# Why is \[b\]Dinsdale\[/b\] still posting on this forum? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 22, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747 "2004-03-22T19:32:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/101 "2004-03-23T15:17:57Z")
_Paraphrasing Dinsdale_ \ PAY ATTENTION TO ME! \ People are too stupid to pay attention to me unless I say something idiotically extreme. \ I didn’t have the time to craft an OP that didn’t say that I was hoping more people in the military in Iraq would die to get Bush out of office. And by the way, one big attack killing U.S. soldiers would be great better than these silly 2 or 3 a day. \ It’s not my fault that people are too stupid to see what I really meant. \ Anybody who disagrees with me must be a brainless, Pro-Bush lackey \ I’m a blithering idiot because Bush and his supporters are blithering idiots \ Fight idiocy with idiocy!!! \ It’s not my fault I said I hoped soldiers would die because I suffer every day under the gigantic pressure of not being able to speak my mind in a civil, intelligent way. \ I’m sorry people are idiots _Paraphrasing over_ ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/102 "2004-03-23T15:19:20Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** , the administration hasn’t hoped for the deaths of innocent Iraqi’s. In fact, quite the opposite. Every possible effort was taken to prevent the deaths of them. > > **Dinsdale** _hoped_ for US soldiers to die. Shodan is correct. He is a troll who should be banned. Your accusation of trollery is bizarre to me: he says his actual views are pretty close to what he posted, and said that he didn’t craft his OP as carefully as he might have. That’s not the least bit an admission of trollery; it’s an admission that he’s not as good with words as he would want to be. And the administration hasn’t hoped for the deaths of innocents; they’ve knowingly caused them. They’ve not taken every possible effort to avoid them; “every possible effort” would’ve included **not invading Iraq**. But more innocent folks would’ve died had we not invaded? Sure, that’s a valid point. That’s utilitarian thinking. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/103 "2004-03-23T15:28:40Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > **Dinsdale** _hoped_ for US soldiers to die. Shodan is correct. He is a troll who should be banned. Um, no he didn’t. > [@](#): > > Posted by Dinsdale > > Of course I do not want anyone to die. Civilian or military. US, Iraqi, or other ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/104 "2004-03-23T15:37:53Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **Dinsdale** , I’ll try again with something I asked you a year ago and that I feel you sidestepped. > > Your son wants to go to West Point. When you get home from work today, how would you feel about sitting him down and saying, “Son, I love you, but if you’re ever in a war like the one going on right now, I’m going to hope that you die. Specifically, I’m going to hope that you get caught in a bomb blast and ripped apart, or shot in the head, or killed by a land mine. Because your death would serve a political end.” > > Why or why not? Daniel - I think you know the answer to your question. Sorry I didn’t respond to you before. I don’t recall intentionally avoiding your question. I cannot imagine many - if any - scenarios that would have me wishing my children dead. Maybe if they turned into mass murderers and their deaths would stop them from killing again. Or if they were terminally ill and in tremendous pain and wanted to die. But certainly not because of their choice of career or to further political objectives. I certainly have told my son that a career in the military is far more dangerous than my career sitting comfortably in my office. And whatever his interest in the military, if he joins there is the risk that he will be sent to kill and possibly die over a worthless cause. He understands that as well as I think a 14-year old is able to. I have told him, tho, that his membership in the military will not keep me from openly expressing my opinions concerning military spending or actions on a case-by-case basis. I agree wholeheartedly with just about all of **Sailor’s** post above. He expressed it far better than I. I also observe that the Administration deliberated over what would be an “acceptable” body count. It is they who put the pawns into position to be unnecessarily and illegitimately disposed of. I’m am merely questioning their math. I refuse to blindly parrot “My country right or wrong.” I hope the current situation is resolved in a manner that greatly lessens the probability of it’s repetition in the future. A glaring success reforming the region would be one possible such outcome. But I consider that unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/105 "2004-03-23T15:44:02Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Daniel - I think you know the answer to your question. Sorry I didn’t respond to you before. I don’t recall intentionally avoiding your question. It was a year ago, and you responded by saying that your family hadn’t chosen a military career, so my question didn’t apply (I reread the thread last night – believe me, I don’t remember things like that 🙂 ). > [@](#): > > I cannot imagine many - if any - scenarios that would have me wishing my children dead. > … > I have told him, tho, that his membership in the military will not keep me from openly expressing my opinions concerning military spending or actions on a case-by-case basis. These seem contradictory. Right