DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on November 08, 2007, 01:30:11 PM
-
November 8, 2007
Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says
By DAMIEN CAVE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 ? American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the ?surge? to depart as planned.
Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some 13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, ?there?s just no question? that violence had declined since a spike in June.
?Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,? and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.
General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis? rejection of ?the rule of the gun.?
His comments, in a broad interview over egg rolls and lo mein in a Green Zone conference room, were the latest in a series of upbeat assessments he and other commanders have offered in recent months. But his descriptions revealed a city still in transition: tormented by its past, struggling to find a better future.
?The Iraqi people have just decided that they?ve had it up to here with violence,? he said, while noting that their demands for electricity, water and jobs have intensified.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of displaced families are returning to their homes, but a majority of them are still afraid to go back to neighborhoods now segregated by sect. ?Clearly,? General Fil said, ?it will take some time for Baghdad to restore itself to what it was.?
He and other military commanders have maintained for months that the conditions for national reconciliation have been met. They argue that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led, has been weakened. They cite in particular the rise of the American-supported citizen volunteers ? 67,000 nationwide, according to military figures.
And though Sunni extremist groups could revive and ?reinfest very quickly,? General Fil said, Iraq?s leaders should now have the peace they need to build a trusted, cross-sectarian government. But progress toward that, he said, has been ?disappointing.?
Soon, General Fil said, there will be fewer troops for the Iraqis to rely on. ?Already we are at a point where we?ll see that as the surge forces depart the city, we?ll see a natural decline in numbers, and I?m very comfortable where that comes to,? he said.
With less than two months to go before his division heads home, General Fil offered a mixed vision of the military?s role for the coming year. He said that if 2007 was the year of security, 2008 would probably be ?a year of reconstruction, a year of infrastructure repair, and a year of, if there?s going to be a surge, a year of the surge of the economy.?
He acknowledged that dislodging Shiite militias from control of gasoline, government ministries and other sources of power would be difficult.
The biggest threat to Baghdad?s security is now Shiite militias, he said. Infrastructure weaknesses and unemployment are also serious obstacles, which American efforts at the local level cannot fully address because ?these become national-level problems,? he said. Violence, meanwhile, despite recent declines in some areas, has moved to some degree to rural villages and towns from major cities, American and Iraqi commanders said.
On Wednesday, two children were killed when a roadside bomb exploded on a farm road in Wasit Province. South of Baquba, Iraqi army patrols found 17 bodies, blindfolded, handcuffed and decayed. Four were found headless about 200 yards away. It was the second mass grave discovered in a rural area this week.
American troops have recently focused more operations on the farm towns and dusty villages of the country, with the latest coming this week outside Kirkuk in the north.
The operations are aimed at maintaining what General Fil described as vital momentum. The greatest challenge of the coming months, he said, will be satisfying the delicate hopes and expectations of Iraqis, who see security not as an end, but just as a beginning.
Stability, General Fil said, ?is within sight but not yet within touch.?
?Close, but not yet within touch.?
Reporting was contributed by Khalid al-Ansary, Anwar J. Ali and Mudhafer al-Husaini from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Baquba and Kirkuk.
-
This was reported on page A19 of the New York Times.
Like the antiwar folks here, they don't want to talk about good news either.
-
<<Like the antiwar folks here, they don't want to talk about good news either>>
That's not good news any more than a Nazi report from occupied Poland claiming a 90% reduction in attacks on Nazi occupation forces would be good news.
Hopefully it's either bullshit or temporary and this criminal fascist aggression will ultimately be defeated and the rule of international law restored.
-
America has defeated the forces of evil throughout the world time and time again (Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, and now Saddam Hussein and Islamo-fascists). Throughout history it has fallen to America to rid the world of these kinds of evil. Defeating evil in the world is always a good thing. That is for people who want evil and the terrorists to lose and democracy to win.
-
<<America has defeated the forces of evil throughout the world time and time again (Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union . . . >>
FYI, it was the SOVIET UNION and the BRITISH EMPIRE that defeated Germany as much as and probably more than the U.S.A., and there was nothing evil in the U.S.S.R. that wasn't equally matched in the U.S.A. Just so we're clear on this, no blacks were ever lynched in the Soviet Union.
<< . . . and now Saddam Hussein and Islamo-fascists). >>
That's rich (no pun intended.) The U.S.A. virtually created the so-called "Islamofascists" and as for Saddam Hussein they gave him many a helping hand up the ladder of power, despite his now-lamented "gassing of his own people" and his rape rooms and torture chambers. NONE of that bothered any American administration, Republican or Democratic, until Saddam thought to help himself to the Kuwaiti oil fields, thereby violating the divide-and-conquer scheme of "borders" arbitrarily imposed on the Middle East by the French and British after WWI.
<<Throughout history it has fallen to America to rid the world of these kinds of evil.>>
Next thing you're going to try to tell us is that the U.S.A. was "ridding the world of evil" in the Spanish-American War, when it subdued the Philippine rebellion by torture and massacre. The U.S.A. was NEVER "ridding the world of evil" except through a fluke in WWII. Usually, the U.S.A. was the kind of evil the world had to be rid of, as for example when the Royal Navy had to put a stop to the American slave trade.
<<Defeating evil in the world is always a good thing. >>
God-damn right. That's why we need war crimes trials for Bush and Cheney.
<<That is for people who want evil and the terrorists to lose and democracy to win.>>
Yeah, well for starters, we'd like to see some democracy "winning" in the West Bank, where the Jews have kept 3 million Arabs living under a military occupation in defiance of over 60 UN resolutions. We'd like to see some real democracy in U.S.-supported dictatorships like Egypt (supported to the tune - - officially - - of $3 billion per year,) Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. Lying phony bastards, screaming how they love democracy, while supporting dictatorships that jail, torture and kill their own people. We wanted to see democracy in Iran, where the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President and installed the Shah's dictatorship. You wanted to see democracy win? I don't think so - - the record shows what a lie that is.
You want evil to lose? Better start praying for your own defeat, the sooner the better.
You want democracy to win? Cut off the subsidies you pay that enables torture states like Egypt to hold its own people's heads down, cut of the subsidies you pay that enable Israel to keep three million West Bank Arabs in slavery for the benefit of 240,000 Jewish settlers.
What a total crock of shit. "Democracy" "evil" "terrorists" - - it's like you turned around every word 180 degrees so it means the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean when it comes out of your mouth.
-
>> ... and there was nothing evil in the U.S.S.R. ... <<
::)
-
>> ... and there was nothing evil in the U.S.S.R. ... <<
FULL QUOTE, please:
<< . . . and there was nothing evil in the U.S.S.R. that wasn't equally matched in the U.S.A. Just so we're clear on this, no blacks were ever lynched in the Soviet Union. >>
Thank you.
-
Again ....
::)
-
Just so we're clear on this, no blacks were ever lynched in the Soviet Union.
That's right. They were called "pogroms" and the targets were Jews rather than blacks.
-
FYI, it was the SOVIET UNION and the BRITISH EMPIRE that defeated Germany as much as and probably more than the U.S.A.,
Nonsense. Had America not become involved in the war, Great Britain would have fallen and the Soviets would have, at best, contained Germany from further inroads against their (Soviet's) territoy. Indeed, US economic aid before Pearl Harbor probably bought GB a ton of time. I don't disparage the courage and contribution of the British or the Soviets, but the US turned the tide and defeated Germany - and then won in Japan as well.
and there was nothing evil in the U.S.S.R. that wasn't equally matched in the U.S.A.
Show us anything approaching the Stalinist purges. Yes, the US had its share of social ills, but the Soviets were far worse.
Just so we're clear on this, no blacks were ever lynched in the Soviet Union.
How many blacks lived in the Soviet Union? Just to be clear on this, almost all of the crime in Baltimore City is committed by Blacks. And the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients in that city are black. There are more teenage pregnancies among Blacks in that city than any other ethicity. So obviously Blacks are evil bastards. It could be that the population of Baltimore is over 75 percent African-American and these figures are simply reflective of the demographics, but that wouldn't fit the "Blacks are evil" theory. As Ami has pointed out, the fact that the Soviets had a different target doesn't mean a thing. The claim that "no Blacks were lynched" (and it is simply a claim, for all I know any Blacks that may have lived in the Soviet Union may have been fried and served with Borsch) is specious.
That's rich (no pun intended.)
Well, dammit, there should have been!
-
<<Nonsense. Had America not become involved in the war, Great Britain would have fallen and the Soviets would have, at best, contained Germany from further inroads against their (Soviet's) territoy. >>
Huh? Had the British not held out against the Germans in 1940 but surrendered itself and its Empire to Germany, the U.S. would have been totally fucked for good. As far as the war in Europe went, the Red Army accounted for most of the Nazi casualties. The U.S. and Britain, despite promises made to Stalin, refrained from opening a Western front for over a year, hoping that the Nazis and the Red Army would tear each other to pieces, but in 1944 were forced to invade France when it became apparent that the Red Army could drive all the way to the English Channel without them.
<<Indeed, US economic aid before Pearl Harbor probably bought GB a ton of time. >>
Possibly. There's no way the British and the British Empire would have been defeated with or without U.S. aid.
<<I don't disparage the courage and contribution of the British or the Soviets, but the US turned the tide and defeated Germany >>
That's bullshit. They jumped in at the last possible moment when it had become apparent that the Red Army was going to take all of Western Europe if they didn't.
<< . . . and then won in Japan as well.>>
THAT at least is true.
-
That's bullshit. They jumped in at the last possible moment when it had become apparent that the Red Army was going to take all of Western Europe if they didn't.
ROFLMAO
Here's a link to troop movements in late 1941. Doesn't look like the Soviets are taking anything, to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-09.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-09.png)
The Soviets didn't start having advances (other than a few small ones, most of which was later re-taken by the Germans) into Europe until August '43, well after the US joined the war.
-
<<ROFLMAO
<<Here's a link to troop movements in late 1941. Doesn't look like the Soviets are taking anything, to me.
<<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-09.png
<<The Soviets didn't start having advances (other than a few small ones, most of which was later re-taken by the Germans) into Europe until August '43, well after the US joined the war.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little confused over time-lines, are we? "Late 1941" troop movements had nothing to do with the point I was making, the timing of (a) the date by which Britain and the U.S. had promised a Second Front in the West and (b) the actual date that they opened the Second Front (June 6, 1944, about a year after they had promised.) Their only reason for holding back? The vain hope that the Nazis would destroy the Red Army and the "Western Allies" could just pick up the pieces, finishing off the Red Army's work on the decimated Nazis.
The Red Army victory over the Nazis and their allies at Stalingrad, which took place in Dec. 42-Jan. 43, was the turning point of the war in Europe, the first major defeat and surrender of a Nazi army since they started the war. Roughly two out of every three dead Nazis were killed at the hands of the Red Army.
I have seen a lot of BS posted here about the supplies provided by the U.S.A. to both Britain and the U.S.S.R. as being key to the final victory. Undoubtedly they were very helpful. Marshall Zhukov, in his memoirs, says that the biggest U.S. contribution was n motorized transport, and puts it at about 15% of the Red Army's total supply. The Americans in this group seem to put it at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 101% of everything the Red Army had. Regardless. Without the huge sacrifices in British Empire and Russian lives - - sacrifices not even remotely matched by the U.S.A. - - they would of course have been utterly useless. Yes, the material supplied had to have been helpful, but the victory was an Allied victory, with by far the greater cost being paid by America's allies. The right-wing nutcases in this group seem to believe the U.S.A. did it all on its own.
-
A little confused over time-lines, are we? "Late 1941" troop movements had nothing to do with the point I was making, the timing of (a) the date by which Britain and the U.S. had promised a Second Front in the West and (b) the actual date that they opened the Second Front (June 6, 1944, about a year after they had promised.)
Then perhaps you should have either elaborated, or used a different phrase than "jumped in." I took that phrase to mean the entry of the US into the war.
-
Marshall Zhukov, in his memoirs, says that the biggest U.S. contribution was n motorized transport, and puts it at about 15% of the Red Army's total supply.
I guess it would depend on the definition of "motorized transport." Undoubtedly, they used many more of their own armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) then our equipment, mostly for ordinance compatibility. For transport vehicles, though, the story is a bit different. Trucks, for example. Russia supplied it's own troops with 197,100 trucks, while the US supplied Russia via Lend-Lease with 375,883 trucks. Obviously, we were supplying a majority of their "non-fighting" supply of vehicles, because a truck (or a jeep) is a truck (or a jeep). They concentrated their production capability on AFVs, while picking up the non-fighting (but necessary for supplying troops) vehicles from the US.
