Very well, Diogenes, I apologize to you.
Sailor, how do you reconcile this post:
with this?
[quote]
I bet not one single person will support your assertion that I blame the troops. You cannot find a single post where I blame the troops.
gobear,
As has already been pointed out to you by others in this thread, you seem to be stuck in “us VS them” mentality, and as long as you remain in said mode your repeated admissions of error, while admirable in and of themselves, do little to further the understanding between the two factions.
In fact, rather the opposite holds true.
However, I do agree with you that if Americans finally elect GW this coming fall, it will become increasingly harder for the rest of the world to differenciate between being anti-US Government and being straight out anti-American.
No big fan of Kerry myself (appears to be a Bush-lite w/regards to foreign policy) but I do agree with him when he says, and I quote: “new president vital to Iraq’s stability.”
Yes, the schism between Bush and the rest of the world is that wide. And that’s why we need for people like yourself to not only admit to being duped and taste the bitter medicine that comes with said admission, but for to also abandon your bunkers and join the rest of the world.
For that purpose, I extend my hand in a gesture of peace…and I suspect many many others would join along with me.
[Original rant deleted after previewing]
Thank you, Gobear. FWIW, I think you’re a stand-up guy. You’re one of the few around here (Airman is another one) who is willing to admit that you were misled about this war instead of just digging in your heels for an ideological side.
Since you have taken the quote out of context I am not going bother answering you except to say I do not believe you will find one single poster here who supports your view that that post means what you say it means and they all see your dishonesty. As long as you are alone in that I am satisfied that everybody here can see through your lies. If another poster believes my post meant what you say I will be glad to clarify. Now, does any other poster here believe my post is blaming the troops?
Absolutely, RedFury, of course, I’ll shake your hand. I want the US to abandon its stupid, short-sighted policies and to return to a multilateral alliance to contain threats to international security.
I don’t like fighting with people with whom I should be my friends.
gobear, I wouldn’t worry too much about sailor He’s always very carefull to avoid his true meanings behind a lot of small talk. Anyone who has read his posts knows about his pure, undilluted hatred for Americans. God knows why. Maybe some American stole his sailor-mate.
I’ve linked before about his anti-American feelings. It’s somewhere in the pit. I’ll search for it if you want. Here’s another one:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4744901&postcount=28
sailor, You’re pathetic.
Wow what a lot of horseshit gum that link isn’t anti American in the slightest. Care to link to something useful or do I need to put his posts through your head before they become anti-american?
I really wish my $4.95 bought an “Edit” feature.
Dude, why do you constantly need other people to back you up? If you believe yourself to be right, then stand up for your convictions by yourself. Sure, you should listen to constructive criticism and modify your views if you receive new information, but you should not let yourself be swayed merely by opinion.
If you believe me to be a lying jackass, then stick to your guns because you that to be so**. You’re wrong, of course, but you’ll figure that out for yourself, not because other people tell you so.
This is the umpteenth post in which you seek to solidify your position by argumentum ad populum. Stand up for yourself, man, and stop seeking the validation of others.
Dang, I hate to use a stale cliche, but…
Pot. Kettle. Black.
[QUOTE=gum]
gobear, I wouldn’t worry too much about sailor He’s always very carefull to avoid his true meanings behind a lot of small talk. Anyone who has read his posts knows about his pure, undilluted hatred for Americans. God knows why.
[quote]
That’s a good argument. So I do not mean what I say but you have found the true meaning behind my posts? Wonderful.
But you have still not found a post where I blame the troops for what’s happening in Iraq which was the question being asked. Do you believe I blame the troops? If so, why so?
I am not going to dispute that I can be and I have been on occasion an arrogant prick for which, as i said, there is no excuse, even when being right. The difference is that I try to be right and when I am wrong I humbly apologize. I have done it many times and I do not have any problem doing it. When I am wrong I admit it. Which is what this thread is about: Someone being an arrogant prick and not admitting it.
In any case, I apologize for the times I was an arrogant prick, even when I was right. One should never be an arrogant prick, even if he is right.
I was also misled by the claims of WMDs. I made no claims as to the veracity of the administration here, but privately I never seriously entertained the possibility that there was nothing to find. I was sure that the naysayers were being hysterical ninnys. I fully admit I was wrong, then again I made no posts about the issue before this one so I can hardly be taken to task for it. I also did not support the war, as I believed there were other steps to take before invading.
Despite my sympathies for his views I can’t support Bluesman in this case. The way I see it one can make two types of claims in any debate, or general question for that matter. You can do a Scylla, make strident claims, but claim no special non-public knowledge to back it up. We see this all the time with legal and medical questions in GQ. Someone will post an answer with the qualifier that they are not a lawyer or doctor. Other participants can then evaluate the answer as opinion only.
You can also do a Bluesman, and claim special non-public knowledge. I would argue that this type of claim gives you a greater responsibility for being correct, and that this is the real issue at hand. If a lawyer answers a question about the law and aggressively defends their answer as correct, it better be correct. This makes good sense as claims from a position of authority can tend to stifle debate. It presents a greater hurdle for the other side, as they have no special claim to non-public information. If Bluesman had stated his belief as opinion only, this pitting would be absurd. The Pit would be full of ‘I told you so’ back and forths. The fact that he went beyond opinion was clearly a mistake on his part, and something he should own up to.
