Someone's Been Reading This Board Too Long by HKCavalier

Wow. There are a few people that have stated that they need to stay way from the site for various reasons (or at least not as much). Perhaps you should consider a little break as well? Maybe?

Seriously though, what DG wrote really spells out what I consider some of the serious problems with this whole situation.

This includes but is not limited to:

1) People putting words in other peoples mouths.
2) MASSIVE hyperbole.
3) "Faith" being used in these arguments for/against war, etc... again.
4) The inability for all sides to actually read and understand what the other wrote (99.999...% of the time at least). Re: 1
5) Any confusion about what the other side is saying results in 1 & 2 and sometimes 3 instead of actually admitting it and asking a question.

etc

Basically, people (in general) keep talking at eachother and not with eachother. Yet they think that somehow things will get done this way.

Anyone else think that the situation generated by the above is stupid beyond belief? I mean, we have all left the playground, right?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2005 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Seriously though, what DG wrote really spells out what I consider some of the serious problems with this whole situation.

This includes but is not limited to:

1) People putting words in other peoples mouths.
2) MASSIVE hyperbole.
3) "Faith" being used in these arguments for/against war, etc... again.
4) The inability for all sides to actually read and understand what the other wrote (99.999...% of the time at least). Re: 1
5) Any confusion about what the other side is saying results in 1 & 2 and sometimes 3 instead of actually admitting it and asking a question.

I think these problems would apply to at least 85% of posts on the real world board... and actually you could even extend that to real world in general. If you read this list again, but think of the Bush government for example the context of your point changes to something both frightning and hillarious at the same time.

" Anyone else think that the situation generated by the above is stupid beyond belief? I mean, we have all left the playground, right? "

Well, yes. That is for the most part what all the debate is about. Both sides are so polarized that no minds will be changed. Debate, particularly in this fashion is pointless, mostly people are just trolling for a fight. I suppose that makes this board a playground of sorts doesn't it.

" Remember.... The first rule about Fight Club is :" You don't talk about Fight Club". The second rule about Fight Club is :" You don't talk about Fight Club".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2005 6:13 PM

I think 'Dream Geezer' is a troll and should be banned from the board.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2005 6:24 PM

... also, I just don't buy this notion that people minds aren't swayed by these discussions. Mine certainly has been. Not to mention the lurkers (masochistic though they may be) who might appreciate some of the info that's been brought to light.

These kinds of discussions can be a road toward real understanding, though I admit they are often not. Both 'sides' would do well to quit looking at it as a competition, or cheerleading, and start focusing on the real questions and concerns of their 'opponents'.

There are real reasons why people support Bush's policies, and there are real reasons why others distrust them. Failing to address these and at least try to see things from the other person's perspective is missing a real opportunity for communication. I think that's what 'Dream Geezer' was trying to tell HK.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:17 AM

@GinoBiffaroni:
Agreed. But, I'd raise that percent.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:31 AM

I'm tired (just woke up) and am having problems wording things in a non-offensive way. Please note that nothing is intended as insulting.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
... also, I just don't buy this notion that people minds aren't swayed by these discussions. Mine certainly has been. Not to mention the lurkers (masochistic though they may be) who might appreciate some of the info that's been brought to light.

I agree that some people may be swayed and you sure seem to be evidence to that assursion.

BUT, given the common discourse on a thread in RWE discussions forum, I'd rather disagree that you can make the leap from you (one person) to anything significant (many people). I'd think that you are the exception to the rule instead of the rule itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

These kinds of discussions can be a road toward real understanding, though I admit they are often not. Both 'sides' would do well to quit looking at it as a competition, or cheerleading, and start focusing on the real questions and concerns of their 'opponents'.

I'd say 'mostly not' (as in rule) rather than 'often not.'

I agree with the 2nd statment.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

There are real reasons why people support Bush's policies, and there are real reasons why others distrust them. Failing to address these and at least try to see things from the other person's perspective is missing a real opportunity for communication. I think that's what 'Dream Geezer' was trying to tell HK.

I don't doubt that there are real reasons why people support GW, otherwise he'd have exactly zero support.

I think what it comes down is that the 'opposition' is rather thinking that those reasons are more non-reasons. <- right now, I just woke up and can't seem to find the words to properly word an example. I'll be back later to do that.

\begin{EDIT}
Well, I can't think of what I was thinking of when I originally wrote this, but basically reasons for war ie WMD which was apparently solid intel even though the rest of the world seriously doubted that. And now I've heard Powell say with my own ears, that they were wrong about it.

This makes the Dem, say that now there is proof that GW is untrustworthy, etc, but the Rep, say that it's great that he stuck to his guns, etc.
\end{EDIT}

I'm getting some coffee now.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:04 AM

Hey, everyone! Welcome to my peculiar experiment in manifestation. I'm very interested in where this thread is going.

Not since I was a teenager has debating made a lot of sense to me, actually. It's mostly intellectual bullying and sophistry. Sometimes if some blowhard makes a particularly illogical statement, I can't help letting him know that somebody is on to his game. But the rest of the time, I come here to share my ideas and to read the thoughts and beliefs of others.