-
MT: "Just so we're clear on this, no blacks were ever lynched in the Soviet Union."
Actually, there is no real way to know this. Besides, a nation as large and diverse as Russia has to have many minority populations that are treated poorly, etc. Remember, the White Russians have pretty much controlled things for how long now?
-
<<Actually, there is no real way to know this. [that no blacks were lynched in the U.S.S.R.] Besides, a nation as large and diverse as Russia has to have many minority populations that are treated poorly, etc. Remember, the White Russians have pretty much controlled things for how long now?>>
My point, Professor, was to counter the suggestion that the U.S.S.R. was some kind of evil state whereas the U.S.A. is some kind of good-goody state. IMHO, no state or nation or people has a monopoly on virtue or vice and it's extremely irritating to see Americans acting out this charade of vice and virtue as if they had the right to point their accusing fingers at any other people. While they certainly aren't the worst of the worst, there is no way that they are better than anyone else and they shouldn't pretend that they are. The rest of the world knows better and finds it very annoying when they do.
-
"My point, Professor, was to counter the suggestion that the U.S.S.R. was some kind of evil state whereas the U.S.A. is some kind of good-goody state."
The USA is a "goody goody" state. Americans do more for this world than any number of other countries combined. That isn't to say other countries don't help those in need, it's just that America has more resources which it can use. America has liberated millions of people in the 20th century alone. Along with it's allies America defeated the brutal regimes of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. As for the Soviets, the numbers differ, but I think it's safe to say that Stalin himself is responsible for 30 million of his own people's death. Those deaths are a fact, indisputable. Even the Russians admit it. Post WWII the Soviets enslaved countries and took them by force. They put up a wall to keep people in. Those caught trying to escape were shot. Was the Soviet Union an evil state? President Ronald Reagan described them it as an evil empire. He was right.
America isn't perfect, but she always fights on the side of good.
-
<<America isn't perfect . . . >>
That's a classic cop-out. Nobody is making an issue out of whether America is perfect or not. The allegation was that America has done plenty of evil shit (and some good) but has no right to point out the evil shit of other nations as if she (America) had none of her own.
<< . . . but she always fights on the side of good.>>
A little more tardily than others, to be sure. Didn't come into WWII until attacked by the Japs and forced in, in Dec. 1941, whereas we Canadians, British and British Empire forces had been in since fall of 1939 AND entered it voluntarily to punish Germany for attacking Poland. NOBODY had to force us to "fight on the side of good" as you put it, this was our own conscious choice. The U.S. stayed out as long as it could, and if not attacked (foolishly enough) by the Japs would NEVER have dared to enter the battle.
I wouldn't call your one-sided invasions of Viet Nam or Iraq "fighting on the side of good," they are criminal aggressions in flagrant violation of international law and basic war crimes for which other men have been hanged after doing the exact same thing. (waging wars of aggression)
Neither are your underhanded subversions of democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and more recently, Venezuela, "fighting on the side of good." They are quite simply fascist interventions aimed at destroying democracy anywhere on earth that the people choose a path not approved by Uncle Sam.
-
>>The allegation was that America has done plenty of evil shit ... <<
Of course that allegation is ridiculous.
-
Oh, and Mike, your view of history is (to use the word again) patently ridiculous.
As for Vietnam, the 3 million who where murdered by the communists after we were forced to leave might argue with you about who the criminals were, but then I don't really expect you to think to much about it.
American has done more for more people than any other country in the world. Hey, the French even love us!
-
<<America isn't perfect . . . >>
That's a classic cop-out. Nobody is making an issue out of whether America is perfect or not. The allegation was that America has done plenty of evil shit (and some good) but has no right to point out the evil shit of other nations as if she (America) had none of her own.
<< . . . but she always fights on the side of good.>>
A little more tardily than others, to be sure. Didn't come into WWII until attacked by the Japs and forced in, in Dec. 1941, whereas we Canadians, British and British Empire forces had been in since fall of 1939 AND entered it voluntarily to punish Germany for attacking Poland. NOBODY had to force us to "fight on the side of good" as you put it, this was our own conscious choice. The U.S. stayed out as long as it could, and if not attacked (foolishly enough) by the Japs would NEVER have dared to enter the battle.
I wouldn't call your one-sided invasions of Viet Nam or Iraq "fighting on the side of good," they are criminal aggressions in flagrant violation of international law and basic war crimes for which other men have been hanged after doing the exact same thing. (waging wars of aggression)
Neither are your underhanded subversions of democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and more recently, Venezuela, "fighting on the side of good." They are quite simply fascist interventions aimed at destroying democracy anywhere on earth that the people choose a path not approved by Uncle Sam.
There is unfortunatley some truth here. It is widely rumored, for example, that FDR knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor BEFORE it transpired and let it happen anyway so as to bring America into the war. And the whole Lend Lease concept was a thinly-veiled attempt to boldly help Great Britain even though we were technically neutral. Quite simply, America in many ways was highly isolationist at that time.
-
<<Oh, and Mike, your view of history is (to use the word again) patently ridiculous.>>
Sure. Because you say so, Rich. I trust you. I can see how much history you know. I feel so dwarfed by your immense knowledge of history that I'm just gonna empty out my whole brain right now of all my ignorant ideas and start filling it again from scratch, so one day I'll know as much as you do. Say, I bet even as I'm typing this there's probably an excellent historical documentary on Fox News telling us how America won WWII all by itself and then saved the world again and again afterwards. I gotta go watch!
<<As for Vietnam, the 3 million who where murdered by the communists after we were forced to leave . . . >>
ROTFLMFAO, that's hilarious, I mean that's very interesting. Where on earth do you FIND this crap, I mean, can you please tell me which historians have documented this all for us, so that I can learn real history, the kind that Newt Gingrich writes about?
<<might argue with you about who the criminals were, but then I don't really expect you to think to much about it.>>
HELL NO, I'm not the thinker, Rich. That's YOUR department. I just need guys like you to guide me in my halting, stumbling search for basic knowledge.
<<American has done more for more people than any other country in the world. >>
Yeah, I guess if you count napalming little kids as "doing for," you're not gonna get any argument from me.
<<Hey, the French even love us!>>
Well, I guess that settles it, then. 60 million Frenchmen can't be wrong!!
-
A little more tardily than others, to be sure. Didn't come into WWII until attacked by the Japs and forced in, in Dec. 1941, whereas we Canadians, British and British Empire forces had been in since fall of 1939 AND entered it voluntarily to punish Germany for attacking Poland. NOBODY had to force us to "fight on the side of good" as you put it, this was our own conscious choice. The U.S. stayed out as long as it could, and if not attacked (foolishly enough) by the Japs would NEVER have dared to enter the battle.
That is an absolutely ridiculous argument. What gives Great Britain the right to punish anyone? The United States entered WWII because it was directly attacked. Great Britain and her pathetically waning "empire" entered the war in order to interfere in another nation's affairs. This is just another example of centuries of British aggression and imperialism - which continues even today in such places as the Malvinas. Canada, of course, never really initiates any productive actions - they just do what they're told by their betters in London and Washington.
I wouldn't call your one-sided invasions of Viet Nam or Iraq "fighting on the side of good," they are criminal aggressions in flagrant violation of international law and basic war crimes for which other men have been hanged after doing the exact same thing. (waging wars of aggression)
One-sided invasions? Nonsense. We were punishing the communist aggressors and the murderous Ba'athist regime. It's what decent nations do. Canada would never DARE to defend other oppressed peoples.
Neither are your underhanded subversions of democratically elected governments in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and more recently, Venezuela, "fighting on the side of good." They are quite simply fascist interventions aimed at destroying democracy anywhere on earth that the people choose a path not approved by Uncle Sam.
Yeah. The people of Iran had choice taken away from them by the Supreme Counsel. Venezuelans are protesting in the streets trying to regain their freedoms as Chavez tightens his grip - and many have left in fear for their lives. It is entirely appropriate that we punish them.
My point, in case you miss it in your blind and bigotted rage against the United States, is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable. You are one of many Canadians with a seething sense of sibling rivalry against your relevant neighbor to the South. The people who kept the US out of WWII (until Japan's invasion made entry inevitable) were the same silly pacifist elements who whine today about US "aggression." People like you would have raised bloody hell about US aggression had we entered the war without a direct threat. I'm certain that lots of folks spent a lot of ink and tears on the argument that Germany's aggression and Japan's militaristic aims posed no threat to the United States. We know as a fact that much of the world ignored the systematic persecutions of Jews in Germany. And Neville Chamberlain is a great example of the bravery of the British government in facing down aggression. The US had as much right to invade Iraq as the British had to attack Germany. It has as much right to protect its interests in the world as the UK had to defend the Falklands.
There are many who would agree with you that the US waited woefully long to enter WWII - I would be among them. But had the US entered earlier, I would bet a silk pajama that the Michael Tee's in the world would be ranting about US aggression in WWII. The world cried a million tears over US reluctance to get involved in the Bosnian mess. And there are many today screaming about the lack of US involvement in any number of third world genocides and internal conflicts. It's very much like parents trying to solve fights between their kids. Everyone wants you to get involved on their side of any conflict but screams like hell if you get involved on the other persons side - or sits in lofty judgement when viewing your efforts with the other kids. Whenever we interfere with something you think is right, we are terrible aggressors. Whenever we refuse to get involved with something you disapprove of, we are negligent, uncaring and cowardly. There is no doubt that the US does its share of power plays in the world. It is perfectly legitimate to point to areas where the US has done its share of dirty work. But it certainly hasn't surpassed the history of imperialism that Great Britain and other European powers have exhibited.
Although it got lost in my last post because I typed in a "quote" label wrong, the US has nothing to equal the Stalinist purges or the Nazi holocaust - at least not in the twentieth century. One could certainly claim that the decimation of the Native American population in the 17th through 19th centuries was equal or worse - but of course Great Britain, Canada and other European powers are equally guilty of that crime. While the Soviets may never have "lynched blacks" there are probably very few blacks to lynch there - and as Ami pointed out, they were just as guilty in their treatment of Jews and others.
The fact is, while many in the world legitimately question US motives and actions, most people who do not have a built-in bias recognize that the US is generally a force for good. Your blind hatred is based on the Canadian inferiority complex and the left's blistering disappointment that the great Socialist dream that Marx and Lenin fought for has proven itself to be a failure. Canada is generally left alone by the Al Quaeda types largely because it generally stays out of other people's affairs and seldom offers resistance or assistance to other people. There is some great merit in that stance, but there is also a free ride in world opinion. Nobody gives Canada a thought for the same reason that nobody gives Iceland a thought (except strategically). Neither is relevant one way or another to anyone. That's just fine. It's a stress-free existence and more power to you.
The US, however, does not have that luxury. We have a huge economy, a large amount of geographic space and a relatively large population. Our turn on the world's stage as dominant power - which is quite probably waning - has been full of the inherent good and evil actions, policies and attitudes that have existed in world powers since ancient times. But as society has evolved, the actions of world powers have evolved as well. The US won its land through conquest, and influences the world through military and economic strength. Name one power that hasn't. But the fact is, there is far more good about the US way of governance than about Communism, Dictatorship or Sharia law. Bush may well be evil incarnate, but he is gone in 2008 and if he were to try to pull what Chavez or Mushariff have done he would be drop-kicked right out of office in less than a day. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and the crazy Clerics of the Iranian Supreme Council require force of arms for removal - whether through internal revolution or external interference. And while US policies have much to do with power and much less to do with idealism, the fact is that our ideals ARE better than those of other systems. Freedom of expression beats government controlled thought any day. Free elections are far better than military force, theocratic vetting or inherited dictatorships. Freedom of religion is far better than establishment. And though it will make you howl with righteous indignation, personal responsibility is far greater than government care.
Bottom line: Capitalism is better than Socialism. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Choice is better than forced compliance. Tolerance is better than Theocracy. Any way you stack it, the United States is better than any other major world power in terms of its core ideals, if not always in terms of its actions. Canada, of course, has most of those ideals straight - and far fewer of those actions wrong. But it is easy to act responsibily when you have no real responsibility.
-
Touche' Pooch. Great rebuttal 8)
-
Pooch -- an exemplary post. Insightful.
Thank you.
