Evil One:
…Covering my eyes to protect them from the glare of that bright sun…
At this time Evil One is unable to provide you with cites due to issues of national security. To reveal his sources would endanger the lives of Karl RoCENSOREDk Cheney and CENSOREDfeld.
And what I find distasteful about you is your continued insistance that black means white. When I said:
That’s a texbook example of saying “that’s bullshit”. “'nuff said?” Why don’t you say something of some accuracy and/or substance first, before trying to wrap it all up.
I trust Rt and 'Dave will kiss and make up before the next DC Dopefest. I like both of you guys immensely, and I hate to see two posters throwing irrelevant personal insults back and forth.
Argue the facts, not personalities.
I guess we’ll find out today, I’m pretty sure RT’s goiing to ribfest and I know I am. It’s a damn shame that all he seems to want to do lately is throw insults my way, I suspect if he’s pull his head out of his ass and actually listen to what I have to say he’d find that we actually agree on a lot of this, with the notable exception of the fact that I supported the war and he didn’t. I’m disgusted with the Shrub, lying 'pubbies AND the way the reconstruction of Iraq has been handled since the war, but none of that seems to matter to a lot of the peacenicks, the fact that I think deposing SH was a good thing and that a war was an acceptable way to do so is all they see.
You can cry about unfairly your opinions are being treated, but it would be helpful if you actually posted them first. “All we see” is what you post.
Am I being cynical or is all this hyper-accurate ordinance actually made so the US can blow shit up more efficiently? The ordinance that we fling down from the skies isn’t exactly cheap. Not that pinpoint accuracy is a bad thing though of course.
LMFAO @ BRutus
At a Dopefest, I’m a believer in checking stuff like this at the door.
I got on your case when you made a regular habit of calling everyone who disagreed with you on Iraq an “appeaser” or an “appeasement idiot” or part of the “appeasement crowd.” If that’s me insulting you, then so be it.
Now, in this thread, your very first post in the thread is a general ‘everything you’ve said here is bullshit, you’re waist-deep in bullshit’ remark.
Yes, that’s an insult.
No, it’s not calling bullshit on a particular remark by that poster, or even a particular post.
And it can’t even be ascribed to frustration from trying to show this poster the specific error of his ways, and not getting through - because you hadn’t actually said word one in this post, before jumping in with said insult.
If I’m wrong, explain just what Ben Hicks said that you were “calling bullshit” on, and how we were supposed to telepath that that’s what you were doing.
Dave, you don’t get it, do you?
When it comes to something like this, I don’t care if you agree with me or not. If you’re gonna just jump into a thread I’m in for no other reason than to aim a content-free insult at someone, I’m going to call you on it, and I don’t care if you’re my best friend in the world, or if you agree with me on everything under the sun. It’s a remarkably jerky thing to do, and I’m remarking on it.
Anyhow, I’m out of here. I’m obviously not going to convince you of the error of your ways, and anyone else reading this thread has already figured out what the score is.
Mr. pot, mr. kettle, how do you do?
As perfect and concise an example that can be found that illustrates why I began this thread to begin with.
Back in 1775, the Proto-United Statsians were fighting for their freedom. In their eyes, they were being governed by an evil oppressor, the English Crown.
It’s not unlikely that the Spaniards thought that King George was an evil sum-o-bitch. Say the Spanairds had sent an armada to Maryland or some such, and in the process they killed some 4000 of the natives. Now, the Spaniards, in their court had said that they needed to do this, to protect their interest in the Americas. Sure, the ruler of the people were evil, but primarily, the Spanish crown wanted to protect their territories, which were substantial at the point. Maybe they thought that it didn’t matter if King George or the Americans would win the outcome, what was important was the immediate threat to Spanish interests. fter enetering the conflict, and helping the Americans getting rid of [the rule of] King George, they decided to stay on to form a ‘provisional government’ and help restore ‘good values’ to the natives, to wit, catholicism. The endevour proved to be a lengthy one, costing lots of gold and stirring unrest among many Americans, especially the puritans who hated the Catholic church.
Well, say that the Spaniards realized that there really wasn’t an immediate threat to their interests. That neither the people of the new republic, nor King George had any plans on invading Mexico or California, what would the hawks in Madrid say?
Well, with despotic rule, they didn’t really need to spin it. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they claimed that the Americans were better off, seeing thay no longer had the oppressive rule of England to struggle under. And say they thought that “Who cares, only 4.000 died and it saved many more in the long run.”
Now, how would American history books judge this today, or even a hundred years ago?