Sometimes I'll join a discussion so I can clarify my own thoughts. As an artist, I find these boards invaluable as a staging ground for a lot of my themes. When I first came to this board I was a major "thread killer;" if I posted on a thread, more'n likely no one else would ever touch it again. As an artist, it's not only important to tell your story, but to tell it in a way that engages people.

I've gotten a lot of real information from visiting the RWED. And compared with other BB's this one is hella civil (if anyone knows of a BB where such diverse views are aired and discussed with greater candor and respectfulness, please, let me know). Sure there's a large quotient of snarky, but the folks that really drive the discussions are not only informed and articulate but are able to take a little flack without getting huffy and going home. Something about being a Browncoat tends to make people, at least intellectually, scrappy. We tend not to get our ego's bruised too easily.

As to the post from my dream, I like its frankness and its challenge. I think it's fair to say that the liberal imagination can be a little out of step with how folks go about things in reality. My primary reaction to what's going on in this country today, frankly, is shock and dismay. I'm apalled by what's going on and I don't think people are ready to change. Not a very politically viable position.

After 9/11 there was a huge desire for vengence in this country. Just HUGE! A lot of liberal intellectual "leaders" (Susan Sontag comes to mind, for instance) seemed to direct their vengeful feelings inward at this country and our leaders, which was very, very upsetting to a lot of people in those early days (I personally find that infinitely preferable to projecting the hate outward against thousands of innocent brownskinned people who have the misfortune of having been born in a dictatorship that we no longer support, but that's just me

). But the rage, the vengefulness must be dealt with. Liberalism teaches us to "rise above" it, but sometimes our negative feelings are just too strong to be put aside "for the greater good." Meanwhile, the savvy neo-cons openly exploited the rage in this country to get a lot done.

The part about "turning the other cheek" is also interesting. Just google "why turn the other cheek" and see how many absolutely contradictory interpretations people have come up with. It's a real hot-point in our culture. For better or worse, Christianity must be addressed if we are to bring our country back to some kind of sanity. And again, the "moral high ground" isn't very interesting to people who are furious and vengeful. People on the left need to find a way to speak to the rage and fury in our country that is convincing, rather than condescending.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:49 AM

Hi, HK. Just a thought from a guy who took psych classes in college.
DG is you exploring the possibility that you sometimes lean too far left in your analysis of the world situation. So basically, DG is remindin' you that the edge is not an ideal location.
In a nutshell.
A full and detailed analysis will require a cash deposit.

Chrisisall, PHDuh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hi, HK. Just a thought from a guy who took psych classes in college.
DG is you exploring the possibility that you sometimes lean too far left in your analysis of the world situation. So basically, DG is remindin' you that the edge is not an ideal location.
In a nutshell.
A full and detailed analysis will require a cash deposit.

Chrisisall, PHDuh

Of course! No question about it (we obviously took some of the same classes

). DG's arguments have a kind of surgical precision in attacking certain of my cherished notions. DG is a visitor from my shadow and as such very welcome. I brought him out to meet the rest of you because I want to show him the respect he deserves. I try to make use of input like DG's here as much as possible to keep me sane. I don't really disagree with DG as his arguments apply to myself. I don't have all the answers. I'm a huge fan of paradox and inversion, particularly as it applies to me and my views. It makes me a whole lot more tolerant of the divisiveness of this forum, for instance, than a lot of people here.

I'm often tempted to actually go post by post on some of the more notorious threads in the RWED to see how they break down into meaningful discussion vs. nasty digression and name calling. I don't think I'd come anywhere near Gino's 85% garbage to discourse ratio. I know a little viciousness goes a long way and can really overshadow a thread full of thoughtful posts.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:00 PM

Nothing scientific here, but it seems to me to be about 65% repetative or useless arguing/name calling, and 35% usefull/educational and truly excellent discussion. That's a very good ratio compared with most groups, I'd say. And sometimes the 65% can be quite amusing

(but mostly not).

Select to view spoiler:

BTW, are you aware that DreamGeezer pulled a 'Freddy', and is now actually starting his own threads? How can he be stopped?

Edit: That's an overall average, some threads attain an 80 or 90% for real discussion, it's rare, but it happens.

All statistical Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:07 PM

CREESO

Ok, HK for some reason I feel compelled to throw in on this thread. Generally I’m a lurker and just recently started viewing the good ole FFF site regularly again. Strangely enough I do usually enjoy reading several of these real world threads. Seeing how I don’t actively keep up with what’s going on, these introduce some “news” that I normally wouldn’t see, as well as some varying viewpoints about said “news.” As an aside I did get a philosophy minor in college, so I guess I’m naturally drawn to civil debates. However I tend towards laziness and generally don’t want to take the time to find support for my opinions and ideas – thus I lurk. This thread, however currently seems quite laid back and very informal as opposed to most real word discussions, which I propose allows me the opportunity to state my opinions without feeling like I have to have evidence.