-
<<That is an absolutely ridiculous argument. [that Great Britain went to war to punish Germany for attacking Poland] What gives Great Britain the right to punish anyone? >>
Ooops, I'm afraid I got carried away there. Sorry, Pooch. Great Britain, of course, did not go to war to punish Germany. Great Britain and France were bound by treaty to come to the defence of Poland it it were attacked by Germany. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, the British and French delivered an ultimatum to the Germans to get out of Poland, which expired on September 3rd, which is when the British and French declared war on Germany.
<<The United States entered WWII because it was directly attacked. Great Britain and her pathetically waning "empire" entered the war in order to interfere in another nation's affairs. >>
Well, that was a treaty obligation, but the original error was mine, so I'll let it pass. The "pathetically waning empire" was Britain's strongest support after the Fall of France and the U.S. refusal to enter the conflict. As Winston Chuchill put it (best as I can remember) "And now the old lion, with her lion cubs at her side, stands alone against hunters who are armed with deadly weapons . . . "
<<This is just another example of centuries of British aggression and imperialism >>
The British took great responsibility for their empire - - they provided the civil adminsitration framework, the law courts, the police, the postal system, the railways - - every God-damn thing which those countries needed. They did NOT, as the Americans do, instal some tinpot dictator, to rule over the oppressed populace with his secret police and his torture chambers. There is no British Batista, Trujillo, Shah of Iran, etc. You are so far beneath the British as administrators of an empire that I am amazed you would even want to initiate the comparison.
<<which continues even today in such places as the Malvinas. >>
WHAAAAAT? The British were defending their own in the Falkland Islands. If you noticed, all of the islands' inhabitants were ENGLISH. For some strange and inexplicable reason, they did not wish to come under the rule of an Argentinian junta which by that time had probably tortured to death about 50,000 students and workers and dumped their bodies all over the country and in the ocean.
<<Canada, of course, never really initiates any productive actions - they just do what they're told by their betters in London and Washington.>>
The Canadian Parliament actually debated for some weeks before deciding to go to war against Germany. It was a consciously taken decision which obviously did not sit well with the French Canadians.
As for listening to their "betters" in Washington, I don't know of a single Canadian who wouldn't freely admit that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a far better man in every way than MacKenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister of the day, or that Roosevelt's cabinet was an infinitely superior group of politicians to our own gang of nobodies; YOUR problem is that your country today is running as fast as it can from every single accomplishment of FDR and the New Deal, from the United Nations to Social Security. If the U.S. today were run by men of the calibre of FDR and his Brain Trust, I wouldn't have a word to say against the country. The tragedy is that it's run by men closer to Hitler on the political spectrum than they are to FDR.
<<One-sided invasions? Nonsense. We were punishing the communist aggressors and the murderous Ba'athist regime. It's what decent nations do. Canada would never DARE to defend other oppressed peoples. >>
Ludicrous bullshit. Didn't fly then (hence the need to invent the pretext, the Tonkin Gulf incident) and it doesn't fly now (hence the need to invent the pretext, WMD.) You're there to steal their oil, plain and simple. There are numerous dictatorships all over the world, some of them closer to home, which you have PROMOTED, never mind never invaded. You are supporting "murderous regimes" everywhere and ignoring others. THIS ONE had the oil, THIS ONE got invaded. Who do you really think you are fooling with this BS?
<<Yeah. The people of Iran had choice taken away from them by the Supreme Counsel. >>
Sorry, Pooch, that one you'll have to explain to me. The people of Iran had elected the government of Mohammed Mossadegh, who then nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and was subsequently overthrown by a CIA-managed coup and replaced by the Shah of Iran. I don't even think there is or was any such thing as a "Supreme Counsel" in Iran, and if there were, its actions couldn't possibly give you the right to overthrow a democratically elected government. That would be for the people of Iran themselves to look after if they cared to do so.
<< Venezuelans are protesting in the streets trying to regain their freedoms as Chavez tightens his grip - and many have left in fear for their lives. It is entirely appropriate that we punish them. >>
Bullshit. The middle class naturally protests against Chavez' version of socialism. Plenty of blacks protested in the streets of Amerikkka trying to gain (not regain) their freedoms - - what country got the right to invade the U.S.A. because of that? Besides that - - who has Chavez killed, that these gusanos "left in fear for their lives?" And what if they were in fear of their lives, unlikely though that may be? Are you saying the state has no right to protect itself from parasites and subversives?
<<My point, in case you miss it in your blind and bigotted rage against the United States, is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable. >>
I'm not going to meekly accept that kind of garbage. You managed so far to keep this above the ad hominem level but I guess that was ultimately too much of an effort. Still I'm not gonna descend to that level. My "rage" [it's actually anger] against the U.S. is neither blind nor bigotted. It's been directed as you very well know at specific historical acts, deeds, failures to act, etc., each of which I took the trouble to name and identify. It's total bullshit to call that "blind" in any normal sense of the word. "Bigotted" my ass - - my two older grandchildren are U.S. citizens born and raised, my favourite city in the whole world (next to Paris) is New York, and I have tremendous respect for many Americans whom I've often named in these posts from the Wright Brothers to Jane Fonda and Rosa Parks. You have some God-damn nerve calling ME bigotted.
Another thing I won't accept is the crap that my perspective is so "skewed" as to be "completely unreliable." I've got as good as or in most cases better perspective on what's going on in the world and in the U.S.A. (maybe BT knows more on what's going on in the U.S.A.) than any member of this group and in fact it's a perspective that's shared by plenty of informed commentators, maybe more outside the U.S. than inside. There's nothing at all "skewed" about my perspective, my friend. Maybe you'd better heed that Biblical advice about not seeing the log in your own eye but criticizing the mote in the other's. IMHO, it's YOUR perspective that is, if not skewed, severely limited, one-sided and blind to the numerous and horrific misdeeds of your own country. They don't just vanish into thin air because you don't want to see them.
This is lunch time, Pooch. Just got a "Where ARE you?" call from my wife and I gotta run. I skimmed through the rest of your post - - little if anything that I could agree with there and I hope to get back to it later on. It's at least 99% pure BS.
-
>>I'm just gonna empty out my whole brain right now ... <<
That shouldn't take long.
;)
I wonder where this harted comes from Mike? Did some America girl/guy do you wrong or something? Well, I know Canadians aren't all like you, so I won't condemn a great country because of one bad apple. I've been lucky enough to have spent some considerable time on Quebec and Montreal over the last to years. I've had some frank discussions about current events with people and not a single one carryies on like you.
Oh well, in the grand scheme of thing people like you are ignored. And that's the way it should be.
-
<<I wonder where this harted comes from Mike?>>
Oh, I dunno, Rich. I guess it started with one napalmed baby too many.
<< Did some America girl/guy do you wrong or something? >>
Yeah, both, I was fucking Marilyn Monroe and she left me for some Joe guy from New York. Big shot.
<<Well, I know Canadians aren't all like you . . . >>
Oh, you met our ass-hole Prime Minister, did you?
<<so I won't condemn a great country because of one bad apple.>>
Good move. He'll be out on his ass after the next election.
<< I've been lucky enough to have spent some considerable time on Quebec and Montreal over the last to years. I've had some frank discussions about current events with people and not a single one carryies on like you.>>
I wouldn't be rude to a guest either.
<<Oh well, in the grand scheme of thing people like you are ignored.>>
And you're wondering why the world is so fucked up.
<< And that's the way it should be.>>
Oh, I forgot, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
-
OK, back to take another stab at Pooch's panegyric. This is like Hercules shovelling out the Augean stables, it's an enormous and intimidating task when you first look at the stables, but I guess you clean it up one shovelful at a time, so here goes: (since I'm not Hercules, this could be the labour of a lifetime) -
<<The people who kept the US out of WWII (until Japan's invasion made entry inevitable) were the same silly pacifist elements who whine today about US "aggression." >>
Oh, brother. The obvious difference between then and now is that Germany and its allies were major states with powerful military forces and a realistic chance of defeating the superpowers of the day like Britain and France and dominating the world. Iraq has nothing like the threat potential of the Axis Powers. People who opposed U.S. entry into WWII could legitimately be accused of being blind to a legitimate threat. People who oppose U.S. aggression in Iraq are not blind to a threat, they see very clearly that the "threat" is wholly manufactured by the aggressors themselves, is in fact phony and non-existent, and wouldn't fool anyone but a low-grade moron. To even make the comparison between WWII isolationists and opposition to the war in Iraq indicates both a monumental ignorance of history and an appalling lack of judgment and discrimination.
<<People like you would have raised bloody hell about US aggression had we entered the war without a direct threat. >>
Bullshit. Britain and France took a diplomatic stance before the war began to guarantee Poland and if the U.S. was interested in fighting fascism, they would have taken similar diplomatic moves before the war began, either deterring fascist aggression or providing a legal reason to enter the war once the fascists had started it. Britain and France did the right thing by becoming involved to the extent they did, your country took the coward's way and wouldn't get itself involved. Now you want to portray them as heroes and saviours. Sorry, no sale.
<< I'm certain that lots of folks spent a lot of ink and tears on the argument that Germany's aggression and Japan's militaristic aims posed no threat to the United States. >>
They did indeed. Short-sighted ass-holes. Neville Chamberlain, whom you take such great pleasure in excoriating, brought Britain and France to the alliance with Poland which was intended to warn off Germany, and when it failed, he put his money where his mouth was and declared war. Doing more than your own cowardly leaders, both in binding Britain by treaty to a likely victim of Nazi aggression and by honouring his country's treaty obligations once the aggression occurred.
<<We know as a fact that much of the world ignored the systematic persecutions of Jews in Germany.>>
So? What else is new? They ignored the persecution of the Jews in Poland and Romania and Hungary and pre-Revolutionary Russia as well. There isn't a country on earth that lifted a finger against any of it. It was none of their God-damn business. There is such a thing as state sovereignty over its own citizens, you know. Come to think of it, I didn't see any country in the world lifting a finger to protect American blacks against slavery, lynching, or Jim Crow. What the hell is your point anyway? We should all live in a more interventionist world? The U.S.A. would have been a prime target for much of its history.
<< And Neville Chamberlain is a great example of the bravery of the British government in facing down aggression. >>
He sure as hell did more than any other world leader with the exception of Edouard Daladier. The two of them extended their countries' protection to Poland by treaty and went to war when challenged. You've got a hell of a nerve criticizing Chamberlain, who did a lot more than any U.S. leader to stop Hitler in his tracks. You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.
<<The US had as much right to invade Iraq as the British had to attack Germany. >>
You're wrong again. Britain wasn't exercising any "right" when it went to war against Germany. It was fulfilling a duty. The duty created by the Anglo-Polish Treaty of 1939. The U.S. had neither the obligation NOR the "right" to attack Iraq. It was and remains a purely criminal action, devoid of any possible justification.
<<It has as much right to protect its interests in the world as the UK had to defend the Falklands. >>
Oh, God. Do they ALL get their "history" from Fox News documentaries? Video games? Comic books? The Falkland Islands, a British possession inhabited ONLY by British people, was invaded and occupied by a fascist regime which had at that point tortured to death tens of thousands of its opponents. I suppose that Great Britain could have abandoned its own people to this regime of fascist criminals and recognized their right to take over British possessions by force of arms, but in fact - - hold on to your hat, Pooch, this will come as a HUGE surprise to you no doubt - - international law permits them to defend their territory and drive invaders off it. Radical concept, huh?
Now perhaps you could explain to me what "interests" the U.S. was "protecting" that give it the same right to invade Iraq as Britain had to drive the Argentinian Army and Navy out of the Falklands. Oh, sure, I know - - somehow YOUR oil had gotten under THEIR sand, and you had to go to Iraq to get it back.
Well, enough is enough. I feel like I am chipping away at a mountain of ignorance, illogic and pure stupidity held together by a dull animal hostility and irrational anger that is so dense that it takes an hour to get through every line of it. Meantime, I've got a life outside of Debategate, hard as that may be to believe, and I'll have to return to the task another time. I just want to say honestly, there are differences of opinion and I welcome them. And maybe I'm being too hard on you just for not knowing what I know. But God damn it, what I find most irritating of all is your ATTITUDE. If you came to this discussion with an attitude of "Well I don't think this guy can be right, but God damn it maybe he knows something that I don't," I could put up with just about any question, any challenge, no matter how naive and
But what I encounter instead is this wall of hostility and contempt, totally unjustified because I'm right and he's wrong, from somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about and talks to ME like I am the fucking idiot, like I am the one who needs the history lesson. A little basic humility would be nice, but if you can't manage that, how about a modicum of respect for a view that just MIGHT be a little bit more valid and more in tune with historical reality than your own?
