Fascinating 'old boy. How does one go about subscribing to your magazine?
And you’re a bigoted, hateful bastard. Point? Was there any point, exactly? Or did you just need to ignite the argument and get a shot in at the resident “commie Bastard” who just happens to think differently than you?
We’re a group of people who is used to debating and arguing amongst ourselves and till this point, nobody had hurled flat-out insults about a person’s character. If you can’t keep it at least a little less personal, I suggest you go fuck off with the little kids for a while.
Why my dear World Eater, thought.
err, wait a minute…
Sam
Send Ryan a copy too while your at it. He needs some reeducation.
A quibble in the midst of larger topics. It’s a minor point, but that’s the trouble with quibbles.
Firing on our aircraft. Remember Rummy talking about this, in terms of gasping horror, how the Iraqis had fired over 700 missiles at our airplanes. Funny thing he forgot to mention: they didn’t hit any. They didn’t even come close to hitting any. Why? Because they never turned on thier radar guidance systems.
Without them, ground to air interceptor rockets are very expensive fireworks. If you got thoroughly drunk, blindfolded yourself, and took potshots at flying ducks with a .22 pistol, you had a better chance of scoring a hit.
And yet it keeps coming up, “firing at our aircraft!” Firing into the air when our aircraft were in the general vicinity was closer to the truth. I mean, come on, 700 plus shots and not even one hit?
A very thoughtful argument, Ryan. Sure has me convinced to repent my ways, I tell ya. What grade are you in, by the way?
Of course not. If they had, they’d get hit. But shooting anyway helped keep them from being suspected as less than diligent in their duties, and out of Abu Ghraib.
The “reality-based community” line is from “a senior Bush adviser” in an interview with Ron Suskind. Originally in NY Times magazine, pay archive but widely copied on free sites.
Exactly how many soldiers are required to die before we can treat shots “in our general direction” as threats?
I can’t believe this is a serious argument.
He pisses me off because he’s prepared to lump all Bush supporters as Homosexual hating Bible bashing corporate abusers, whereas if he talks about the ‘left’ as if it were the moral superior. It isn’t, nothing is.
He advocates the Administration and our Allies to pull out of Iraq and then cause countless more deaths, advocates our withdrawing right away without proper trained Iraqi security forces, to back up a newly created democratically elected government. He’s even tried to compare the insurgents to some sort of resistance movement with a unified ideology. I’ve never denied the Coalition has made numerous fuckups, but this noway stops me from thinking we’re still on the right course. What the hells wrong with me believing our countries and administration wants that?
“Dishonest fuckwad” (which was the closing epithet of Red Fury’s post, and which Ryan quoted in his post) isn’t a “flat-out insult about a person’s character”? Hell, have you read the OP? That doesn’t include a few flat-out insults? What about the freaking title of the thread? Insinuating that Bush supporters don’t have brains isn’t an insult?
Before suggesting that someone has just made the first personal insult on Page 7 of a debate, maybe it would be a good idea to read one or two of the previous posts.
I agree with your insinuation that the debate would be better off without the personal insults, but maybe you’d be better off applying your calls for reasoned debate a little more even-handedly. I’ve yet to see you shout down the poster who insinuated that a Bush supporter was a “dumbass” . . . .
Oh, wait. That poster was you, wasn’t it? Never mind.
Cite that any American pilots were “threatened” by the Iraqis’ blind shots at them?
Without the radar, Saddam would have had better odds of winning the Superball Lottery than of hitting an American flyover, and any pilot competent enough to get his jet into the air could easily evade such an “attack.”
I don’t buy into writing off shooting missiles at our aircraft either. Bottom line is he lobbed some missiles up, whether he hit or not, shouldn’t be a factor. The fact that he lobbed them up in the first place is what counts. OTOH though, I think using that as justification for the continental US being at risk is about as tenous as it gets.
Age-
I almost posted an addendum immediately following my reply concerning the tone of this thread and my latest post. I posted as I did, and stand behind it in fact, because “dumbass”(which I don’t think I’ve called anyone-unless you speak of my sig line), is much different in this country than “commie bastard”, which harkens back to a time when people of that political flavor were tarred, feathered and pilloried due to their political point of view.