now, it certainly reads as if you’re wishing **other** people’s children dead; is the only thing keeping you from wishing your own child dead that your kid isn’t yet in the military? > [@](#): > > I also observe that the Administration deliberated over what would be an “acceptable” body count. It is they who put the pawns into position to be unnecessarily and illegitimately disposed of. I’m am merely questioning their math. > > I refuse to blindly parrot “My country right or wrong.” I hope you’ll recognize that many people, including myself, are not exactly parroting that position either, yet we find what you’re saying reprehensible. It may be unlikely that there’s a third way out of the conflict, but that’s no excuse for you OR the administration working toward (or even pontificating toward) either of these two unacceptable choices. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/106 "2004-03-23T15:44:09Z")
> [@](#): > > The danger of a second Bush term, and ALL the policies, appointments, etc. that might entail, scares me far more than the potential loss of a discreet number of soldiers. Well. I’m glad you’ve qualified the number of your fellow Americans you’re willing to “lose” to just a “discreet” number. Otherwise, you’d appear to be a calloused, self-centered, unpatriotic asshole. What’s so ironic is that if you exchange the words “a second Bush term” for “a continued Hussein regime” above, you’d realize that you and G.W. are navigating with the same moral compass. Your end goal may be different, but buddy, your means are the same. There are countless soldiers, mothers, fathers, wives, etc., who are also scared shitless that Bush will be re-elected. I personally know two such families. I can guarantee you that they would NEVER hope for the imminent death of a _discreet_ number of your family members in order to achieve their end. Shame on you, dinsdale. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/107 "2004-03-23T15:45:03Z")
Nice tap-dancing, **Dinsdale**. Would you care to address the question? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/108 "2004-03-23T15:48:26Z")
> [@LHOD](#): > > Your accusation of trollery is bizarre to me. I’ll spell it out for you then. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > Hey all. Glad to see some of the debate occurring here, that I had hoped to see follow my GD OP. It would have been nice if you actually offered up a premise for a debate, rather than an inflamitory rant for an OP, if debate was your goal. > [@](#): > > If anything, I may have subconsciously phrased the OP a little - uh - flamboyantly, for a couple of reasons. So, you were trolling _unconsciously_. And you have reasons. Oh, good! > [@](#): > > I have often been frustrated when my reasonably phrased posts sink without a trace. So yeah, probably to some extent I chose my words to attract attention. So, you were trolling because your reasonable posts get ignored. Doesn’t sound very unconscious to me. > [@](#): > > But I also wanted to make sure the conversation didn’t just wallow around in the middle. It seems that reason and moderation will be met with > more extremism by the Bush administration - which is blindly accepted by the public. So, because you view the Bush administration as extreme, you can be a troll on the SDMB? > [@](#): > > Most accurately, however, I just didn’t spend hours on crafting my post into unassailable language. That’s not how I write my posts. My thought is that if there are any grounds for discussion, that can be fleshed out in subsequent exchanges, without getting unnecessarily hung up on the perfection of the initial presentation. This is classic. After admitting you were trolling, and offering several points in defense of your trolling, you say that it’s all because of careless language. > [@](#): > > My true views are pretty close to what I posted. Lets just see about that… > [@](#): > > _Dinsdale in the OP_ > At this point, they might best serve their country by being killed or wounded, if that would increase the chances of having Bush voted out in the next election. Not the current steady drip, drip, drip of casualties we are currently enjoying. Let’s see some dramatic losses, if that would galvanize opposition to this unnecessary wasteful policy, and its proponents. > [@](#): > > _Dinsdale’s last post_ > Of course I do not want anyone to die. Civilian or military. US, Iraqi, or other. Doesn’t seem to be _very close_ to me. They are the exact opposite. The next couple paragraphs are just the standard Bush bashing. Then we get this: > [@](#): > > One reason I posted this here, and perhaps in slightly extreme terms, is that I feel so much pressure to keep silent about so many aspects of my core beliefs and values in my daily life in a society that seems increasingly jingoistic and uncritical. So, in your daily life you are silent, and you make up for it by trolling on the SDMB? > [@](#): > > I wasn’t trying to troll. You did a good job anyway. Maybe you’re a natural. > [@](#): > > Again, I apologise to all of the mods and administrators to the extent this caused them any effort or difficulty. I do not apologise to anyone else for expressing my point of view. Which one? The point of view from the OP, when you were trolling? Or, the point of view you are expressing now? ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/109 "2004-03-23T15:50:25Z")