Well, I dunno. Am I being too sensitive? Should I just absorb the shit, the lack of respect, and roll with the punches? That's probably what I'll do. Don't mind me, I am just venting. I know you're not a bad guy, just very, very misguided. But God damn it at least listen to my venting, OK? I am not happy with the tone of these posts. You better realize you are not talking to some fucking idiot. Just try to think of me as someone who knows AT LEAST as much as you do. Or think whatever the fuck you like and write as if you were writing to someone who knows at least as much as you do. It's called common courtesy and respect. Glad I got that off my chest. No hard feelings, I hope. There's probably a better way of saying that, but it needed to be said.
-
Oh, God. Do they ALL get their "history" from Fox News documentaries? Video games? Comic books? The Falkland Islands, a British possession inhabited ONLY by British people, was invaded and occupied by a fascist regime which had at that point tortured to death tens of thousands of its opponents.
While many of the settlers are of British and Scottish descent, there are many others who are of French and Spanish descent, and a few Dutch as well. In addition, the Falkland Islands are British territory only because the British (with US aid) invaded the islands and kicked out the Argentinian governor after Argentina seceded from Spain in the 1830s. They had allowed their "subjects" to live under Spanish rule of the islands for many years.
You can hardly say that there were ONLY British people living there.
-
Michael, your problem is, as I have already stated, that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable.
You are crying because of a lack of respect. You deserve no respect. In the first place, you do NOT know as much as me on many topics. But that in itself would be simply ignorance. And you are right, an ad hominem attack based on ignorance alone would be wrong. But when I say your viewpoint is skewed, i am not referring to your ignorance. I have no problem accepting that, while you may not know as much as you think you do you certainly are no dummy when it comes to facts. Indeed, it can equally be said that I do not know as much as you on several topics . And I have said on several occasions with all sincereity that you have a perfectly good intellect. You simply view the world through an enormous prejudice, and yes it is certainly bigotry. That means that your opinion of US world policy is no more reliable than David Duke's opinion of Black people's achievements in the world.
But you accuse me of coming into a debate with an attitude problem. I DO have an attitude problem. When you constantly talk about me and my brothers and sisters in arms as murderers, rapists and thieves I'm gonna have an attitude problem. Your protestations that you know "a few" good soldiers and/or Americans is no more sincere than the proverbial "Some of my best friends are niggers" attitude. When you constantly attack my country and my friends and resort to childish ranting instead of reasoned debate, I'm going to have an attitude problem. You make sweeping, arrogant, vile accusations about ALL soldiers or even MOST soldiers - and they are bullshit. I PERSONALLY came on this forum and lamented the terrible actions in Abu Ghraib as an offense to me as a soldier and an American. I have stated that I think Bush is wrong for failing to give POW status to Taliban soldiers - who I think are clearly covered (while the Al Aquaeda fighters deserve no such status). I don't have a problem with reasonable debate about US actions or about asserting your viewpoint when it at odds with mine. But when you compare US soldiers with Nazi war criminals - NOT individually (which certainly has merit) but collectively - and you compare Bush with Hitler, I am going to call you out on it and damn right I am going to have an attitude problem. Had Hitler merely been militaristic the comparison might be justified. But Bush is not mass-murdering Jews - or Muslims for that matter - in order to racially purge the world. Even if Bush's motives are purely mercantile - and I do not for a minute accept that theory - his brand of evil would be run-of-the-mill profiteering. That is wrong in itself, but it comes nowhere near the pure. demonic evil of Hitler - and very few leaders do. It's completely acceptable to compare the slavery of the US past with the racist evils of Hitler (and one of Hitlers heros, btw, was a eugenics proponent from here in Virginia named Joseph S.DeJarnette) but the US corrected its slavery issue by itself. No question it required military force - civil war, in fact - but we didn't need the world to come in and correct it for us as Hitler did.
Now when you lecture me about YOUR skewed world view and how uninformed I am, I'm gonna blow that off as a personal opinion, but I will certainly point out your nonsense as much as you choose to point out mine. All of the blind hatred, ad hominem attacks and attitude you ascribe to me are reactions to those very traits in your own posts. You accuse me of seeing the mote in your eye and ignoring the beam in my own. There is at least some merit to that, but it's hypocrisy in the purest sense. You do not have a mote in your eye - you have a petrified forest.
Since you asked, I will bring up one example of your ignorance - with a caveat. I referred to the Supreme Council of Iran and how they took away the choice of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, I used a verbal shorthand, so perhaps you were calling me on the incorrect full designation. I was referring to the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians. If that was your point, I concede it but I apologize for the shorthand no more than I would for calling Rhode Island and Providence Plantations just plain Rhode Island for short - like most of the known universe. But if you are still honestly unaware of the facts behind my point - and frankly, I find that surprising since you frequent this place and I thought you were at least up on currernt events, though you might well be biased in your views thereof - I will give a brief (yeah, right, Pooch is gonna be brief) explanation.
The current regime is in place after being vetted and passed off on by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (who has been the Iranian head of state since 1989) and his Council of Guardians - a group of six clerics appointed by the Ayatollah and and six members of the legislature. Before each election, they vet the candidates and routinely disqualify reformers. Since the legislative branch and executive branches of the government are vetted by the Supreme Leader and the Counsel, and the Judiary is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader (The Iranian secular government has a three-branch set up similar to the US model) the reality is that the Ayatollah and his henchmen are the rulers of the country. The choices of the people are therefore limited to those approved by the hard-line conservative clerics. This is about the same as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell deciding who gets to run for President in the United States for all political parties. People like Brass get upset because folks like Robertson have influence on one particular party, and even then only to a certain extent. Imagine if he got veto power over the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Socialist, Green, etc. candidates. Calling our government a democractically elected government under such circumstances would be technically correct, but morally a joke. Saddam, as you may recall, claimed a 98% share of the vote in his last election. Easy to do when you run unopposed. In the end, the ruling power of Iran sits atop the government like Henry Ford stating that customers can have the Model T in any color they want - as long as it's black.
By Pooch standards, that WAS brief.
Further, when I call you for hostile, offensive and sometimes literally blithering rants, instead of recognizing that you have stepped over a line, you insist I am only attacking you because I have "run out of substantive argument." THAT, sir, is a cop out. I respond to idiocy by pointing it out as idiocy. There is no need to answer comparisons to Hitler, broadbrush accusations against honorable soldiers or gratutitous profanity and superfluous ridicule with reasoned debate. It is you, sir, who have a lot of nerve expecting me to respond rationally and respectfully to such childishness. I won't, and you have no right to expect me to.
My lack of respect for you is not based on your ignorance or lack of intellect. I think you ARE ignorant in some areas, but generally you are well informed and perfectly capable of becoming informed in areas where you might lack. It is CERTAINLY not based on lack of intellect, because I have no doubt of your intellectual capacity - and just to be clear, I mean that I think you have an excellent intellect. And it does not come from your mutual lack of respect for me, because my ego is way too big to take disdain personally. Indeed, I have no problem accepting certain criticisms as having merit, and I can easily ignore those I think are nonsense. The sole reason for which I lack respect for you is your absolute bigotry against the United States in general and its soldiers AS A GROUP in particular. It makes it very hard to respond to your reasonable points (though heaven knows I try) when I am reading them through a ton of bigotted garbage. But if I did not respect your ABILITIES and knowledge I wouldn't even try that. I stopped responding to Knute - except to make fun of him - long ago because I gave him no credibility at all. I TRULY have no respect for him. You I do respect - and believe me I wouldn't waste my time or the forum's disk space to post this if I didn't - but that respect goes south in a hurry when your posts dropo to the level of knute-like rants.
Finally, my last post was DELIBERATELY skewed. I was trying to demonstrate YOUR method of argument. That's why I directly chose to use "Malvinas" instead of "Falklands" among other characterizations. You will note that when I discussed it in terms of acknowledged British rights I referred to them as the Falklands. The whole point of the post was that there are two ways of looking at anything. The one response in your rebuttal I think it actually worth debating (and by that I am not disparaging your points, but simply stating that both sides of most of the other points are already done to death) is your comparison of how GB adminstered her empire and how the US administers ours. You talk about Great Britain "taking care" of her empire by adminstering the government of her possessions while the US sets up puppet governments and then leaves them. You may be just responding in kind to my "two ways of looking at it" argument. But if you are serious then I would respond that British policy has historically been to colonize, subjugate and then govern other lands. US policy - at least since it became a world power - has been to try to leave the countries it takes over with its own government - preferrably, though not always a democratically elected one. That is part of that social evolution of world powers I referred to.
Now you need not respond - because I concede in advance - that the governments the US leaves in control are often dictatorships propped up by US power. And you can certainly rationally make the argument that this constitutes neglect of the needs of the people of those countries in favor of US interests. But we also do things like we did in Japan, putting in a system of government we approve and allowing the country to evolve along those lines. Objectively, there is an argument that this demonstrates a certain degree of arrogance but in this case I think it is a fairly benign one. While individual examples of both attitudes may be compared one way or the other, the core debate is whether it is better to conquer and retain another country or to conquer and then release it. In that respect I think the general US policy is better than the general British policy - but I hasten to say that unlike the US, Great Britain has not been involved in the business of empire building in decades, and has certainly evolved in its colonial policies in the last century. Where US policy may be more enlightened than other nations, it is simply because the US has benefit of the examples of other nations in earlier, less enlightened times. Those other nations have learned the same lessons, they have just not had to apply them. To put it another way, the US opposition to apartheid was not hypocritical because of our previous policies of slavery, Jim Crow, and general racial inequality. We had just grown up.
My hostility towards you is simply based on your hostility towards me - and make no mistake I take it personally when you call soldiers rapists, thieves and murderers. I certainly take offense when you choose ridicule instead of reasoned responses to my posts, and then call me out for responding to that ridicule with ridicule. You can certainly continue to express that opinion, but I'm going to call it bigotry and I think the characterization is more than fair. Beyond that, I think you are unable to reach objective conclusions because of your bias. That makes you no different from most people, myself included, but I honestly think I make far more effort to recognize and overcome my prejudices than you do. I concede that you have certainly made some efforts in that regard, and I further concede that I am working from my own set of prejudices in this situation. But if you are upset about my lack of respect for you, recognize that the only area in which I lack respect for you is in your prejudice against the US and the US military in particular. While you dishonor people who are actually dying and coming home damaged for life, I'm going to call you on it - and it won't be respectfully.
-
Touche' Pooch. Great rebuttal 8)
Pooch -- an exemplary post. Insightful.
Thank you.
Thank you both for your kind comments. As Seamus has pointed out, it's not a contest. But it is nice to have one's opinion verified by competent authorities.
-
<<While many of the settlers are of British and Scottish descent, there are many others who are of French and Spanish descent, and a few Dutch as well.>>
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'm a victim of the MSM - - all I saw interviewed and all the people I read about were British, and very, very English at that. I knew that the islanders had very strongly rejected all efforts to bring the islands into Argentina, even when the junta had guaranteed them that their rights would still be respected. I figure all of these islanders are British subjects, just like all Canadians are Canadians even if born somewhere else, anywhere else.
My point remains valid - - these were British citizens and they should not have been abandoned to anyone, much less a gang of criminal fascist torturers and murderers.
<< In addition, the Falkland Islands are British territory only because the British (with US aid) invaded the islands and kicked out the Argentinian governor after Argentina seceded from Spain in the 1830s. They had allowed their "subjects" to live under Spanish rule of the islands for many years.>>
Interesting. So how did New Mexico or Texas or California become American? I guess they don't belong to America any more than the Falklands belong to Britain.
<<You can hardly say that there were ONLY British people living there.>>
OK, let's say the only people who counted were British. :)
-
Interesting. So how did New Mexico or Texas or California become American? I guess they don't belong to America any more than the Falklands belong to Britain.
California and Texas declared independence from Mexico. Sometime later they petitioned the US for acceptance as a state. New Mexico was part of the Republic of Texas, but they transferred that part to the US prior to their petition.
-
<<Since you asked, I will bring up one example of your ignorance - with a caveat. I referred to the Supreme Council of Iran and how they took away the choice of the Iranian people. >>
You might as well have saved your breath, Pooch - - that's not an example of my "ignorance," it's an example of you not being able to follow an argument or even express yourself properly. What you referred to in fact was the "Supreme Counsel" which by definition would refer to an adviser, often a lawyer. Of course, I would have picked up immediately that you were referring to the Supreme Council, had you not mixed up your time periods and made the reference in respect of a dialogue wherein I was referring to the overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh government, a time many years before the Supreme Council came into existence.