Still today it lives on as an insult which obviously carries much more to it-and more personally-than many other political insults. If you walk into a room full of people and there is a known “communist” in the room, if one were to whisper to their partner about said person being a communist, it would yield disgusted looks and remarks. Not so when you are referring to someone who is a republican, democrat, greenie, “bush bot”, or “dumb-ocrat”-unless that person is playing the part of the turd in the punch-bowl.
I don’t even like, or agree with Red Fury, or Sevastopol, our other resident Commie, but I’d do the same for him, too.
Sam
P.S.- Lest I let you get off the hook for your disingenuous “dumbass” remark, Age Quod Agis, I would never call someone a dumbass for being a Bush supporter. My “dumbass” remark is regarding someone who lets their convictions turn them into a dumbass. It applies to everyone evenly, you, Starving, Myself, World Eater, Finn, Democrat, Commie Bastard 
, Republican.
Dumb-assedness is certainly not exclusive of one or another group of people or ideas.
Does this incompetent analogy also apply to when they attack US troops? Or when they attack innocent Iraqis? Or sabotage infrastructure?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/306036.stm
Remember the downed stealth fighter?
NattoGuy, I read your cite about Saddam re-constitutiing WMD, but I didn’t see any evidence from less than 12 years ago.
That’s a long time.
You can pull out pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand if you go back far enough, but that wouldn’t be justification for considering Rumsfeld an enemy in the war on terror (although, now that I mention it, he is one. It’s hard to imagine a more successful way to increase terrorist recruitment and support than invading one of the most holy lands of Islam based on lies, and then torturing innocent people there).
If you evaluate the numbers (0 for 700) using the Torino scale, you get a threat level of Zero. That’s not too much cause for concern.
I don’t see how saying someone is a dumbass because of his convictions is less personally insulting than saying he’s a dumbass because he supports Bush. Nor do I see how saying someone is a Commie is somehow worse than saying he’s a dishonest bastard, or a dumbass, or lacking a brain, etc.
My point was that you called Ryan childish for personally insulting someone, and then said that he was the first to bring out the personal insults, despite the fact that the insults had been flying all over this thread – even by you.
If you meant your criticism even-handedly, then I commend you. We can certainly use as much of that around here as possible. I was merely pointing out that your criticism’s execution did not match its intended even-handedness.
No argument there. I myself am full of enough dumb-assedness for both major parties, and a few minor ones.
This war is named Operation Iraqi Freedom. From the White House archives:
Radio address, March 1, 2003 (pre-invasion)
Televised address, March 19, 2003 (post-invasion)
peri, I understand where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a little misunderstanding of my terms. I haven’t said (or at least I didn’t mean) that “helping” Iraqis, “freeing” them, etc. was not part of what we wanted to accomplish. There are many different “goals” involved and these are but a couple of them. However, earlier in the thread I suggested that the defining goal of the war would be the thing that would have prevented it in the first place. That would be the removal of Hussein and the threat he posed. Had Hussein stepped down and gone into exile, the war would not have taken place.
So, I reiterate: We did not go to war, nor did Bush ever claim we were, simply in order to help or free the Iraqi people (such as was alluded to in the post I was responding to when I made the comment you posted). Freeing the Iraqi people was a goal, but a secondary one, as are several others.
You should consider becoming a circus contortionist.
I haven’t said anyone is a dumbass. Just that my quote may be attributable to certain attitudes-certain attitudes which, IMO, have been represented here. But I most certainly haven’t called anyone a dumbass.
Even the quote leaves it up to one’s interpretation to come to that conclusion.
I didn’t say that he was the first to bring out the insults, but for the most part, his insult is the lowest that this thread has seen yet. Yes we all have used sarcasm, irony, relatively mild insults and commentary on people’s political affiliations.
And yes, I try to be rather even-handed in my generalizations, but Ryan Liam has a tendency to enter into a thread and shit all over it by acting like he did above and I’m pretty tired of it. This was a mostly civil discussion by that time and instead of contributing he just decided to pull out the commie insults.
BTW, count me in in the “dumbass” corner with you.
Sam