So now that I’ve pointlessly quantified and qualified everything you didn’t need to know about me, on to the post. First off I tend to cringe a little when people use conservative, liberal, the left and any other ambiguous, emotionally loaded terms. Granted sometimes it’s necessary and even accurate but most often they create an initial emotional reaction and often a gap in understanding. Unless the writer explicitly states the definition of such a word (which seldom happens online) we start off with a potential miscommunication from the beginning (as my definition of said terms could easily vary slightly or largely from the writers intended definition). So in a drawn out way I’m agreeing that most of the time people do “put words into others mouths” and can’t read and understand everything written. I’m just stating the obvious that some of that miscommunication comes in part from the slight or large variance in the “definitions” of the potentially numerous ambiguous terms.

And now onto the rage. During and shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I must admit that my reaction was disbelief - shock – then rage and the need for revenge. Heck at one point I was strongly considering joining the military. Then, realization and my questions set in. These were terrorist so joining the military wouldn’t help because you can’t effectively fight terrorism with an army (at the time I felt this was an obvious truth – a truth which I still believe). Then I wondered why this happened? Sure I came up with answers and possible reasons, though I’m sure they’re not entirely accurate and I’m sure I’ll never really know why. So, after my brain bested my initial emotions I hoped (though figured otherwise) that we would NOT respond with violence. That we would try to arrest those involved by using “proper” channels and not with bombs. That we would examine our foreign policy, perhaps even alter it, and begin trying to respect other countries’ wishes and rights a little more. I felt like this gave the U.S. an opportunity to open our eyes and to change for the better. To perhaps build even better foreign relations and correct some of our mistakes. It would seem as if we’ve managed quite the opposite.

Finally I want to touch on the religious aspects of politics. IMHO (as opposed to my dishonest opinion?) I think religion should have very little to do with the political scene. I think it’s great if a politician has found religion, it’s great if they want to share it and openly talk about it. However, it should be separate from their politics. They shouldn’t use politics to enforce/spread their religion onto others. Religious morals/“law” and social morals/law doesn’t always agree and shouldn’t if you wish to allow for personal freedoms. However, it seems as if the Bushites wish to force their religious “laws” onto everyone and define their political actions through their religion. That’s their mistake as far as “true” Christians are concerned. I heard Bush actually use the phrase “eye for an eye” in talking about retribution shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Now I may be mistaken (I’m basically a non-practicing Protestant), but this attitude comes from the Old Testament. Now I’m not rightly sure which branch of Christianity Bush belongs to, but I’m pretty sure that most any form of Christianity basically considers the Old Testament as the history of the world and the New Testament as the Christian way to live. Now the New Testament revolves primarily around Jesus’ teachings in which one of the primary beliefs was to “turn the other cheek” and not to seek vengeance upon the one who wrongs you. So perhaps when the “liberals” shout out that “turn the other cheek” phrase it isn’t necessarily what they believe should be done (though as I basically stated earlier I believe we should have at least tried that approach first) as maybe they just want to point out that Bush doesn’t seem to correctly understand his own religious beliefs. And since those beliefs is what he is basing his decisions on (and what most seem to follow him for), then that my friend is scary.

I apologize for the length of the post and that it doesn’t really relate to your DG much. However it did feel nice to release some of my more “liberal” feelings I suppose. Wasn’t exactly my intention, but I don’t write much so I’m just getting everything out now, that way I won’t have to say anymore until much later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:27 PM

creeso, very interesting take, I haven't thought of those things from quite that point of view. You should do this more often.

Eye for an aye Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:15 PM

Very Well Put

Post more often, we have to push that %85 number down

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by creeso:
...These were terrorists so joining the military wouldn’t help because you can’t effectively fight terrorism with an army (at the time I felt this was an obvious truth – a truth which I still believe). Then I wondered why this happened? Sure I came up with answers and possible reasons, though I’m sure they’re not entirely accurate and I’m sure I’ll never really know why. So, after my brain bested my initial emotions I hoped (though figured otherwise) that we would NOT respond with violence. That we would try to arrest those involved by using “proper” channels and not with bombs. That we would examine our foreign policy, perhaps even alter it, and begin trying to respect other countries’ wishes and rights a little more. I felt like this gave the U.S. an opportunity to open our eyes and to change for the better. To perhaps build even better foreign relations and correct some of our mistakes. It would seem as if we’ve managed quite the opposite....

This, to me, outlines the tragic error in Bush's approach to all of this. After 9/11 we experienced unprecedented support and sympathy from the international community, Christian and Muslim alike. The skeptical among us might have doubted the sincerity of some of that sympathy, but it was real enough we could have used it. We could have leveraged it into a real, comprehensive effort to deal with terrorism. We could have supported and encouraged Muslims worldwide to turn their backs on the Islamist Fundamentalist movement.

Unfortunately, our leaders chose a path that has alienated half of the planet(more?), and given supporting evidence to the terrorists' accusations of American imperialism. It's as though Bush has set out to prove Osama bin Laden right. If anything, we've bolstered Muslim support for the terrorists rather that marginalized them. Sure, we've killed lots of them. But in the process we've only inflamed hatred for our nation and provided them with endless recruitment opportunities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I was shocked when the ordinary people I visited with reacted so negatively to the attacks on Afghanistan. If a response was not justified in that situation then I submit no action EVER would be justified for the US in their view.