Here's how your reference came up:
Pooch: <<Yeah. The people of Iran had choice taken away from them by the Supreme Counsel. >>
Tee: Sorry, Pooch, that one you'll have to explain to me. The people of Iran had elected the government of Mohammed Mossadegh, who then nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and was subsequently overthrown by a CIA-managed coup and replaced by the Shah of Iran. I don't even think there is or was any such thing as a "Supreme Counsel" in Iran, and if there were, its actions couldn't possibly give you the right to overthrow a democratically elected government. That would be for the people of Iran themselves to look after if they cared to do so.
I could go back to the post before that, but this snippet makes it clear enough - - I had been responding to your bullshit about how much the U.S. promotes "democracy" around the world and brought up the U.S. overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime as one example of how absurd your contention was. You had resonded with your (at the time unrecognizable) reference to the Supreme Council (an institution which arose many years AFTER the overthrow of the Mossadegh government) as if something that it had done somehow justified the overthrow of a democratically elected government by the U.S.A. It should have been perfectly clear to you by my response (reprinted above) that my remarks had been directed to events of the 1950s, but you chose instead to springboard from your own confusion and lack of clarity into an attack on MY supposed "ignorance." Oh, well, fire away, I should be used to it by now.
As far as the rest of your rant is concerned, I calls 'em the way I sees 'em. Obviously there is no army in the world, not even Hitler's, that is composed exclusively of criminals, rapists, sadists and thugs. Nobody can make a blanket indictment of an entire army that takes in every single soldier. Some armies conduct themselves reasonably well (the Allied armies of WWII) and acquire a fairly good reputation. Other armies (yours, for example) don't. They have acquired, IMHO, a reputation similar to Hitler's armies, for torture and massacre. That's my opinion. You resent it. Tough shit. That's how it is. Apparently you want it both ways - - a pat on the back for your opposition to Abu Ghraib and a big gold star for the valiant men and women of the U.S. Army. Doesn't work that way. They've disgraced themselves and their leaders have disgraced themselves. Like the U.S. Army in Viet Nam, they're baby killers, and if you don't like the name, better get used to it, because to people like me, people with a knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, that's all they'll ever be known as. You can fool some people into making heroes out of them, but you better get used to the fact that you can't fool everyone. If you want to take comfort in the fact that they aren't as bad as the Nazis, and Bush is still a better man than Hitler, go ahead, knock yourself out. Rafael fucking Trujillo was a better man than Hitler, Papa Doc Duvalier was a better man than Hitler, but if that's the standard to which you aspire, go for it, welcome to it, but pardon me while I hold my nose.
-
<<California and Texas declared independence from Mexico. Sometime later they petitioned the US for acceptance as a state. New Mexico was part of the Republic of Texas, but they transferred that part to the US prior to their petition.>>
Gee, that's interesting. Thanks. Did the Mexican-American War have anything to do with any of that? Did the Mexican abolition of slavery have anything to do with Texas' declaration of independence? (just askin)
-
Did the Mexican-American War have anything to do with any of that? Did the Mexican abolition of slavery have anything to do with Texas' declaration of independence? (just askin)
While the war was going on at the same time, the declaration of independence by Texas and California happened before news of the war got to those respective states. And the ceding of New Mexico to the US prior to petition for acceptance as a state was a concession to the 1850 Compromise - which was a slavery compromise. Texas was admitted as a slave state and New Mexico was admitted as a free state.
-
<<While the war was going on at the same time, the declaration of independence by Texas and California happened before news of the war got to those respective states.>>
LOL. Just another one of those amazing and fortuitous coincidences that just dot the history of the United States of America, eh? Wonderful.
<<And the ceding of New Mexico to the US prior to petition for acceptance as a state was a concession to the 1850 Compromise - which was a slavery compromise. Texas was admitted as a slave state and New Mexico was admitted as a free state.>>
So basically Texas, California AND New Mexico just happened to fall into your laps at just about the same time as you were fighting some kind of war with Mexico, eh? Ah, this is priceless. And I bet the war with Mexico was so you could bring them the benefits of democracy? Or were they hiding weapons of mass destruction from you?
Oh, and my question whether the fact that Mexico prohibited slavery had anything to do with the Texas declaration of independence - - I guess your silence on that indicates that there was absolutely no relation between those two facts, eh?
-
LOL. Just another one of those amazing and fortuitous coincidences that just dot the history of the United States of America, eh? Wonderful.
Yeah. In the case of Texas, it was a 10 year planning session ::) (Texas declared it's independence 10 years before the war started). When I said the war the going on at the same time, I meant that within a short span of years, not months or so.
And I never said that the Texas' declaration of independence didn't involve slavery, it was a portion of the issue. Just like so many other issues at the time. Border control was another issue, as was a coup in Mexico by General Santa Anna in 1836 (the proximate cause).
-
You might as well have saved your breath, Pooch - - that's not an example of my "ignorance," it's an example of you not being able to follow an argument or even express yourself properly. What you referred to in fact was the "Supreme Counsel" which by definition would refer to an adviser, often a lawyer. Of course, I would have picked up immediately that you were referring to the Supreme Council, had you not mixed up your time periods and made the reference in respect of a dialogue wherein I was referring to the overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh government, a time many years before the Supreme Council came into existence.
You're right on two counts, I misspelled the word and I skimmed over your point. So your ignorance, in this particular case, was not the issue but rather my error.
I had been responding to your bullshit about how much the U.S. promotes "democracy" around the world . . .
Which post was that? I don't believe I had said anything about the US "promoting democracy" around the world to that point. I talked about the US entering WWII. That was not about "promoting democracy." It was about defending ourselves against aggression, as opposed to interfering with someone else's internal affairs. Perhaps that is verbal (or type-al?) shorthand on your part, but I'm pretty sure it's not accurate. OTOH, its hardly a point worth calling you on, since you obviously WERE responding to a general defense of US policy on the part of myself and other posters. I don't really view it as an actual error, just a generalization that could be nit-picked, but serves the point in context.
The reason I respond to it is to call attention to the other reason I have limited respect for you. Your ego is so fragile that you respond aggressively to mistakes instead of simply recognizing an error and dealing with it in context. I let is slide before, but I will point out now that you have on several occasions made a point of how "nobody is buying" what I said - where in fact several people clearly were. I generally ignore that sort of appeal to the general forum, because I know it feels good to be backed up (as Sirs and the Professor did for me) and I know that ego is part of the reason we all post. But I don't get too worried about what other people think about my posts. If i couldn't deal with rejection, I would have never survived ny high school years! When I point out errors, I try to be reasonable about where misunderstandings may occur. For example, I mentioned the fact that your "ignorance" may have only been a response to my shorthanded reference was one of those points. As I said, it would have surprised me had you not known about the "Supreme Council" but as it turns out, your interpretation of my misspelling was perfectly logical - and in the context of a response to your post even a correct spelling and designation would have been irrelevent. But I'm not upset about being clearly wrong. I made a dumb error, and compounded it with a misspelling (just keep MissusDee away from this thread, wouldja?). I don't blame you for throwing it back at me, because you get so few opportunities to catch me in an ACTUAL error. But when I referred to your "ignorance" you should know that I do not use that word as an insult. I consider it a neutral word, though I recognize it has negative connotations and I ought to be more careful with it.
The fact is, sometimes you are stupid. Now, let me explain what I mean by that word. I do not view ignorance as stupid. Ask me a question about Nuclear Physics if you want to see ignorance. I do not view lack of understanding as stupid. I think you suffer from that in many ways, but that is simply a case of perspective. I don't even view lack of intelligence (from which you decidely do NOT suffer) as stupidity either. Just because a person lacks the ability to understand something doesn't mean he is stupid.
To me, stupidity is any one (or a combination) of those factors combined with arrogance. A person who is ignorant, misinformed or not very bright but insists he knows exactly what he is talking about is stupid - because he is unteachable. Even a person with limited capacity who can acknowlege that fact can be taught. But arrogance seals the mind, and it makes it impossible to learn. You have it in spades.
That's my opinion. You resent it. Tough shit. That's how it is.
As is my opinion of you.
Apparently you want it both ways - - a pat on the back for your opposition to Abu Ghraib and a big gold star for the valiant men and women of the U.S. Army.
That simplistic viewpoint is exactly what I mean. I don't want a pat on my back for opposing Abu Ghraib. I simply want you to acknowledge (though I realize that expecting you to concede anything is dreaming) that it is perfectly possible to support the military and still recognize when atrocities are committed. That Michael, takes objectivity and common sense - two qualities in which you are deeply lacking. Simplistic answers are best for you, because they make it unnecessary to think. That's what bigotry does, and what stereotypes are used for.
Doesn't work that way. They've disgraced themselves and their leaders have disgraced themselves. Like the U.S. Army in Viet Nam, they're baby killers, and if you don't like the name, better get used to it, because to people like me, people with a knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, that's all they'll ever be known as.
There has never been an Army that didn't kill babys. The soldiers in WWII committed horrible atrocities - and I am talking about the allies - but the media didn't report most of them because it was a different time. So the reputation of the military in WWII was better than that of our current soldiers, though one was no better or worse than the other. THE OVERWHELMING majority of US soldiers are not involved in atrocities, and certainly do not kill babies. But your broadbrush works for you because of your prejudice. I have the opposite prejudice. I tend to think most soldiers get it and don't commit atrocities. My designation as the army as "heros" is no less a broad brush than your silly "baby killer" label. But the argument that the army must be recognized as "baby killers" for the reputation YOU think it has is no less valid than saying you have to accept them all as heros because some of them surely are.
The fact is, most soldiers are just normal people, with decent values, some flaws, and occasional flashes of extraordinary bravery or cruelty. But there are an awful lot of promiscuous gays, criminal blacks, drug running illegal aliens and terrorist Muslims. Even suggesting such things in a reasonably worded way would raise the ire of an awful lot of gays, Muslims, blacks or latinos. If I have any hope of suggesting that maybe homosexuals as a community should be more aware of certain unsafe practices, African-American leaders should focus more on the internal social problems of their communities, illegal immigration should be controlled better or it should be OK to map out the Muslim communities in LA, I had BETTER not present it as "Nigger leaders oughta tell their coon buddies to stop stealing cars," "Faggots should stop fucking each other up the ass," "Spics should be shot at the border" or "Idol Worshipping Mohammedans are going to hell anyway, so why SHOULDN'T we just nuke them all and get it over with." Not only will those inflammatory words incite justifable rage among those communities. They will also kill any credibility the speaker has, on the outside chance that they might have a valid point. Your posts are full of rude, inflammatory and childish language that is very much like that. That is the language of bigotry, and you are fluent in it. Like most bigots, it is your fear that drives your behavior.
-
" the U.S. overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime "
Wouldnt "the British overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime " be more accurate?
-
<<Wouldnt "the British overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime " be more accurate?>>
That's a good point, if only because the precipitating factor was the Mossadegh regime's nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a British concern, and the British were the former occupying colonial power.
However the coup was in fact organized by the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA personally brought back the Shah to take over the reins of power.
I always believed, given the genesis of the situation, that the British were behind it in some way, perhaps advising, perhaps financing, perhaps both. How the spoils of the crime were divided, I don't think we'll ever know.
However deeply, the CIA was in deep enough to demonstrate the absurdity of the claims that the U.S. always acts to promote democracy. That's just ludicrous.
-
<<Wouldnt "the British overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh regime " be more accurate?>>
That's a good point, if only because the precipitating factor was the Mossadegh regime's nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a British concern, and the British were the former occupying colonial power.
However the coup was in fact organized by the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA personally brought back the Shah to take over the reins of power.
I always believed, given the genesis of the situation, that the British were behind it in some way, perhaps advising, perhaps financing, perhaps both. How the spoils of the crime were divided, I don't think we'll ever know.
However deeply, the CIA was in deep enough to demonstrate the absurdity of the claims that the U.S. always acts to promote democracy. That's just ludicrous.
Well the CIA is a British product too.
-
<<Well the CIA is a British product too.>>
How do you figure that?
-
<<Well the CIA is a British product too.>>
How do you figure that?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=3350
http://www.canadianidentity.com/wiki/index.php/Camp_X
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001193
http://webhome.idirect.com/~lhodgson/campx.htm , http://webhome.idirect.com/~lhodgson/campxI.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X, http://www.campxhistoricalsociety.ca/
http://www.osha.igs.net/~lsolomon/nsarc/campx.htm , http://www.tpn7055.ca/CampX.html
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Number=423398 , http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809414757/info
http://www.esa-swords.com/FairbairnSykesP1X.htm ,
Well, it just is.
