibberish and choose to become rational only when personally challenged is ludicrous. Again, you come out with ridiculous blanket accusations with no specifics to back them up and expect me to respond. "Bullshit" is the best response to that tactic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT <<Geeze, I'll try to watch myself in the future. What's a nice way to say "fucking war criminals?">>
Pooch <<Having sex with Hitler and Saddam?>>
LOL. Yes, and with Bush and Cheney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<We fucking war criminals call that cowardice. It takes little courage to call someone a name over the internet. It takes more to call them something to their face. But what takes more courage than either is to engage someone courteously even when you are angry, to treat other human beings with the decency you demand when there is no other motivation for it than decency and to look - as you advice - to the motivation behind someone else's actions. >>
This isn't about calling someone "a name" over the internet. It's not a purely gratuitous insult. This is characterizing a criminal action as such, when it has publicly received way too much respect and deference. When the respect that a nation is characteristically expected to show to its fighting men is used to cloak and excuse their crimes and atrocities, its time to choke off the flow of respect that enables the crimes to continue unchallenged (or ineffectually challenged) on an on-going basis. There are bodies piled up and piling up, and your only concern is whether my words show courage or cowardice? What is your point? That when crimes are committed, only those who can personally face up mano-a-mano to the criminals and defeat them in combat have the right to public outrage? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard of. Do you think any of the judges at the Nuremburg trial would have had the balls to walk up to Hitler or Goering at the height of their powers and told them to their face, "Hey you are nothing but a fucking war criminal?" What kind of crazy world do you live in anyway? You can't silence an accusation of murder and torture by claiming that I wouldn't make it to the face of the murderer and torturer. Of course not. He'd punch my fucking lights out. Does that make him right and me wrong? Only a fascist or Nazi worshiper of power for the sake of power could think like that.
<<I could go on about the fiasco that is the United Nations. >>
Of course. Any organization, even if founded by Americans, to end war and replace the law of the jungle with the rule of law would be anathema to Amerikkkan fascists who iive by the law of the jungle and believe in their divine right to attack any nation they wish for whatever bogus reason they can invent, international law be damned. You hate the U.N. for the same reason the outlaw hates the lawman and your inspiration comes straight from the top, from your "President" and his handlers.
<< I could talk about how much the US has done for the world in the twentieth century >>
Sure you could toot your own horn indefinitely as your country usually does about its great beneficence, forgetting how much of it is purely self-interest (the Marshall Plan being a perfect example) and Lend-Lease probably being the last genuine benevolent example. You are really living in the past - - the U.S. hasn't been a force for good in the world since the end of WWII and the defeat of Henry Wallace. Everything you turned your hand to since then has involved blood and guts and the deaths of innocent millions.
<< . . . and how much good will, blood and treasure of ours has been wasted in the effort. >>
Please spare us the bullshit. Or at least add a little violin music to go with it.
<<If millions are angry at American actions, millions of Americans are fed up with third world nations that scream for our foreign aid, beg us to solve their problems and then bitch when we get involved (or when we stay uninvolved).>>
Conveniently forgetting that many if not most of their major problems are now seen accurately for what they are, the results of your ruthless exploitation of Third World nations, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable among them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<I don't really care about your opinion of America. I don't buy your rationalizations,
based on personal bigotry, about your warped perception of American actions. >>
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot - - the standard whine about "anti-Americanism." As if every legitimate complaint about every one of the millions of innocent maimed and dead, the hundreds of millions impoverished to enrich your "World Bank" and "IMF" lenders is just baseless "anti-Americanism." Well, THAT was as inevitable as death and taxes. Talk about stock responses. You've got the full repertoire, from "all the good America does" to "third world nations screaming for our foreign aid" to "anti-Americanism." Bravo!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The metaphor [cockroaches] was foolish and I merely pointed out the foolishness of it. There was absolutely no element of moral outrage (as you claim) in any of my posts dealing with it. You seem to be trying to eke a lot of mileage out of the fact that I failed to jump on it the first time it cropped up. You say lots of things I take issue with, I can't jump on every one the first time I see it. I try to deal with the most salient points in order of importance, but when the discussion took the turn that it did, I dealt with that point when IMHO it became appropriate. Sue me for not raising it earlier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<But when you choose a style that devolves into schoolyard brawling, then you call for respectful consideration of your points, it is a waste of my time. Worse, it often brings me down to the same level. That's not only a waste of time, it is a waste of spirit.>>
I never called for "respectful" consideration, I was pissed off that you chose to concentrate exclusively on the style and not the substance. That IMHO is not even a response. I never indicated that any particular way of your expressing agreement or disagreement was preferable to any other. Respond in any way you feel comfortable with. I don't like
ad hominem attacks but you must have noticed by now that I have no problem in responding to them - - so far in this post alone, I have fielded accusations of childishness, cowardice, whining and bigotry, and probably left out or ignored quite a few others. All in a good day's work. They're kind of funny, actually.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<That, sir [that the U.S. is hated for its interference in Muslim lands and its theft or attempted theft of their land and resources] is bullshit. But of course the Taliban denies their women education and destroys ancient artifacts of a rival religion because of US interference in their lives. Iran executes gays because of those damned Americans, Saddam gassed the Kurds because of that bastard Bush. It's amazing how you whine about the US and blame them for the world's ills. But you completely ignore what those poor innocents Muslim fanactics are up to.>>
Your whole response is bullshit. A deliberate attempt to change the subject. There is no doubt at all that most of these countries are violent, ignorant and backward. That was never in issue and I did not attempt to blame ALL of their problems on the U.S. Many of their problems are in fact created or maintained by the U.S. but some are also due to their own backwardness. However the issue was not - - and my comment did not deal with - - why the Arabs and Persians were backward, or specifically, why they oppressed women, executed gays or gassed Kurds. I dealt specifically with their anti-American anger,
and suggested very specific reasons for it. YOU chose to label my reasons "bullshit" without even dealing with them, and instead attempted to deflect the entire conversation into an emotional indictment of the Arabs and Persians and their "backwardness." Again, fooling no one.
<<But when people fly planes into buildings, strap on bombs and walk into discos or takeover schools and murder children - we should respond in kind. >>
I think what you had better do is recognize that you are at war with a segment of the Muslim population. When 911 occurred, you were already responsible for the deaths of many more Muslims than they killed in America. Since it was Amerikkka that provoked the actors in 911, talk of "retaliating in kind" becomes ludicrous. 911 was itself retaliation for earlier unprovoked aggression. Retaliating for retaliation is just entering into a vicious circle of violence and counter-violence. It guarantees only that more attacks will be mounted from people who have absolutely no fear of death.
<< I don't like Muslims oppressing women - millions object to it including millions of Islamic women. But I wouldn't have the slightest objection to executing any who condoned suicide bombing Mosques to end that oppression. >>
False analogy. We're talking about an original offence that goes way beyond "oppression" of women, which is in fact a cultural pattern that many "oppressed" women have no objection to. In any event the "oppression" of Muslim women, except at the extreme end of the spectrum, is nowhere near the level of injustice in the oppression of the West Bank Arabs by the Jews or the oppression of the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. by the U.S.-protected rulers.
<<The fact that many choose to murder
because they feel their opinions are not getting through does not mean we should acquiese to their demands. >>
More bullshit. This is way beyond their opinions getting through. This is a response to the murderous regimes foisted on the Arabs by America, on the theft of Palestinian land, etc. This is payback for crimes that have impoverished millions and taken the lives of tens of thousands. It's as though misrepresenting my views or the views of others is just second nature to you.