Now anti-US sentiment in Canada is off the chart.

I seriously doubt any sympathy towards the US more than just some brief sentiment for the families. Many Europeans deeply resented the US in the 1970's and 1980's long before President Bush appeared. Same in the Middle East and Asia.

Sadly, President Bush just brought it out in the open.

Andrew Lynch

I don't think anyone who was serious about foreign affairs had a big problem with how we dealt with Afghanistan. It was when we turned our attention to Iraq that things began to change. But your comments are very interesting, because I think they may get closer to the heart of what drives this debate than anything I've read.

If there is one consistent outlook that I've been able to identify in strident Bush supporters it is the sense that we are somehow 'standing up for ourselves'. They seem to see the situation as "they all hate us anyway, so to hell with them". It was a natural reaction after the shock of 9/11, but I think it's time we let reason and diplomacy take the reins.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
After 9/11 we experienced unprecedented support and sympathy from the international community, Christian and Muslim alike. The skeptical among us might have doubted the sincerity of some of that sympathy, but it was real enough we could have used it. We could have leveraged it into a real, comprehensive effort to deal with terrorism. We could have supported and encouraged Muslims worldwide to turn their backs on the Islamist Fundamentalist movement.

According to people who were in the Mideast and China at the time, people cheered as the towers fell. In any case, policy is not made by a population, but by its leaders. After all, look at the USA. Even though most people had not a clue who Saddam Hussein was on September 10, 2001 by September 2002 they were convinced he was the devil incarnate. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html I've seen the same run-up to war before. Within two months, Panama was given a reputation as a major drug trafficking nation, even worse than Colombia. The hapless island of Grenada shared the same fate of coming into the USA crosshairs. And although my left-of-center buddies absolutely and totally disagree with me, the prelude to Gulf War I had the same set-piece quality: the come-on to Saddam, the moving goalposts (as Rue so aptly put it), the non-negotiable negotiations.

Most people prolly think I... and people like me... are fuzzy-headed liberals. Meek and peaceable, un-knowledgeable about the wicked ways of the world. And yet... and oddly... the people who are the most vengeful in their response to 9-11 were also the most surprised. They perhaps are the ones with the most illusions about the way the world really works.

I know that for all that I claim to have a deep (cynical) understanding of the world, I haven't answered DreamGeezer's question about what I would do. I guess that's for another post.

I apparently cross-posted with AJ. I find myself in the odd situation of agreeing with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have not dreamed of this board. But here are the things I thought after 9/11 which turned out to be bogus:

The US is a big country, an attack like this won't derail it;

this would be a good time to lay out a case against ObL in International Criminal Court - get some good PR for the US, do everything above-board, get the world totally on-board with the anti-terrorist thing; and,

the US population just wouldn't be so stupid as to be bamboozled away from ObL and into Iraq (it took a span of 3 weeks from 'DEAD OR ALIVE !!' to 'Osama who?' That freaked me out. And it's still that way today - going from kick-butt rage against him to complete indifference, as if he never existed and had nothing at all to do with 9/11.)

Anyway, I later came to believe, and still believe now, that for many Americans it didn't matter whose butt they kicked - even if it was their own. Yeah, the rage, need for revenge, the will to do ANYTHING rather than feel scared and defenseless was well exploited by Bush & Co. (Only now that the pain is coming home are some people beginning to re-think this particular choice.) And fear was also evoked over and over again by those very same people to scare everyone into thinking that somehow they were good protectors (though 9/11 did happen under their watch) and anyone else would be life-and-death dangerous. (Cynically, I wonder if at-home terror attacks will be allowed to procede, or even instigated by those people who live on US fear.)

As to DG's posts about 'liberals' (which I think means all who are not certified conservatives) - in the months after 9/11, I did think of a few things to do, which of course didn't get done.

Like using the ICC to go after ObL and staying focused in him and al Qaeda; engaging current allies and making even more all around the globe, united in the common cause of global safety and security; tightening up US borders; buttressing US morale instead of playing on fear, and rebuilding and strengthening the country; checking if US policies had outlived their original intent and ended up painting a target on the country, etc

In other words, responding to a fearful situation not with indifference or attempted-martyrdom, but with positive, realistic, and genuinely beneficial actions, and also with healing and positive goals.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Sadly, President Bush just brought it out in the open.

Andrew Lynch

AJ, I totally agree with you on this. I think Bush has brought many, many things to light overseas and here at home that have been lurking in the shadows, largely ignored by the mainstream, but defining the international situation for years. Corruption in the U.N. (before Bush most of us saw the U.N. as a kind of international PTA); Europe's condescention towards America since, well, the beginning; our own slippery morals when it comes to covert ops and realpolitik (sure the conspiracy theorists and Amnesty International types knew, but now anyone you meet has an opinion on the appropriate use and missuse of torture). All these and more have rightfully come to the surface of public awareness. I think the European mainstream has been in big denial of America's potential as a global threat (the alternative was just a little too scary). We've always played nice in the past, and let Europe look down on us a little, as silly Americans with our quaint sex scandals and macho posturing.