And MLS, I can’t believe what a callous, cynical superficial asshole you are. Who the fuck are you to play God and judge what level of ‘Collateral Dammage’ is OK (I hate that euphemism)? Who the fuck are you to weigh one life against another? The U.S. and it’s people are precisely what many others in the world have looked up to. The movie ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is a case in point. Is it ok to sacrifice ten soldiers to save one? The movie argues a resounding YES! and I think it’s a very important point. For liberty and freedom to rule, you do not weigh lives against each other, you treat each person as an individual, with equal worth. That way, there is no room for a bean-counter in love with realpolitik and rethorics who think that it’s ok to kill ten to save a hundred, when there was an option of not killing anyone.
You see, MLS - the dictatorship in Iraq and how Saddam treated the Iraqis, is not your fucking problem. It’s not something that should concern the U.S. The Iraqis should set themselves free. That’s the only way to get stability in a country in the long run.
But spin it anyway you like. The war was not started for humanitarian reasons. The American people will judge GWB for the harm he’s done to America. And American lives lost is harm. Had I been a U.S. citizen, I would have screamed at the top of my lungs. There are American families who have lost their loved ones for no better reason, than GWB wanting to go to war.
From an international POV, the American Administration has been proven to be a bully, using its strength to clobber another, but much smaller bully.
For me, libertarian (from my countries POV) and humanitarian, what happen was awfull and many of my ideals, originally inspired by the U.S. and its people, has been smeared with a tint of blood. How did ‘land of the free, home of the brave’ turn into a rogue state, a gangster nation, with little or no respect for human life? I find it sad.
And I find it even sadder that there are people with as little regard for human life, that they prefer to spin the truth to defend the Bully in the White House. Who think that partisanship is so important, that they in fact betray the very values that made the U.S. great.
Shame on you all.
No, 'luci, the bastards won’t get away with it, but only if people such as you and I and others who care about honesty in our leaders keep on speaking out against their treasonous behaviour.
Don’t ever give up!
WWWD? (What Would Wellstone Do?) Especially appropriate, I thought, given that you are in Minnesota. He wouldn’t have dispaired, he would have kept on speaking the truth.
That’s right. Saddam Hussein and the United States are moral equivilants. Mass murder vs spilling blood to protect Muslims in Bosnia. Religious intolerance vs millions of dollars worth of food and foreign aid. Torture chambers vs positive economic, medical and scientific advancements. To put it simply like an “american cowboy” would…we are the good guys. We beat the Nazis, we beat the Soviet Union and we’ll beat Islamic Fundamentalism.
The United States of America has done more good for more people worldwide in the last century alone than the Swedes or anyone else is possibly capable of. Perhaps you would have preferred to be abandoned to the Germans.
Great post, Gaspode.
Count me amongst those that are thoroughly disgusted not just with the WH, but with the unofficial apologists, both here and in RL, who attempt to use every spin known to mankind in order to justify the unjustifiable.
Namely, a naked war of aggresion that went against the agreed upon tenets of international law, the UN Security Council and world opinion, was based on skimpy lies and deceit about Iraq’s “inminent threat”, and resulted in the deaths of countless innocents.
As per your own example, I’d love to see how all the apologist would react if those same reasons were used to invade the USA. Then again, we all know about those “piles of WMDs” the USA has – quite the deterrent as no doubt most countries have realized in the aftermath of this madness. Hypocrites.
And yet, it appears that they’ll get away with it.
Running out of arguments, are you?
The aftermath of this war has put the US on the same level as Iraq in 1991, i.e. invading a country for no good reason.
And if the U.S. were still doing the good deed, as in WWII, I wouldn’t have any complaints. You simply cannot excuse what’s being done now, with what was done 60 years ago. That kind of character defense doesn’t even wash in a criminal court of law: “But members of the jury, notwithstanding that my client killed a man, 20 years ago he saved a man’s life, so that should count in his favour.”
And, can you give me any reason why it’s morally more justified for you to, in your own words, “beat Islamic Fundamentalism”, than it would be for anyone else to “beat Christian Fundamentalism,” as found in the U.S.?
Your denial, spin and efforts to justify, what essentially was, a crime makes you morally repulsive, from my POV. I just need to say that, and I know I’ll never convince you. But someone needs to speak up against the Bullies of this world.
**
It is precisely this kind of simple-minded drible that I find disgusting – not to mention the fact that it is also the kind of non-thinking the WH was counting on when launching the whole Iraq charade.
Go buy yourself a funkin’ tin Sheriff’s badge at Toys’ R Us, dimwitted asshole.
It is more morally justified because Islamic Fundamentalists have made killing Americans part of thier religion. “Kill infidels in the name of Allah and you will be rewarded in heaven.” They have been killing us dozens at a time for twenty years. Then they went too far. Now they are being hunted down and killed before they can do another “mission for Allah” like 9/11 was.
Absolutely correct. Let’s see…who have we crossed out on our list? Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Milosevic, Hussein…you get the point. No, I take that back. You probably don’t.
Put down Mao and Marx and pick up a dictionary. Look up “Irony”.
I can see why you don’t inhabit Great Debates