I also wanted to respond to the earlier question of whether Iraq is better off after the war. I would be very careful about using a poll to make that decision. Do Red Fury et al. admit the possibility that the respondents to the poll might have said they are worse off to make a political point? It would be hard to underestimate the evils of Saddam’s regime. It would also be hard to argue that anything other than Saddam in power isn’t an improvement. If Sailor, Red Fury, and Diogenes, were given a poll asking “Is George Bush as dangerous a leader as Hitler?”, they might answer yes to make a point. I don’t seriously believe (unless they are far more out of touch with reality than I expect) that they would mean that literally. I think the poll reflects this same degree of hyperbole.
Oh c’mon. If he could somehow survive the words on the screen for the original thread, I think the man can take another thread. And as everybody is so fond of pointing out, he’s a military man. Aren’t they supposed to be tough? If he can do basic, I bet a thread where people call him names won’t kill him.
Being so arrogant and insulting, claiming authority from his position, and ending up so spectactulaly wrong, IMHO he really needs to address this issue. It would be the honorable thing to do, and if anybody still attacks him after a decent apology they will be the ones lacking class.
[QUOTE=fruitbat]
You can also do a Bluesman, and claim special non-public knowledge. I would argue that this type of claim gives you a greater responsibility for being correct, and that this is the real issue at hand. If a lawyer answers a question about the law and aggressively defends their answer as correct, it better be correct. This makes good sense as claims from a position of authority can tend to stifle debate. It presents a greater hurdle for the other side, as they have no special claim to non-public information. If Bluesman had stated his belief as opinion only, this pitting would be absurd. The Pit would be full of ‘I told you so’ back and forths. The fact that he went beyond opinion was clearly a mistake on his part, and something he should own up to.
[QUOTE]
That is an excellent point which cuts to the heart of the thread, IMO. **Bluesman[/b[ said that he had confidential information that he couldn’t reveal, but which absolutely confirmed the presence of WMDs in Iraq which backed up case for war, amnd for that he should be held accountable.
On review, I see that you did indeed. I guess I lost it that acknowledgement in all the impassioned words being thrown back and forth. My apologies to you. But, then, this thread isn’t really about whether you’re a standup guy; many of us -including me- thought so before and continue to think so.
If the extreme arguments “crowd out” reasoned discussion, it is only by the disproportionate engagement of reasonable people with the extremes of opposing viewpoints instead of with the less easily ignorable valid (and loyal) opposition. And it’s not just insulting to your rational opponents, it does a disservice to all honest debaters when the extremists are given the most prominent podium from which to proclaim.
I should not assume, when arguing against this administration’s foreign misadventures, that it makes a bit of difference whether I score rhetorical points against its most extreme and vehement defenders. Rather, I should engage in discussion with those who have not shut their minds to argument, not only for the sake of my own argument, but also in the hope that at least some approximate congruence of situational understanding can be approached among reasonable people who are in disagreement.
Sorry to disturb the little blame game here… If there is anyone who could have said that the US military in Iraq commits murder by every victim they make among the Iraqi population (including armed military and armed resistance) then that shall be me. I didn’t see DTC or sailor even remotely refer to this anywhere on the forums.
In addition: I wouldn’t even remotely come to the idea to say this about the US military if they were:
- defending their homeland if it came under attack and invasion by a foreign army.
- when a war instigated by that other country provoked the US army to attack that country, invade that country, fight the army of that country inside its borders.
- when the soldiers doing the fighting and killing in Iraq were forced by the US government to enter the army.
By the way gum: the post you linked to describes fairly good a few details of US reality.
The only addition that could be made is that similar can happen elsewhere and did so during the course of history.
Conclusion: You are far beyond being pathetic. Which is unfortunately for you no news to me.
On the OP:
I read some of the linked thread and must say that if this member has the function he claimed to have, he is one of the best examples one can get of the brainwashing done among the US military/intelligence personnel regarding Iraq.
I don’t think that he had any intention to mislead members of a message board. He shows himself to be full of The Truth. That he defends that position against perceived “ignorants” who in his eyes can’t know what he claims to know - all while being convinced he has some credible access to The Real Truth - is in my opinion completely forgivable. Caused by the heath of the moment, so to speak.
I find it however rather unforgivable that he claims **he worked on that for 3 years ** and didn’t develop any doubts on the information he was obviously spoon-fed. All this while the rest of the world was about screaming for a few months in a row that the US had no trustworthy information to even remotely prove the wild claims they made against Iraq.
He should have least have noticed that the US war-hawks were completely disregarding/conceiling/twisting the information coming from intelligence and diplomatic sources around the world. (Not even to mention Hans Blix and his reports).
Some conclusion could be: This make it seems as if people like bluesman are effectively shield-off from looking into reports that could make them develop even a slight doubt on what is thrown on their desk.
Salaam. A
I ought to point out that I don’t consider either sailor or DtC representative of extreme points of view, btw.
How about our esteemed Aldeberan? (how fitting that he is named after the brightest star in Taurus, since his posts are full of bull.) Is there any point at which, you as a reasonable exponent of the anti-war side, will tell a poster to step off? “Whoa, dude, you do NOT speak for our side, so back off, man!” or the like?
But I will not pay him any further attention and will respond only to the reasonable center.
Aldebaran], Hey, good to see you again. Did you get resolution to your little snit with the mods?
For some reason, I’m flashing on the final scene in Pulp Fiction
Aldeberan: If you give that nimrod an excuse for George Bush’s action, I’ll flame him on general principles.
Gobear turns his gun on Aldeberan.
Xenophon41: He’s not going to do a goddamn thing. Turn the gun on me, Gobear. That’s right, baby. Keep the gun on me. Shut the fuck UP, Aldeberan!