Be that as it may, I did feel the world coming together right after 9/11. New York City was transformed; the city that embodied cynicism and distrust, that gave us Kitty Genovese and Bernard Getz, was suddenly the help-your-neighbor, we're-all-in-this-together capitol of the world. Russia and China both offered aid, fer cryin' out loud! "We Are All Americans" read the headline in France. In any case, whatever goodwill we received after 9/11 has certainly gone the way of the Dodo.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As to DG's posts about 'liberals' (which I think means all who are not certified conservatives) - in the months after 9/11, I did think of a few things to do, which of course didn't get done.

Like using the ICC to go after ObL and staying focused in him and al Qaeda; engaging current allies and making even more all around the globe, united in the common cause of global safety and security; tightening up US borders; buttressing US morale instead of playing on fear, and rebuilding and strengthening the country; checking if US policies had outlived their original intent and ended up painting a target on the country, etc

In other words, responding to a fearful situation not with indifference or attempted-martyrdom, but with positive, realistic, and genuinely beneficial actions, and also with healing and positive goals.

Rue, I'm contemplating posting a DG thread every week, just to read your responses! We have to get the "Rue for President" campaign off the ground!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You are far too kind.

Have I mentioned that I discuss issues with MANY really, really smart people - most of them on this board and also my sister (the smart child) and my BiL - and that nearly everything I know I got from someone else? I just want to repeat that in case I haven't said it recently.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:53 PM

In May of 2000, I remember in a London café one afternoon, I sat down at a table with a French woman and her husband. I spoke with them for several minutes before I realized they didn’t know I was an American. It was perhaps this that made this woman so bold as to be so honest about what she felt about Americans. She said, “Americans are dogs, and they should be killed like dogs.” I spoke with her for several minutes trying to identify what it was that caused to despise Americans so much, and never really ended on anything specific or even lucid. Is this what Europeans say, when they think you’re not an American? Outrageous. I was a little taken aback by it. What on earth brings people to hate so much what has caused them no reason for such hatred?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by creeso:
So, after my brain bested my initial emotions I hoped (though figured otherwise) that we would NOT respond with violence. That we would try to arrest those involved by using “proper” channels and not with bombs. That we would examine our foreign policy, perhaps even alter it, and begin trying to respect other countries’ wishes and rights a little more. I felt like this gave the U.S. an opportunity to open our eyes and to change for the better. To perhaps build even better foreign relations and correct some of our mistakes. It would seem as if we’ve managed quite the opposite.

You make it all sound so simple! I was right there with you...

Creeso, it's so gratifying to me to have inspired you to cease your lurking if only for this one post! I would certainly categorize Dream Geezer as a "lurker" in my own psyche, so I'm glad he may have inspired you to show yourself here. Welcome!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
What on earth brings people to hate so much ...

It may not be as baseless as you assume.
Perhaps it has something to do with the US being the massive gorilla on the international park bench, AND beyond being oblivious, being dismissive and arrogant to boot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You are far too kind.

Have I mentioned that I discuss issues with MANY really, really smart people...and that nearly everything I know I got from someone else?

Um...and this, somehow, makes you less presidential?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It may not be as baseless as you assume.
Perhaps it has something to do with the US being the massive gorilla on the international park bench, AND beyond being oblivious, being dismissive and arrogant to boot.

Well, that’s pretty baseless.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Is this what Europeans say, when they think you’re not an American? Outrageous. I was a little taken aback by it. What on earth brings people to hate so much what has caused them no reason for such hatred?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

That's a fascinating and nasty story, Finn. Most Americans don't know what it's like to be hated because they happen to fall into a category. 'Course, other Americans do.

I really think it's hard for us as Americans to understand what our absolute power looks like from the other side. We're nice folks, why are they all so scared?

Additionally, Americans think that as long as the good things we do outnumber the bad things we've done at the end of the day, we should remain beloved by all. But it doesn't work that way. The fella we just beat up doesn't care how much money we donate to charities each year. No amount of goodness outweighs the badness except in our own miserable psyches. The badness just is. The only way to make up for the badness is to repair it and stop doing it. Otherwise, folks just see us as two-faced. AND the greatest military power on Earth.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I don't think anyone who was serious about foreign affairs had a big problem with how we dealt with Afghanistan. It was when we turned our attention to Iraq that things began to change.

I think you are wrong there. Many non-US news outlets did report that the Taliban government was prepared to extradite Osama bin Laden, making the way you " dealt " with Afganistan unnescesary.