-
I gave Pooch's comments some thought. Superficially they made sense at first but somehow at a deeper level I recognized them for the bullshit that they really are. Analyzing WHY they are bullshit took a few minutes' thought.
Pooch wants me and others like me to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. He wants to pretend that rhetoric (at least, rhetoric in support of an anti-war position) is not necessary or important in debate, although in fact it can be helpful in persuasion. Moreover, it's part of one's self-expression, one feels more comfort and enjoyment in expressing one's views without reserve than in tailoring them to fit another's prejudices or preferences. So while the "President" can refer to an army of heroes, an army of valiant young men and women, etc. - - hyperbolic rhetoric that finds its echoes regularly here in this group - - those of opposing views must take care not to use the same technique in reverse to counter the effect of militaristic rhetoric. We must not be permitted to call the army an army of criminals, rapists, etc.
So the President and his supporters can take some actions of some soldiers and project them onto the entire army - - dedicated, courageous, etc. - - while his opponents are not to be permitted the same device of taking the actions of some soldiers and projecting them onto the same entire army - - criminal, raping, thieving, etc.
If I do avail myself (in reverse) of the same rhetorical devices that the "President" and his supporters use - - fair warning: I will have to face the continuing ad hominem insults of the outraged Pooch.
Once the elements of the situation were correctly analyzed, the solution became immediately apparent: I will post whatever I please, subject to my own rules of propriety and Pooch can take them any way he chooses. If he chooses to take them as a personal insult (certainly not MY intention) that is his problem. I believe in a standard of decency and mutual respect between all members but I sure as hell do NOT intend to be bullied into self-censorship by Pooch or anyone else because he or she chooses for no good reason that I can see to interpret my opinions or my use of rhetorical device as a personal insult.
In the course of figuring out the above, I decided to post a few helpful principles of debate, all being newly-minted and hence, provisional:
1. Thicker skin.
2. No ad hominem attacks on a fellow member. Ever. Regardless of provocation.
3. NEVER respond to an ad hominem attack. Let it go. No counter-attacks, it just wastes your time and clogs the forum.
4. Let the small stuff go. No bickering. No quibbling. No point-scoring. (more time wasted) Debate the big issues.
5. Know when to let go, when to "agree to disagree."
-
1. Thicker skin.
2. No ad hominem attacks on a fellow member. Ever. Regardless of provocation.
3. NEVER respond to an ad hominem attack. Let it go. No counter-attacks, it just wastes your time and clogs the forum.
4. Let the small stuff go. No bickering. No quibbling. No point-scoring. (more time wasted) Debate the big issues.
5. Know when to let go, when to "agree to disagree."
Hmmmmm..
Pretty good , may I add a 3DHS adaptation of the golden rule.
Speak as one would be spoken to.
-
Pooch wants me and others like me to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. He wants to pretend that rhetoric (at least, rhetoric in support of an anti-war position) is not necessary or important in debate, although in fact it can be helpful in persuasion. Moreover, it's part of one's self-expression, one feels more comfort and enjoyment in expressing one's views without reserve than in tailoring them to fit another's prejudices or preferences. So while the "President" can refer to an army of heroes, an army of valiant young men and women, etc. - - hyperbolic rhetoric that finds its echoes regularly here in this group - - those of opposing views must take care not to use the same technique in reverse to counter the effect of militaristic rhetoric. We must not be permitted to call the army an army of criminals, rapists, etc.
Is insult truely a reiprocal of complement?
Compements are intended to engender good feelings and direct them.
Insults are intended the opposite, but is cranking up bad feeling just as worthy as starting some good ones?
-
<<Well, it just is.>>
That place is about a twenty-minute drive from my home. Of course, the local papers have been all over that story for years and years now. William Stephenson's story too.
-
<<Compements are intended to engender good feelings and direct them.
<<Insults are intended the opposite, but is cranking up bad feeling just as worthy as starting some good ones?>>
That's a good question, but I think the answer is that it depends on the context. If a speaker comes to a high school and compliments the audience on how nice and fresh they all look, and the next speaker wants to balance out the first guy and says they all look like a bunch of scruffy bums, I'd say, even though the audience had some nicely groomed and some scruffily groomed members, the first comment (complimentary) was OK, and the second not.
If the context is an army which is going through a foreign country bombing, killing and destroying, racking up civilian casualties and generally raising hell, it might become important to determine if it's a good thing or a bad thing to keep these guys over there. It's important to know what kind of army it is. Should the "President" be allowed to influence the debate HIS way by calling them an army of heroes, of courageous and dedicated young men while at the same time nobody can use the same rhetorical device of painting the army with the actions of some of its soldiers, but use the device in reverse? That sounds grossly unfair to me. This goes way beyond complimenting or hurting feelings - - we have to KNOW just who these guys are and what they are really up to.
-
<<Pretty good , may I add a 3DHS adaptation of the golden rule.
<<Speak as one would be spoken to.>>
What, no sarcasm? Come on, let's assume a capacity to absorb SOME level of disrespect.
-
So, Michael, you have taken this long to come to the conclusion that most rational people consider intuitive. If you insult people, you are likely to be insulted in return.
I'm not asking you to tie one hand behind your back. I'm asking you to present debate in a decent manner. You choose to use belittling, insulting language. You will get that back. You say that broadbrushing soldiers is not intended to insult me. Fine. Canadians are cowardly morons, but hey no offense, right? (You recognize, I hope, that this is a demonstration - not an actual opinion of Canadians.)
Your argument that expecting you to conform to decent standards is denying you the tool of harsh rhetoric is an admission that you cannot debate fully without resorting to childishness. If someone comes on here and starts saying "I hate all niggers and faggots" most of us would jump all over him for the language - or just ignore him altogether. If someone comes on here and says "I think black people are inferior because there is a lot of crime in African-American communities" we are still likely to call him racist, though less likely to simply dismiss him out of hand from the get-go. (Is that term hyphenated? Oh, the grammatical minefields we traverse when using slang in debate!) I myself have been taken to task personally because I object to gay marriage. While technically such objections count as an ad hominem attack, they are legitimate. When a person bases his debate points on an obvious prejudice, that prejudice becomes part of the argument. It is correct to point that prejudice out. Your complaint about my hostility towards you is in reality a complaint against my hostility towards your method of presenting argument. Yet you react in exactly the same manner to points I, or others make on this forum. You whine about us presenting a good picture of America or her soldiers. You rant about how terrible the soldiers are and how braindead we on the right are when we talk about American soldeirs as heros.
You, in other words, are guilty of exactly the same things you complain about. You hide behind a sanctimonious appeal for decency on everyone else's part while insisting that expecting it from you is "tieing one hand behind your back." Furthermore, you present in your defense the fact that I expect to be allowed to use broadbrushing in describing soldiers as heros without your being able to describe them as "baby killers." Yet, you ignore completely that I actually made that point myself.
You correctly conclude that your continual use of profane, bigotted characterizations of Americans or American soldiers will result in my calling you out as a bigot and impuning your integrity. But you then imply that you will rise above the fray by simply not responding to further ad hominem attacks. I call that cowardice of the lowest degree, not because you haven't got the courage to defend yourself, but because you haven't got the courage to change. Just like simplistic stereotyping makes it unnecessary to think, hiding behind your right of free speech and a perfectly reasonable appeal to avoid ad hominem attacks makes it unnecessary to face a major shortcoming in your personal behavior and debate technique. But more to the point, and this again is my bottom line, is that refusing to ackowledge and face your prejudice makes your opinion unreliable. You cannot rationally analyze the actions of American soldiers or the role of America in the world because you cannot objectively view a group of people against which you hold a deep prejudice.
So yes, I will continue to call you out on stereotyping, broadbrushing and childish debate techniques. And I will also continue to respond to your rational, valid points with my best attempts at rational, valid responses. If you want to elevate the debate, i completely applaud it and will gladly respond in kind. But insisting on keeping an arsenal of uncivil behaviors available to yourself while denouncing such behaviors in others is not something I will quietly bow to. If you want to raise the level of our exchanges, I simply ask you to apply that Golden Rule Plane spoke of. Demanding respect is fine, but only if you are acting in a manner deserving of it. When you ridicule others, expect ridicule in return. When you act like a child, expect to be scolded as one. When you use vile rhetorical devices against a group of people, expect to be called a bigot. Your responses to me and many others on this forum follow exactly those same basic guidelines, and you make few apologies for it. You choose a hostile debate technique. That's all well and good, but please do not act as if you are virtue defiled when people respond with hostility.
-
In viewing some of your other posts on this thread, I would like to offer a suggestion in a manner that might be a little less confrontational. We have, as we often do, devolved to the level of deutero-debate in this thread. In other words, rather than debating the point, we are debating the way we debate. But I'd like to go with that for a second because it may be instructive for both of us.
As I see it, the basic concern you have with presenting your arguments is that you want to present your arguments in a style with which you are comfortable and familiar. That's perfectly reasonable. I have been taken to task for my long, rambling posts and irrational fear of paragraph breaks. But that's how I debate. I lose a lot of potential audience that way, but I live with it. I do, however, try to at least be aware of these shortcomings and amend them to an extent.
You have also implied that one of your purposes is to persuade. I view debate in a different manner. I like the idea of persuading people, because on a basic level I want the world to agree with me. I think that is a basic human trait, more prominent in some than in others, but present in all of us. That's ego. If I think it, it must be so, otherwise I'm wrong and therefore inferior. But my view of debate is that I am here to teach and to learn. I am less interested in persuading folks than I am in getting people to see another perspective and opening my own mind to the same opportunity. If at the end of the day we both walk away with the same basic stance on issues, but we have come to a better understanding of those who see the world differently, I think we have accomplished something big. I am convinced that most of the world's problems can be resolved by recognizing where difference lie and WHY they exist rather than assuming that behaviors with which we disagree are inherently evil. If we understand each others legitimate concerns, we can begin to try to craft solutions that give equal gravitas to both sides. I am a firm believer in compromise, and one of the worst traits of partisan politics is that each side views compromise as defeat. This makes each side resent the other, and adds tension to the issue without the release valve that compromise gives.
You have stated that rhetoric is persuasive. It certainly can be. But hostile, profane rhetoric is almost never so. Specific to your rhetorical devices, when you call American soldiers "baby killers" you aren't going to persuade anyone of anything. That term will appeal only to a very limited group of people who already share your opinion. Most others will simply dismiss it out of hand - and with it, your credibility. Further, aside from the offense many will take at it in general, many will respond with defensiveness. That means that any chance you have of persuading those who might otherwise see merit in your point is negated by the natural response to your presentation. Your technique works against persuasion instead of for it.
Of course you are not going to persuade folks like me that the American army is terrible. I have a better understanding of the Army, on the one hand, and a natural prejudice toward it on the other. So vile rhetorical devices lose you little in terms of persuasion with me. But those to whom the issue does not hit as close to home could be persuaded with a softer, more reasonable tone. But they will likely reject direct attacks using language like you use because the technique identifies you as a bigot - whether or not that accusation is warranted.
Further, what is it exactly that you are trying to persuade people to think? Are you aiming to make those you address think of the American army as a bunch of baby killing rapist thugs? That's a pretty sad thing. Effectively, that would mean you are just trying to get people to hate. It might turn out that the hatred is warranted, but so what? If your specific intention is to rally an actual military force to take on the American army, then you are simply using the same technique soldiers do when we use terms like "Jap" "Kraut" or "Raghead." You are employing the same rhetorical devices that the proponents of segregation used when they referred to Dr, King as "Martin Luther Coon." You are dehumanizing a group of people to make it easier to hate them - and thereby suppress any sense of decency that might prevent atrocities against them. This is how soldiers get to Abu Ghraib or My Lai and Muslims get to the World Trade Center.
I would bet, however, that you are not trying to do that at all, but rather you are trying to persuade people that US world policy in general, and current military operations in the middle east, are illegal or at least immoral. There are an awful lot of people who agree with that, and the number is growing every day. The specific action that would address that immorality would be a withdrawal from Iraq and a change in US attitudes and policies towards the middle east and the world in general. You won't persuade anyone of that when you lose your audience up front, but you can through skillful application of appropriate rhetorical devices actually move closer toward that goal. "Baby killers" kills your credibility. You will persuade nobody with that technique, no matter how correct your opinion on the subject may be.