> [@](#): > > I hope you chose to serve your country in some other fashion, and not just be a freeloader, enjoying the freedoms that others suffer and die to provide. How come nobody finds THIS offensive? Remarks like this are far scarier than anything the OP said. That’s totalitarian thinking. Anyone who pays taxes in this country is not a freeloader. I even think homeless people who fell through the cracks or opted out of society still deserve to be in this country. Our government exists for the people, not the other way around. And Debaser, you should be banned for being a whiner. It’s already been established that the OP had a deeper meaning, rather than just a wish for death to american soldiers. Get over it. To people like you, it’s more about how it looks than what it means. Stop being so offended. Go play in cafe society if you can’t read anything controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/110 "2004-03-23T15:55:58Z")
AND the only thing I see the OP admitting to is trying to encite a debate. He’s still defending his position. Why so eager to see him banned? ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/111 "2004-03-23T15:56:38Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Yes, what I said was a bit tongue in cheek. I’ve seen many posts about “patriotism” being a slam against Americans. Trying to post a little sarcasm, obviously I didn’t do it well enough. Sorry for the confusion. No, you did it well enough, I got it and thought it was pretty funny. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/112 "2004-03-23T15:59:17Z")
Dinsdale, Lefty is right. Like it or not you are a face of liberal politics on this board and when you say something that really sticks out you become THE voice of liberal politics for many people. Good lord, you live in one of the most Republican counties in the country. You know how many people around here (both physically and on this board) are sheltered from an alternative point of view. Do you want their impression of a liberal to be of an angry man yelling hate-filled vitriol? Do you know how much damage that does? Thirty-five years later when most people think of Vietnam-era anti-war protestors they do not think of good, reasonable people like Dr Spock, Dorothy Day, or the Berrigan brothers but of that moronic loudmouth, Jane Fonda. Therefore (dopeslapping Dinsdale), can you try to be a bit more circumspect before you post? I am not asking you to give up or hide your beliefs but we are trying to present a GOOD alternative to the Bushistas. Remember, we are RIGHT while they are WRONG\*. We are GOOD while they are EVIL. We are CALM AND REASONED while they are SHRILL AND PAVLOVIANLY KNEE-JERKING. We’re the Good Guys but we have to STAY that way to win. You aren’t helping. - - Please note that my unaccustomed use of binary terms does not indicate that I have suddenly started seeeing the world in black and white. When you read them mentally add a moderating qualifier like “sorta” or “usually.” ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/113 "2004-03-23T16:06:51Z")
> [@Rooves](#): > > How come nobody finds THIS offensive? Remarks like this are far scarier than anything the OP said. That’s\*\* totalitarian \*\* thinking. I think you should consider, just consider mind you, investing a few bucks in a DICTIONARY. (not to be taken as a critique of spelling) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/114 "2004-03-23T16:44:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **JM:** _Perhaps you have descended to the point where you wish some inocent people death so that others might have a better life. I’m not there yet, nor do I wish ever to be._ > > Actually, isn’t that the rationale behind support for any war (except the impossibly rare ones that don’t kill any civilians)? Aren’t we justifying our invasion of Iraq with the rationale that even though we killed (and continue to kill) many innocent Iraqis, it will be worth it in the long run because the survivors will be better off without their previous government? > > I don’t think that that makes it okay **explicitly to wish for** the inevitable “collateral damage” that consists of the deaths of the innocent, and I repudiate **Dinsdale** ’s doing so. But I don’t think that we should gloss over the fact that we are **implicitly** making that very same wish every time we support going to war. No it’s not, and if you had actually followed the argument being made instead of responding in knee-jerk fashion, you’d see the difference. I was specifically denouncing **Dinsdale’s** follow-up argument that he hoped more troups would die in Iraq so that the US healthcare system would be improved under a new adminstration. I don’t know of many people who justify war because of disagreements over healthcare policy. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/115 "2004-03-23T17:21:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Nope, never claimed to. I’ve also never defended an unseemly eagerness to see a massive upsurge in military casualties in Iraq, or engaged in groundless speculation that such was bound to occur. Since your post (and since I’ve gotten both some sleep and some caffeine), others, including the OP, have further clarified that they don’t want to see anyone die at all, but that some deaths now might prevent more deaths later. You may think the OP’s eagerness is unseemly, and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I’ve discussed Iraq (and other related issues) off-board with the OP, and so I may have a better feel for his POV and for what kind of a person he is than you do. I see in his OP an immense frustration, and I feel that frustration as well; the frustration, at least on my part, is with the prospect that people will continue to die in vain. I