The only problems.... they demanded actual proof he was involved ( due process in any extradiction )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/010913_retaliation
.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/arc
hive/200109/For20010913a.html

" Khan also added people will demand proof from the US government on Bin Laden's involvement in order to evaluate the evidence and consider his extradition. He said "

" The Taleban government has repeatedly refused to hand over Bin Laden for trial but has said that it would consider extraditing him to the US is his involvement is proven. "

as well they also spoke of an international tribunal, rather than a straight hand over to the US if the case an arguement for the possibility of not recieving a fair trial ( an impossibility )

Diplomacy was not dead, but the fires being stoked by the hawks ( whose Foreign policy caused the war ) had to be appeased.

" They didn't care about our citizens, so we don't care about theirs. "I say bomb the hell out of them," Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) said in an angry speech Wednesday. "

Of course, if the negotiations, as well as international mediation fell thru... then the US would have been justified. Mind you, if the US was justified and this is the way the game is played, I suppose it would be completely fair if the Cuban airforce starts bombing runs on targets in Florida over the lack of a Luis Posada Carriles extradiction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4561751.stm

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Mind you, if the US was justified and this is the way the game is played, I suppose it would be completely fair if the Cuban airforce starts bombing runs on targets in Florida over the lack of a Luis Posada Carriles extradiction.

No. Eh-eh. Not logic. It won't work when applied politically. I mean I totally agree with you, but...facts and logic and such just serve to cloud the issue.

ironic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I don't think anyone who was serious about foreign affairs had a big problem with how we dealt with Afghanistan. It was when we turned our attention to Iraq that things began to change.

I think you are wrong there. Many non-US news outlets did report that the Taliban government was prepared to extradite Osama bin Laden, making the way you " dealt " with Afganistan unnescesary.

The only problems.... they demanded actual proof he was involved ( due process in any extradiction )

Ahh.. ok. I didn't know that. Still, it seems most people at least understood why Americans would support such action. I think a lot more people were perplexed how Americans could be convinced Iraq should be invaded. I know I was.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's a fascinating and nasty story, Finn. Most Americans don't know what it's like to be hated because they happen to fall into a category. 'Course, other Americans do.

I really think it's hard for us as Americans to understand what our absolute power looks like from the other side. We're nice folks, why are they all so scared?

Additionally, Americans think that as long as the good things we do outnumber the bad things we've done at the end of the day, we should remain beloved by all. But it doesn't work that way. The fella we just beat up doesn't care how much money we donate to charities each year. No amount of goodness outweighs the badness except in our own miserable psyches. The badness just is. The only way to make up for the badness is to repair it and stop doing it. Otherwise, folks just see us as two-faced. AND the greatest military power on Earth.

I don’t think that this woman’s opinion had much to do with what the US had or had not done. At one point she referred to US support for Hussein’s Iraq in the 80’s, but when I pointed out that her own country was a strong supporter of Iraq, she didn’t seem to think that was very bad. There was something she believed that the US was responsible for, which actually the US had nothing to do with. I don’t remember exactly what that was; I just remember thinking how strange it was that she would attribute that to the US. I don’t remember all the conversion, it was a long time ago, but I don’t think she was dumb; she just didn’t have very lucid arguments for her hatred of Americans. Of course I’m not sure that there are any lucid arguments for wanting to kill people like dogs. Odds are, she was just a fruit.

I just thought I would share an interesting anecdote on anti-Americanism.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:04 PM

I'm sorry, Finn, I just kept talking after I'd made my point about your french lady. I suspect that she was afraid of us. I was supposing it might have something to do with our military dominance in the world. If someone has the power to utterly destroy you, you might be afraid, even if they've only ever been nice, you see? What she hates and fears is our power. Although, I agree with you, no matter what she's upset about, killing us all like dogs is pretty effed up.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No. Eh-eh. Not logic. It won't work when applied politically.

Like Logic... Try this site

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/goodbad/Combatant.html

The politics of applying the same arguements that North Vietnam held towards American prisoners during that war ( to great outrage in your country ) to prisoners being held by you today ( to lukewarm support ) is REALLY ironic.

Its no wonder Senator McCain is one of the few who speaks out over this issue:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002341676_gitmocrx2
0.html

Quite possibly The " man of honor in a den of thieves "
just to work a Firefly quote in.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In other words, responding to a fearful situation not with indifference or attempted-martyrdom, but with positive, realistic, and genuinely beneficial actions, and also with healing and positive goals.

I have a serious question for President Rue that gets back to the lack of realism at the heart of the "liberal imagination." At first glance, "What would you do?" isn't all that hard for a well-informed person like you to answer. I remember back when I was in high school in the Model United Nations we'd come up with all kinds of eligant solutions to the world's problems.

The problem is that "the world's problems" are not static or necessarily visible at first glance. As I saw/see it, the central problem in this country after 9/11 was the rage and hunger for vengence of the average citizen. Without that rage, Bush's plans would not have gotten off the ground. We'd have reacted to his plans as the rest of the world did and the Democrats in congress would have felt that and stood up to Bush, the media would have exploded with Bush's fall in opinion polls, etc. But that didn't happen, because America wanted blood.

So, President Rue, what would you have done to deal with the country's rage? Without the war, I can imagine an unprecidented spike in hate crimes, Muslim Americans lynched in the streets, maybe a new virulent nationalist movement, domestic terrorism on the rise, etc. You see where I'm going with this? Merely having a sensible humanitarian in the White House wouldn't be enough. What would you have done to heal the wounds to our nation's psyche after 9/11?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not Rue but here goes...