But take it a step further. If we accept your opinion (and I don't) that US policy in the middle east is wrong, the correct action would have been to prevent the invasion from ever happening in the first place. There were many on your side of the issue trying to do just that before the war in Iraq began. Why did nobody listen to them? Because they were doing things like calling for a million Mogadishus. They were screaming like banshees about "baby killers." They were rallying to bring back the Vietnam protest days. But those protestors have been discredited in most of mainstream America. The perspective of history has shown us that, while US involvement in Vietnam was questionable at best and evil at worst, vilifying the soldiers who served there was absolutely the wrong thing to do. We also recognize that a lot of the rhetoric the peace movement used back then was just as full of AMBE as what the government was telling us. It has made us have a common distrust of idiots waving signs and trashing our soldiers. I saw a woefully small peace rally on our court square before the invasion. They were waving signs whining about US aggression and asking us to honk to show support. I leaned out of my window and shouted to them "You are irrelevent." They were, and they deserved to be.
Now these same forces have learned a little about appropriate techniques. They now argue that soldiers should NOT be vilified. They suggest that supporting the troops should mean getting them out of harm's way. I've even seen a brilliant little rhetorical device - a bumper sticker that says "love the soldier, hate the war." It mirrors perfectly the "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy that the right understands (intentional so, of course). It separates righteous anger about US policy from irrational hatred of the people tasked to carry out that policy. A whole lot of people will respond favorably to that kind of argument. It lends credibility and relevence to the person making the point. It demonstrates an ability to reason and consider other points of view. It shows the appropriate level of respect for the humanity of soldiers, without compromising the objection to US policy. It breaks through defensiveness and appeals to rational thought rather than emotion. In short, it is persuasive. And the best part is, to come up with such an idea, at least some degree of open-minded consideration of the other side was necessary, even if it was only in considering how to appeal to them. It's a start.
My point is that the language you choose to use WILL persuade people, but not necessarily in the manner you hope. David Duke probably made some valid points about the way racial politics has swung too far in the other direction, but nobody is going to take him seriously. Pat Robertson may be a voice crying in the wilderness about the impending destruction of America like Israel was destroyed for turning its back on God, but who's going to listen to him? They have credibility only for those who already buy their skewed world view. To anyone else, they are irrelevent.
So what is your goal, Michael? Is it to persuade people to change their minds about US policy? Then attack US policy. That's an extension of the objection to ad hominem attack in debate. Focus on the issue, not the people.
But is your goal to persuade people that US soldiers are evil baby killers, then go ahead and continue the rhetoric to that effect. Just recognize that people who think will reject that as bigotry out of hand. I reject out of hand sarcastic references to Islam as the "Religion of Peace" because I recognize those as an appeal to reject Islam, rather than an appeal to reject Islamic terrorists. That's a damned important distinction.
Bottom line: I suggest you consider the effect your choice of rhetorical device has on your credibiliy and ability to persuade. Even if your only real goal in this forum is pleasant exchange of views, a more careful approach to rhetorical choice can facilitate that aim without leading to less pleasant exchange of insults.
For the record, it is clear that you are at least giving my posts due consideration in spite of their somewhat ad hominem nature. I acknowlege and appreciate that.
-
<<Well, it just is.>>
That place is about a twenty-minute drive from my home. Of course, the local papers have been all over that story for years and years now. William Stephenson's story too.
So you already know that the original CIA was 80% graduates of Camp X?
Hebert Hoover had nothing like it.
Chirchill saw this as crying need.
I don't think that King of Canada was even consulted.
-
<<So you already know that the original CIA was 80% graduates of Camp X?>>
THAT particular fact? No, I didn't. The sheer volume of stuff in the local papers was overwhelming, and that little tid-bit, interesting though it was, must have escaped me.
<<Hebert Hoover had nothing like it.
<<Chirchill saw this as crying need.
<<I don't think that King of Canada was even consulted.>>
I think the big shots treated him as the non-entity that he was. But he was a pretty good guy about doing as he was told. His main concerns, apart from keeping Jewish refugees out of Canada, were communicating with the spirit of his deceased mother and keeping the French-Canadians quiet about the war.
-
<<I am less interested in persuading folks than I am in getting people to see another perspective and opening my own mind to the same opportunity. >>
I'm interested in both. And my target audience, frankly, isn't a guy like you, Pooch. You're already too open-minded for me to waste effort on mind-opening, and not open-minded enough for me to persuade to abandon your convictions.
I aim for the guys I'm most concerned about - - some corn-fed all-American midwesterner who's heard nothing in his or her life but the "army of heroes" rhetoric and swallows uncritically any militaristic bullshit that he hears to pump up whatever invasion or occupation this or any future administration is planning. I'm betting that the shock value alone of "army of criminals," "army of rapists," "army of thugs" - - which certainly has SOME basis in fact, at least as much basis as the "army of heroes" rhetoric of the other side - - is going to make some of these guys rock back on their heels and think. Or debate. And either way, the misdeeds of this army are going to start sinking in. The fact that they're not just the "aberrations" of a "small group" of "bad apples." You're saying that it will just alienate and harden the very people I'm trying to convince - - well, let me be the judge of that, Pooch. This is MY debating point, after all. Sure, there will be some who don't buy - - there are guys in their eighties today who were S.S. in their teens and remain S.S. today. With guys like that, the only "convincer" is a bullet right between the eyes and thank God enough of them got the "message."
I remember the 1960s like they were yesterday. (Come to think of it, they WERE yesterday!) And it was the most outrageous tactics, the wildest rhetoric, that shook Americans out of their sleep and brought them to see the absolute horror of the deeds that their Army was committing in their name. "Baby killers" "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Was it literally true? Did each returning GI have to wash the blood of at least one baby off his hands? Did LBJ really kill kids? But there was enough truth in the taunts and chants to convince a generation of young and not-so-young Americans that abominable crimes were being committed in their name, and this created one of the factors making it impossible for that criminal aggression to continue.
I'm faced every day I spend in this forum with the products of the brainwashing - - those who bought into the bullshit, America won WWII, America always fights on the good side (remarkably similar to the "Gott mit uns" - - God With Us - - slogan worn on the belt buckles of all Wehrmacht soldiers in WWII,) army of heroes etc. And I've got my work cut out for me. If only ONE of those morons gets his eyes opened, it's worth it. And I'm sure that for some of them, hearing the exact opposite of all the brainwashing pap they've been fed all their lives, is a first-time experience. They can ignore it as the ravings of a deranged lunatic but if they engage the idea, debate with it, debate against it, they will come out knowing more than when they came in. Which ain't all to the bad. Some of them, if they are smart enough, will actually come to see, here and through wider reading and investigation, what a shocking mess of lies and criminality this whole Iraq thing is.
One last point: I said earlier in another thread, that in a debate forum like this, where the subject is basically current events, and some of the participants in the forum also may have participated in the events themselves, that an unspoken but implied phrase, "present company excepted" should always be read into every post to avoid giving offense and so as not to inhibit full and frank discussion. If it makes you feel any better, "present company excepted" went implicitly into all my prior posts.
Bottom line is that I will be continuing to characterize the U.S. military and the U.S.A. as I see fit, and you of course may respond to that any way you choose. As Winston Churchill said once, "You do your worst. And we will do our best."
-
...what is it exactly that you are trying to persuade people to think? Are you aiming to make those you address think of the American army as a bunch of baby killing rapist thugs? That's a pretty sad thing. Effectively, that would mean you are just trying to get people to hate. It might turn out that the hatred is warranted, but so what? If your specific intention is to rally an actual military force to take on the American army, then you are simply using the same technique soldiers do when we use terms like "Jap" "Kraut" or "Raghead." You are employing the same rhetorical devices that the proponents of segregation used when they referred to Dr, King as "Martin Luther Coon." You are dehumanizing a group of people to make it easier to hate them - and thereby suppress any sense of decency that might prevent atrocities against them. This is how soldiers get to Abu Ghraib or My Lai and Muslims get to the World Trade Center.......So what is your goal, Michael? Is it to persuade people to change their minds about US policy? Then attack US policy. That's an extension of the objection to ad hominem attack in debate. Focus on the issue, not the people.
But is your goal to persuade people that US soldiers are evil baby killers, then go ahead and continue the rhetoric to that effect. Just recognize that people who think will reject that as bigotry out of hand. I reject out of hand sarcastic references to Islam as the "Religion of Peace" because I recognize those as an appeal to reject Islam, rather than an appeal to reject Islamic terrorists. That's a damned important distinction.
Bottom line: I suggest you consider the effect your choice of rhetorical device has on your credibiliy and ability to persuade. Even if your only real goal in this forum is pleasant exchange of views, a more careful approach to rhetorical choice can facilitate that aim without leading to less pleasant exchange of insults.
WOW.......that's some might fine assessements in that last post, Pooch. I was especially impressed with the sections I pulled from it above. I hope I'm paying attention to them in my responses, so as to maintain a certain level of credibility despite my obvious partisan ideology 8)
-
<<Compements are intended to engender good feelings and direct them.
<<Insults are intended the opposite, but is cranking up bad feeling just as worthy as starting some good ones?>>
That's a good question, but I think the answer is that it depends on the context. If a speaker comes to a high school and compliments the audience on how nice and fresh they all look, and the next speaker wants to balance out the first guy and says they all look like a bunch of scruffy bums, I'd say, even though the audience had some nicely groomed and some scruffily groomed members, the first comment (complimentary) was OK, and the second not.
If the context is an army which is going through a foreign country bombing, killing and destroying, racking up civilian casualties and generally raising hell, it might become important to determine if it's a good thing or a bad thing to keep these guys over there. It's important to know what kind of army it is. Should the "President" be allowed to influence the debate HIS way by calling them an army of heroes, of courageous and dedicated young men while at the same time nobody can use the same rhetorical device of painting the army with the actions of some of its soldiers, but use the device in reverse? That sounds grossly unfair to me. This goes way beyond complimenting or hurting feelings - - we have to KNOW just who these guys are and what they are really up to.
It takes God to create a man , but no more than a worm to destroy one.
Destruction has a the huge advantage over creativity and construction.
I am gonna start another thread dealing exclusively with the quality of the US Army.
This one can continue naturally as it is.
-
You needn't be all that impressed, sirs. Most of the argument employed in those paragraphs you quoted is a very old debating tactic called "imputing motive." It's a crock.
-
<<It takes God to create a man , but no more than a worm to destroy one.>>
I think you really opened a can of worms. First of all, the man was already destroyed before the worm picked up its knife and fork. Secondly, even if it was the worm who destroyed the man, who do you think created the worm? Third, isn't it blasphemous to suggest that anything built by God can be destroyed by worms, without giving God the same credit for creating the worm as for creating the man?
<<Destruction has a the huge advantage over creativity and construction.>>
What's that, the motto of the U.S. Army? and what's the "huge advantage?" The everlasting gratitude of Bush, Cheney and the Zionist Lobby?
I think I'm gonna start a new thread on the ethics of Destruction (real destruction, by which I do NOT mean well-justified criticism of the U.S. military, but the conversion of real, live human beings into twisted, charred lumps of meat, courtesy of those who engineered the invasion of Iraq) versus the ethics of creativity and construction. But from time to time I'll check into plane's new thread about the glorification of those who actually brought the carnage to Iraq just to see how he's doing.)
-
<<It takes God to create a man , but no more than a worm to destroy one.>>
I think you really opened a can of worms. First of all, the man was already destroyed before the worm picked up its knife and fork. Secondly, even if it was the worm who destroyed the man, who do you think created the worm? Third, isn't it blasphemous to suggest that anything built by God can be destroyed by worms, without giving God the same credit for creating the worm as for creating the man?
<<Destruction has a the huge advantage over creativity and construction.>>
What's that, the motto of the U.S. Army? and what's the "huge advantage?" The everlasting gratitude of Bush, Cheney and the Zionist Lobby?
I think I'm gonna start a new thread on the ethics of Destruction (real destruction, by which I do NOT mean well-justified criticism of the U.S. military, but the conversion of real, live human beings into twisted, charred lumps of meat, courtesy of those who engineered the invasion of Iraq) versus the ethics of creativity and construction. But from time to time I'll check into plane's new thread about the glorification of those who actually brought the carnage to Iraq just to see how he's doing.)
"Third, isn't it blasphemous to suggest that anything built by God can be destroyed by worms, without giving God the same credit for creating the worm as for creating the man?"
