“Race” is a myth so I see nothing wrong with calling claims that “Iranians can’t be trusted” racist bullshit.
Moreover, I wasn’t the one who “played the race card”, he was.
If you don’t like my referring to his posts as ignorant racist bullshit then I recommend you ask him to stop making racist comments.
Missed the edit window:
What do mean by “political affiliations”?
You’re out of line here. Make arguments instead of commenting on Ibn Warraq personally. And further discussions of race and nationality (and racism) are not welcome in this thread.
I take it, then, that you will henceforth recuse yourself from any international discussion that involves the United States, right? I mean, by your own logic, any opinion you voice has considerably less credibility than that of someone from outside the country.
The other ad hominems aside, just drop the whole “race” issue when it has not been raised. It simply causes the sort of silly hijack in which you are now engaged.
[ /Moderating ]
Excuse me.
I didn’t cause the hijack.
Al did when he claimed that I couldn’t be trusted because of my race/nationality/ethnicity?
I didn’t raise the “race” issue.
He did.
Furthermore I didn’t engage in any ad hominems. I made assertions about his posts.
Based on previous mod rulings it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to say to Al “Stop being racist” but I didn’t because I thought that would have crossed the line.
BTW: this post wasn’t meant to flout Marley’s warning but merely to respond to Tom’s assertion and I don’t see how I could do so without referring to “race” and “racism”.
Also, I’m genuinely surprised that I’m being accused of raising the “race” issue.
Based on the logic being displayed if one poster said that “Mexicans are assholes” and a Hispanic poster said “stop making racist comments” the Hispanic poster should be cautioned by a mod to “not raise the race issue” and “stop making ad hominems”.
Tom, I like and respect both you and know that I may sometimes engage in behavior that gives you a headache(not my intention), but with all due respect your post was really poorly thought out.
This is…shall we say…disingenuous.
You accused another poster of stating “ignorant racist bullshit” or something to that effect (I’m not going to bother going back there for an exact quote). To say that someone’s arguments are racist is to accuse that person of being racist as well.
Furthermore, to accuse a person you disagree with of being racist is a not-particularly-subtle way of denigrating what he’s saying–your argument isn’t genuine, buddy, you’re just a racist bastard spewing hate.
Unfortunately, you appear to be too smart not to realize this, so your protestations ring false.
This gets down into the shadowy nitty-gritty of realpolitik. It might be that the administration “accepted the benefits” of two countries it didn’t like a whole lot fighting with each other, without actually doing anything to promote it. Just as if Fred Phelps and Tim LaHaye got into a fist fight, I’d smile like a cheshire cat…so long as no one was watching.
Officially, I’m pretty sure the State Department opposed the fighting and entered into (futile) back channel efforts to end it. I did some searching, and couldn’t find any official statements from State, but, again, I’d bet a pickle they said the usual mealy-mouthed platitudes regarding the desire for peace and offering services in negotiations.
(And the chance of the war spreading was one that the U.S. would not have wanted.)
At very least, give the U.S. credit for not celebrating the “loss of life itself.” I’m pretty sure you’ll NEVER find an official State Department memo saying such a thing.
Marley has already said that we aren’t to continue that discussion in this thread I was responding to being mod noted by Tom.
If you want to continue this discussion I’d recommend opening a thread in the pit because I’m not continuing it on this thread.
No, we supported Saddam Hussein because we saw him as much less of a threat to regional stability than the Ayatollah was was promising to spread an Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East.
That works. I was mostly disagreeing with the notion that “we supported the fact of the conflict itself, and the loss of life on both sides, and the chance to keep Iran occupied.”
I’ll accept one out of three: the chance to keep Iran occupied might have been seen as a bonus by the Washington establishment. But I can’t buy that the U.S. supported the fact of the conflict itself – too dangerous – or the loss of life on both sides – because, bad as we are, we aren’t that monstrous.
It’s more like Saddam Hussein decided to invade Iran after the Iranians rather foolishly tried to assassinate his President, which he almost certainly wouldn’t have done if he wasn’t certain that the US would back the invasion(remember this occurred in the midst of the Hostage crisis) and the US backed him because in the war they saw him as the lesser of two evils even though he was also backed by the Soviets.
If you truly thought that, then you shouldn’t have posted several hundred words protesting your innocence–after the mod made his note.
I do agree that this discussion is best considered from an objective point of view. Though I do think your opinions are somewhat skewed, I’m not inclined to speculate on why.
That’s a rather odd statement, you already did far more than just speculate.
Anyway, as I already asked, what “political affiliations” were you referring to?
Whoa, Hoss, back up.
Did you read my post, boss man?
I don’t think you did.
I said “anyone from the Middle East”. I SPECIFICALLY left it open-ended, because I find every Israeli I’ve met completely full of bias on these issues.
The hate there is so intense that I think anyone from the region, Jew, Christian, or Muslim, is likely to be so invested that they can’t view it objectively.
Perhaps there are those from the Middle East with a detached attitude about it all. I certainly haven’t encountered them, though, and Ibn doesn’t appear to be an exception, based on his posts on the issue.
If I can’t point out a regional bias, it’s probably about time for me to leave this thread, or even Great Debates.
I’d like to introduce you to our former POTUS, the esteemed Mr. Ronald Reagan.
Dude, really? This is beneath you, surely.
Well, let’s be exact about what we’re talking about here.
If we’re going to talk about “who’s too biased on the question of US politics”, I’d say the majority of extreme US conservatives, and many European extreme liberals, as well as a few American extreme liberals, probably are.
I’d say most Canadians are fairly reasonable on the issue, with some exceptions.
I can’t speak for the rest of the world, I don’t travel there enough or have enough online contacts to make any kind of guesses.
However, I’d say close to half of the US and Europe are at least semi-reasonable on the issue of US politics.
That’s not how it is in the Middle East, not even close. IMHO.
I don’t see any real evidence that the war was likely to spread outside Iran/Iraq. Therefore, yes, I can see the more racist and hateful members of the Reagan administration quietly smiling as the body count racked up.
I assume you haven’t been to Iran. My advice is that you don’t make any more guesses since your opinion on the topic really isn’t relevant in the first place.