For most Americans, 9-11 was an unpredictable and unexplainable horror. The immediate American reaction was shock and fear. Then we banded together to help each other: blood donations- donations of all kinds- soared. The desire for vengeance was prolly nascent, but it was fanned by "dead or alive" rhetoric to give us a false sense of control (for purposes we would never agree with). My point is that the desire for vengeance was, to some extent, manufactured. I mean, look at how we all got behind the spurious notion to invade Panama -and what kind of danger did Panama represent to us?

I don't think it is necessary to dissipate the rampaging, undirected bloodlust in the American psyche because it doesn't exist. By keeping the focus narrowly on the actual perpetrators and pounding the snot out of them, whatever need we have for control would have been exorcised. And we could have focused our attention on literally healing our wounds, both phsyical and psychic, by extending the outpouring of generosity and care that marked our initial response to 9-11. And we could have used the opportunity for us to learn what it feels like to be a victim and to learn to identify with victims all over the world, instead of becoming the bootheel of dominance.

BTW- As a basis for my ideas on vengeance, there are four possible endocrine reactions to fear and danger: flight, fight, befriend, and tend. Bush pushed the "fight" button over and over. But you could also see the "flight" reaction taking place: we had to be reminded to do our patriotic duty, stop hiding in our houses and go out shopping? And the help we all gave each other was part of the "befriend and tend".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
the rage and hunger for vengence of the average citizen

I don't see it that way. The very first reaction was shock. The second, fear. Fear is one of the emotions that can generate anger/rage (frustration is the other). But it doesn't have to go that way. Address the fear, and the rage will generally not be an issue. (There is a certain percentage of Americans already primed by feelings of entitlement that will respond to threat with anger/rage that can't be addressed by addressing the fear, however.) And then there will be a sense of loss.

What I saw was Bush deliberately stoking rage, and step by step seeing how far it could be taken. Perhaps you remember that he progressed from holding up bin Laden as the demon - at first to be 'brought to justice' but later to be taken DEAD OR ALIVE !, and expanding on to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Afghanistan, and ultimately to anyone, anywhere who was, if not with Bush, with the terrorists.

This was not spontaneuosly generated in the American public, it was stoked.

Imagine a different approach. The set up:
many people are shocked*
and later, afraid
and, still later experiencing loss.

What could be done/said to address the national psyche?

Flights grounded. Borders closed. The public informed. So far, so good. Nothing generates fear like silence, uncertainty and the sense that nothing is being done.

Give a speech, but after addressing the shock and horror, put it in perspective: "The US has experienced attacks on home soil in times past - Pearl Harbor was a day of infamy for our country. And rest assured the perpetrators of today's heinous attack will be found and brought to justice. But history teaches us America is strong. Shaken to its core, it survives adversity and ultimately thrives. This magnificent country ..." etc

Each day document the work of rescuers in NYC, put out news clips of what is being done to restore function (to Wall Street or air travel for example), assure ppl that you are in contact with governments around the globe to identify the attackers, immediately start an investigation on how it happened, organize ways for ppl to get involved in the recovery if they are so inclined (but don't focus too heavily on it at first, as that could be for many simply another dose of fear), and so on.

Anyway, this is the 'crisis mode' approach I would use.

Recognizing that different people were affected to different levels, another step is to simply restore the normal background of everyday insitutional activity (including commercial activity) as quickly as possible, and upfront addressing the need for heightened security. "Attacks were carried out by a few men, mere men carrying box-cutters. If these few men had been stopped individually or as a group, these attacks would not have succeeded. Effective safety lies in responding immediately to these events. We conclude all institutions should hire additional security ...." etc

I see this as carrying through to the beginnings of recovery.

Anyway, I have more to say, but much to do. I'll try to get back to this later.

many people are shocked*
*But not all. I have to refer to SignyM's comment that there were some who paid attention to the national and international terrorist attacks in other countries - France, Spain, Britain, Russia - that had been going on for literally decades, and who actually remembered the original terrorist attack on the Twin Towers just a few short years before.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:14 PM

@Rue:
Well, if people can't get you to run for prez down there, can we lure you to Canada to run for Prime Minister? You'll get free health care

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The US is special and is unprecedented in history. Much of the world sees this and just cannot stand it. It is the basis for much of the anti-american sentiment we see.

I am curious about these statements and would like you to expound on them. But if you can't expound on them b/c, for example, they are so clear to you you can't say it any better, perhaps you could answer some questions to make them clear to me.

What specifically makes the US special? When did it achieve that status? Who hates the US for that status? How long has it been hated for that status? What is that hatred based on?

Thanks.
Rue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
President Clinton was big time using covert operations against AQ camps and even had a TLAM shootout with one base camp (and a CW/WMD factory in Sudan).

Do you mean the pharmaceutical plant the US levelled in Sudan ?

There was international verification that it was a pharmaceutical plant.