Not according to Soloman who wrote "Ecclesiastes", and points out that the human body is prone to infirmity while alive and decay once dead , so that our body is an animal much like other animals.
There are worms that can cause fatal injury and even lesser creatures than worms that can .
Did God create such things as the Guinea worm which infests human beings exclusively? Yep but the worm is an humble creature none the less.
-
<<Yep but the worm is an humble creature none the less.>>
Sounds like you need to get more of that worm's-eye view. What's humble anyway? Didn't Jesus say the meek would inherit the earth?
My zoology teacher, explaining Darwin's theory, would ask the students to determine which was best fit for survival - - tiger, elephant, cockroach? And a lot of the kids who didn't get it snickered at the cockroach reference. Of course, cockroaches were around long before tigers and elephants, are much more numerous and ubiquitous, and will be around long after the tigers and elephants are gone.
I suspect the humble worm is in pretty much the same boat.
-
<<Yep but the worm is an humble creature none the less.>>
Sounds like you need to get more of that worm's-eye view. What's humble anyway? Didn't Jesus say the meek would inherit the earth?
My zoology teacher, explaining Darwin's theory, would ask the students to determine which was best fit for survival - - tiger, elephant, cockroach? And a lot of the kids who didn't get it snickered at the cockroach reference. Of course, cockroaches were around long before tigers and elephants, are much more numerous and ubiquitous, and will be around long after the tigers and elephants are gone.
I suspect the humble worm is in pretty much the same boat.
The worm has little that a man should aspire to , other than evolutionary success.
Imagine the development of a man kind as simple and endureing as a worm, would tradeing in our other attributes be worthwile for the sake of success in evolution?
An argument that is destructive requires less intelectual energy than a constructive one because enthropy takes the side.
Thre may still be times that tearing down something is appropriate , I would say it is apropriate when there is a more contructive alternative , but even then it behooes one to point out why the alternatve is actually better.
-
Seems to me that it would take a lot of energy to tear down a complex and well-defended structure. The war against Nazi Germany took almost six full years and was a very difficult enterprise. Many good men and women lost their lives in the struggle and we shouldn't demean their efforts of destruction.
Nobody is trying to tear down the U.S. Army BTW. What needs to be torn down is the scourge of militarism - - the blind worship of the army, the readiness to treat any attack on any mission to which the Army was assigned as an attack on the Army itself and/or the belief that the Army and its personnel are "sacred" or beyond attack, or that it can be attacked for some things but not for others. Any non-realistic appraisal of the Army, which is used to discourage or invalidate criticism or outright attacks is a form of militarism.
As I've said on other occasions, every society needs an army, just as any junkyard needs a guard dog. The problem is not that we have a guard dog, the problem begins when we treat the guard dog as our superior or our boss, something that WE have to support in whatever it chooses to be doing. Gotta keep in mind who the dog works for, who pays its salary and puts its food on its plate. We don't exist to serve the guard dog, the guard dog exists to serve us. And that's the way it's gotta be.
-
Seems to me that it would take a lot of energy to tear down a complex and well-defended structure. The war against Nazi Germany took almost six full years and was a very difficult enterprise. Many good men and women lost their lives in the struggle and we shouldn't demean their efforts of destruction.
Nobody is trying to tear down the U.S. Army BTW. What needs to be torn down is the scourge of militarism - - the blind worship of the army, the readiness to treat any attack on any mission to which the Army was assigned as an attack on the Army itself and/or the belief that the Army and its personnel are "sacred" or beyond attack, or that it can be attacked for some things but not for others. Any non-realistic appraisal of the Army, which is used to discourage or invalidate criticism or outright attacks is a form of militarism.
As I've said on other occasions, every society needs an army, just as any junkyard needs a guard dog. The problem is not that we have a guard dog, the problem begins when we treat the guard dog as our superior or our boss, something that WE have to support in whatever it chooses to be doing. Gotta keep in mind who the dog works for, who pays its salary and puts its food on its plate. We don't exist to serve the guard dog, the guard dog exists to serve us. And that's the way it's gotta be.
I take this as true , but where could the US military be any more loyal or well behaved ?
WE have a lot of reason to appreaiate our officer corps for their loyalty and our enlisted for their service.
-
You're already too open-minded for me to waste effort on mind-opening, and not open-minded enough for me to persuade to abandon your convictions.
I think I just broke something in my brain.
I remember the 1960s like they were yesterday. (Come to think of it, they WERE yesterday!)
Alzhimer's a bitch, ain't it?
And it was the most outrageous tactics, the wildest rhetoric, that shook Americans out of their sleep and brought them to see the absolute horror of the deeds that their Army was committing in their name. "Baby killers" "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Was it literally true? Did each returning GI have to wash the blood of at least one baby off his hands? Did LBJ really kill kids? But there was enough truth in the taunts and chants to convince a generation of young and not-so-young Americans that abominable crimes were being committed in their name, and this created one of the factors making it impossible for that criminal aggression to continue.
Yes it did work back then - but we learned to be aware of the technique and reject it. Because the cure was as bad as the disease. You went after men who had been through hell and kicked them while they were down. In your zeal to correct one wrong you perpetrated another - and you justified it in much the same way that soldiers justified torching villages - the end sanctifies the means. We see through that now because we have had four decades (yeah, dude, it's been THAT long) to process it. Vietnam veterans are deeply respected today, in spite of the fact that far more people view Vietnam as a mistake now than did in the sixties. Fortunately, very few people who act as you do exist today - and the ones who do are publicly ridiculed. I would even bet that you would avoid actually walking up to a soldier and calling him a baby killer (provided, of course, that you didn't have actual knowledge of a war crime he committed, in which case all bets are off). Most protestors today (MOST, I said) are more careful about how they get their message across. At least in public, Peaceniks don't talk about "baby killers," Racists don't call African-Americans "niggers" and Evangelists (crazy Westboro weirdos excluded) don't call homosexuals "Faggots." (And folks don't call protestors "Peaceniks" either, but whaddayagonnado?)
"Gott mit uns"
Sounds like an ad for gloves.
. . . if they engage the idea, debate with it, debate against it, they will come out knowing more than when they came in. Which ain't all to the bad. Some of them, if they are smart enough, will actually come to see, here and through wider reading and investigation, what a shocking mess of lies and criminality this whole Iraq thing is.
But Lanya and others do exactly that in a manner that is far more likely to succeed. THINK VOLUME, MAN!
One last point: I said earlier in another thread, that in a debate forum like this, where the subject is basically current events, and some of the participants in the forum also may have participated in the events themselves, that an unspoken but implied phrase, "present company excepted" should always be read into every post to avoid giving offense and so as not to inhibit full and frank discussion. If it makes you feel any better, "present company excepted" went implicitly into all my prior posts.
I'm not talking about you directly accusing me of killing babies - hell, I've never been anywhere near a battlefield. I'm talking about the insults you throw at soldiers collectively. That means a lot to me, MT. If I called your mother a whore I wouldn't be insulting you, but I'm pretty sure you'd take offense. I know you don't mean it this way, and I truly appreciate the gesture, but in a sense that "present company accepted" has the same ring as calling me one of the "good niggers." You want to divorce yourself from the offense by qualifying it. But the people you are accusing are just as human as the ones you are defending - and often just as innocent. I guess my point is that you are dehumanizing soldiers as a group, and I want you to remember that they are human. That's exactly what you are trying to do for the people in Iraq and elsewhere who are becoming "collateral damage." It's like they are accident debris to be swept up after the insurance photos are taken. You want to remind people that there are real humans there dying as a result of US actions. I get that - and it's valid. But I also get that an awful lot of perfectly decent human beings get sent into hell and have to decide whether to kill or be killed - and then live with it. I'm glad I didn't go to the Storm or any other battle not because I never got shot at - though I ain't knockin' it - but because I never had to decide whether another human being lived or died right there in front of me. For those who did, I'm going to have to think hard before issuing a judgment.
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts on your part, and I will let it go for now. This dead horse is starting to smell like my old gym shorts - and I haven't been to a gym since 1998! Feel free to respond if you feel the need. But no more "open-minded" to the third power sentences like that first one. I've only got so many working brain cells left!
-
WOW.......that's some might fine assessements in that last post, Pooch. I was especially impressed with the sections I pulled from it above. I hope I'm paying attention to them in my responses, so as to maintain a certain level of credibility despite my obvious partisan ideology 8)
Sirs, you are - as always - too kind. It would be even better if I actually followed my own advice! :D Thanks for the kind words.
-
<< . . . but we learned to be aware of the technique and reject it. Because the cure was as bad as the disease. You went after men who had been through hell and kicked them while they were down. >>
The "hell" they went through was as nothing compared to the hell they inflicted on the innocent people of Viet Nam. Many of them still celebrate their time together in Nam as the best time of their lives - - unlimited dope, booze, whores and best of all, the power that grows out of the barrel of an M-16 pointed at families of helpless peasants and a total lack of responsibility towards anyone or anything other than their brothers in arms. Your sentimentality towards these guys is getting a little cloying at times, Pooch. Most of them came out unscathed. My kids were young at the time - - I think if it had been YOUR kids who were napalmed, you might have looked at this a little more realistically. I'm sure as hell happy that at least the Nuremburg prosecutors didn't look at all this as indulgently as you have.
<<Vietnam veterans are deeply respected today, in spite of the fact that far more people view Vietnam as a mistake now than did in the sixties. Fortunately, very few people who act as you do exist today - and the ones who do are publicly ridiculed.>>
That's the result of an unrelenting revisionist campaign waged by spinmeisters whose objective was to rid Americans of the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" which made the foreign policy of the ruling class almost impossible to pursue for many years after Vietnam. It's no credit to the Amerikkkan people that they succumbed to this bullshit campaign. Books on Vietnam revisionism have been written and I wish I knew a little more about it. Basically a number of conservative think tanks went to work on the problem and of course the politicians came on board in an interesting sequence - - the Republican hard-liners first (if they had ever left the train in the first place) then others and then finally the Democrats, mainly out of their usual cowardice, scared as ever of being labeled as unpatriotic by those who outflank them on the right. Apparently the demonization of Jane Fonda was a milestone in the campaign - - her "apology" to the vets that she had "offended" shocked the socks off me and was my personal epiphany as to how deeply the campaign had struck. Her advisers must have figured that her very livelihood was at stake.
<<I would even bet that you would avoid actually walking up to a soldier and calling him a baby killer (provided, of course, that you didn't have actual knowledge of a war crime he committed, in which case all bets are off). >>
What would be the point? If he had a shred of decency, he would long since have repented of his "service" and given himself hell for it, and if he didn't, he'd punch my lights out. No, I'm not a superhero, I'm not even a bar brawler, and my instinct for self-preservation is as strong as the next guy's - - these guys are trained to kill with their bare hands, and I'm in no particular hurry to put their "skills" to the test. That you'd even consider such a course indicates to me how much you have underestimated the viciousness and the danger that these guys represent.
<<THINK VOLUME, MAN!>>
I do, but there's room for more than one technique in fighting the good fight. Different strokes for different folks. I might get some of the minds that the Lanyas don't. I'm the guy with the broom following behind the street-sweeping machine. (Actually, I don't think the soft-core approach has worked out that well either, but I couldn't resist the metaphor.)
<<I'm talking about the insults you throw at soldiers collectively. That means a lot to me, MT. If I called your mother a whore I wouldn't be insulting you, but I'm pretty sure you'd take offense. >>
Well, that's where I think you're being entirely unrealistic, Pooch, bizarre even. I think most posters here (myself included) have enough basic decency not to insult one another's family. We all can recognize the emotional bonds of family and we respect that. But when you attempt to compare that bond to the emotional bond you feel for an institution and its members, I gotta draw the line. It's (IMHO) absurd and unhealthy. Particularly when the organization itself is a bunch of highly trained killers. An organization that, necessary though it may be, is actually an indictment of our own inhumanity and failure to resolve our differences peacefully. Now I don't expect everyone to share my opinion of the military and in fact I've somewhat overstated it here for argument's sake. I buy a poppy and wear it proudly every November, in fact it's still on my raincoat as we speak, because the 11th fell on a Sunday. And I get pissed off at those who don't. But I would never compare the mother-child bond with the citizen-soldier bond. I consider such comparisons sick and even dangerous. You have to come to a realistic assessment of what the army - - particularly the all-volunteer army - - really is. They are a bunch of trained killers who we as citizens must keep on our payroll to protect us against our enemies. Why we should have enemies is of course a whole nuther thread.