don’t care whether they are Iraqis or Americans. And how do you figure the speculation is groundless? It may or may not turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t make it groundless. There are attacks against U.S. troops on a daily basis at this point, and I sure don’t see the number and severity of the attacks decreasing. People are going to die in war; it’s pretty unavoidable. My opinion is that the manner in which the occupation of Iraq is currently being conducted will lead to more animosity against American troops, not less, which in turn will lead to more attacks against them, which will logically lead to more Americans (and Iraqis) getting killed. As much as I may disagree with some people on this board, those who will come out and state a wish to see the maximum number of dead people overall are thankfully few and far between, and I haven’t seen anyone like that in this thread so far. > [@](#): > > Sorry, no revisionism allowed. You said “one of my issues with the invasion all along was that it seemed like there was no postwar reconstruction or exit strategy in place. So far I’m right, but Lord knows I wish I weren’t.” > > “So far I’m right”??? Which is it, you’ve learned that there was zero planning for reconstruction prior to the invasion, or no reconstruction since then? Indefensible either way. My fault for sloppy definition of terms. I was (and am) using “invasion” to mean the U.S. military’s act of entering Iraq and overthrowing the government. If I meant everything they’d done since the fall of Baghdad, I would have used “occupation.” Perhaps that makes my prior statement clearer; until now I’ve seen no evidence that the U.S. had a concrete postwar reconstruction strategy or exit plan in place before commencing the invasion. Obviously, however much I was disgusted by the way the invasion went down, and by the incompetent diplomacy and screwed-up coalition-building that has gone along with the invasion both at its commencement and ever since, I’m not denying that reconstruction projects have been undertaken. I just think that the current administration’s failure to build wider support for the occupation, both among Iraqis and among the world at large, is completely needless and leads fairly directly both to more deaths and to the throwing away of money that could be spent on reconstruction efforts on more severe security measures for U.S. troops. > [@](#): > > Apparently you do not understand the meaning of this cliche. You were not misquoted or anything remotely close to it. I understand the phrase just fine, thank you, and I never said I was misquoted. But the way in which you rephrased my previous statement skews its meaning. Is it OK with you if I word it that way? Thanks ever so much. My point, once again, is that under Saddam Hussein, the things which led Iraqis to be targeted for retribution were fairly predictable. They aren’t anymore to the same extent; it’s now entirely possible to die just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To me, random terror is even scarier than regular terror. Do you even remotely consider Iraq a stable place right now, a year after the invasion? How long do you think it will take for Iraq to be stable, let alone functional, without a really major shift in U.S. policy? > [@](#): > > If you are going to emote about the value of Iraqi lives, you need to acknowledge the grim reality of life (and death) under Saddam and bear that in mind when looking at current conditions. You’ve been quick to remind others about “forgotten” episodes of genocide; it looks like your memory is a little faulty when it comes to Saddam’s. Where have I not acknowledged how evil the fallen regime was? It seems rather inconsistent for you to go on about my “emoting” about genocide and terror, and in the same post accuse me of not acknowledging it. I do expect significantly better behavior of my government than I did of Saddam Hussein’s, or are you telling me that’s wrong? I just think we can, and should, do a helluva lot better than we have so far. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/116 "2004-03-23T17:42:25Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Dinsdale, Lefty is right. Like it or not you are a face of liberal politics on this board and when you say something that really sticks out you become THE voice of liberal politics for many people. Well, that’s their fault, not **Dinsdale** ’s. As a leftist/liberal/whatever, i feel no need to assign Dinsdale as my spokesperson, and i’m sure that many people feel the same way. I have nothing in particular against Dinsdale (although i thought the OP in the thread being discussed here was ill-considered), and i find most of his contributions to this message board to be interesting and worth reading. But he does not speak for me; i can do that well enough for myself, thanks. If other people want to make the assumption that **Dinsdale** speaks for all liberals, then all that demonstrates is how stupid those people are. It would be like me assuming that **milroyj** or **Brutus** or **Scylla** or **Sam Stone** speaks for all conservatives. I try to deal with people as i find them, rather than assumning that one person who calls him or herself a conservative necessarily speaks for all conservatives. I don’t recall anyone being designated official spokeperson for liberals or conservatives on this Board; let me know if i missed a memo. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/117 "2004-03-23T17:58:25Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > And how do you figure the speculation is groundless? It may or may not turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t make it groundless. There are attacks against U.S. troops on a daily basis at this point, and I sure don’t see the number and severity of the attacks decreasing. It’s exactly this sort of wavering that indicates you have no real idea what’s going to happen. “I sure don’t see…the attacks decreasing” is rather different than predicting that lots more military casualties are in the offing. > [@](#): > > My fault for sloppy definition of terms. I was (and am) using “invasion” to mean the U.S. military’s act of entering Iraq and overthrowing the government. If I meant everything they’d done since the fall of Baghdad, I would have used “occupation.” Perhaps that makes my prior statement clearer; until now I’ve seen no evidence that the U.S. had a concrete postwar reconstruction strategy or exit plan in place before commencing the invasion. Before it was your claim that there was **no** reconstruction (strategy), now you’ve switched to no **concrete** reconstruction strategy. Well, thanks for the clarification. > [@](#): > > …the way in which you rephrased my previous statement skews its meaning. Apparently you still do not understand basic terms. I rephrased nothing you said in any manner which would indicate it came from you. > [@](#): > > To me, random terror is even scarier than regular terror. You now seem to be definite on this point. And you’re entitled to the opinion that civilian hazards in Iraq are currently “scarier” than under Saddam, where hundreds of thousands were killed for being of the wrong ethnic group, appearing to offer possible resistance to the regime or based on whim of the Hussein clan. Maybe you’re right. After all, you do possess a unique source of knowledge about conditions in Iraq, based on your self-proclaimed vague acquaintance with a journalist who used to be there, and who _did not_ tell you about his experience there. > [@](#): > > Do you even remotely consider Iraq a stable place right now, a year after the invasion? How long do you think it will take for Iraq to be stable, let alone functional, without a really major shift in U.S. policy? a) No. b) A long time. What’s that got to do with professing a wish for large numbers of U.S. troops to be killed? > [@](#): > > It seems rather inconsistent for you to go on about my “emoting” about genocide and terror, and in the same post accuse me of not acknowledging it. The first part of this sentence is a strawman; we’ve already seen the truth of the second part. Wonder what the reaction on this board would have been to a Bush supporter posting an OP along the following lines: “Since there haven’t been any al-Queda terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11, people have started to get really complacent about the risks, and spend more time complaining about government over-reaction than they do thinking about the need to be vigilant. There are bound to be more attacks in the future. So why not now instead of later? Let’s see a huge urban bombing with lots of casualties. That way voters will recognize the need for drastic measures and unite behind Bush, who knows what direction the country should go.”\* \*devil’s advocacy. This kind of crap would be just as offensive as **Dinsdale’s** OP. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/118 "2004-03-23T18:02:49Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, that’s their fault, not **Dinsdale** ’s… As a leftist/liberal/I try to deal with people as i find them, rather than assuming that one person who calls him or herself a conservative necessarily speaks for all conservatives. Oh, come now. You know perfectly well that many reasonably intelligent people will take the person who stands out the most as representative of all similar people. It is the easiest path and most people don’t have the time or inclination to dig deeper. You may not like it; you may resent it; you aren’t going to change it. ---
**Author:** ![Gomez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d78d45/32.png) [@Gomez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gomez)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/119 "2004-03-23T18:12:28Z")
**Sam** > [@](#): > > There is a very fine line between the argument Dinsdale has proposed and saying, “Someone should just shoot so and so - in the long run we’ll be better for it.” It’s exactly this sort of vicious utilitarian calculus that led the more extreme members of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War to seriously propose killing U.S. Senators to end the war. > > It is the same calculus that many terrorists use to justify their acts of barbarism. And the same calculus that those who believe this war was justified on humanitarian grounds use too… ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747/120 "2004-03-23T18:18:01Z")
**askeptic** , > [@](#): > > The citizen’s duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society. …an excerpt from [here](http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/totalita.html) So for me to say that it was totalitarian thinking is not incorrect. I didn’t say that the statement perfectly outlined totalitarianism in a nutshell but it fits within the dictum of totalitarianism. Calling someone a freeloader if they don’t serve in the military or any other formal community service sounds obnoxious to me. It seems like a good way for someone to justify their own questionable actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-b-dinsdale-b-still-posting-on-this-forum/235747.md?page=7)