Yet another great example of bad intell, leading to dumb actions causing more distrust and hatred of the US overseas

more links

http://www.doublestandards.org/sudan.html

more about the aftermath

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/336375.stm

a nice overview

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I personally believe that the US is special among the nations of man... Something worth protecting for the benefit of all humanity...The US is special and is unprecedented in history.

"Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's harbinger.."
Andrew, common now, you really are starting to sound like Dr. Zaius from Planet Of The Apes. Only you're bestowing a devine special-ness on the US instead of Apes.

Puhleeeez Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
In my opinion, the Predator/Hellfire combination is about the perfect weapon for the operation. Somebody knew the back story. Someone in President Clinton administration. That or they were ridiculously lucky.

http://www.ga.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=983174400&archive=&st
art_from=&ucat=&&print

Andrew Lynch

While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?

I wonder what the cost would be to put up a sufficent security screen to protect all of your Senators, and Congressmen, and Governors and for that matter Divison commanders, perhaps all of their staffs.

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to target, say any staff car leaving Fort Belvoir... It drives down I-95 passes a broken down car and BOOOM. What is known as a cheap kill.

Such weapons will not make anyone safer, it will only cause improvisation, and adaptation.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump.

I will not be able to get back till at least Monday. If I keep ths up near the top, I won't be so liable to forget.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?

Because no one is actively seeking to kill Americans, right? Like say, I don't know, maybe trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon, Whitehouse and/or Capital Building?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?
Because no one is actively seeking to kill Americans, right? Like say, I don't know, maybe trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon, Whitehouse and/or Capital Building?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...

doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.

If you were on the other end of it, you would call yourself enemy as well, wouldn't you ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?

We already face these threats on a daily basis in the US and outside. AQ and the like have shown absolutely no compunction about using any and all weapons and means available to them.

You call it assassination. I call it targeting enemy command and control centers. No matter what anyone calls it, AQ and Taliban leadership are and were legitimate targets. They are a clear and present danger to the US and everyone else for that matter.

Andrew Lynch

So then, games on. If they do start hitting the targets as I suggest, You won't be calling it terrorism then.... ??

I accept your definition --- Legitimate targets of war. Lets review the list, shall we

Any US Politican ( Federal and State Level )
Immediate staffs
Any member of the US armed Forces
Military Contractors
Any Law Enforcement Officers ( as they act as state security agents )

But thats just people, lets look at infrastructure targets

Any Military base
Any State or Federal Building
Powerplants
Gas and Oil Plants
Docks
Raillines & Traffic]
Bridges
Hydro Projects
Airfields

and lets call any vehicle 5 tons or over industrial infrastructre and a fair target.

These are just a few thing your government has targeted, do others like the Yugo carworks in your Serbian bombing campaign make the bombing of any Ford or GM plant in the US an acceptable target ?

So lets not call any of this " Terrorism " but legitimate targets of war, and since your country feels free to provide arms, intell and support to anyone they choose without consequence, why not lay off those who would support the other team.

After all, the US is " a clear and present danger to " them " and everyone else for that matter. "

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...

doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.

If you were on the other end of it, you would call them enemy as well, wouldn't you ?

Wow, that’s some bent logic. Should I call France, Germany and Russia an enemy? They sold weapons to Saddam Hussein? Have they been actively trying to kill off Americans?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...

doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.

If you were on the other end of it, you would call them enemy as well, wouldn't you ?
Wow, that’s some bent logic. Should I call France, Germany and Russia an enemy? They sold weapons to Saddam Hussein? Have they been actively trying to kill off Americans?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

As did the United States when they " encouraged " Iraqs war of aggresion against Iran, those weopans were also used ( with US knowledge, and I would suggest support ) to put down several insucrections against Saddam.

But not my point, I was more refering to Al qaeda and other organizations and their efforts to change the governments in Saudi Arabia, Eypgt, Yemen and elsewhere.

If you back the tyrannt, you must accept of the blame for his actions,

The friend of my enemy is also my enemy ( but only if he keeps helping him out )

As for France, Germany and Russia... If you caught them shipping arms to the freedom fighters of Iraq, wouldn't you call them your enemy ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As for France, Germany and Russia... If you caught them shipping arms to the freedom fighters of Iraq, wouldn't you call them your enemy ?

Yeah, that’s the question I just asked you. France, Germany and Russia sold arms and/or provided assistance to Hussein right up to and possibly after the fall of the Hussein’s regime. So based on your argument, France, Germany and Russia are actively trying to kill Americans and therefore are enemies? Right?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So based on your argument, France, Germany and Russia are actively trying to kill Americans and therefore are enemies? Right?

All the nations on this planet can be at times considered enemies or friends, it's a matter of timing ( except Canada, they're always our friend, plus they shot Dark Angel there
).
Finn, you're not going to get a really coherent answer to your last question. You must know this.
If we traced down the countries responsible for Saddam's weapons of (not-so-mass) destruction, Sweden and New Zealand would probably be the only ones to come up totally clean.

Is Antarctica a country? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 1:02 PM