Blatham
I never have really given you credit for taking such an interest in American politics and I even forgive you your anti-administration writings. I think it could be entirely due to the French influence of Quebec.
Cheers
Asherman: "Who will contain Saddam and prevent him from doing all the ill he's shown himself willing to do, if our military forces were withdrawn?"
What I've already emphasized in my posts to you is the probable need to keep a shared international military presence within Iraq to assure compliance with United Nations resolutions. Not war, but containment. Too expensive? not if shared. More expensive than just going to war? not if you compare shared financial responsibility with the costs we will incur along with the British during and after war, and not if you include the ongoing bribes or grants or loans (depending on your point of view) going to Turkey and other countries we need to rely on.
But then: "If you want to demonize American leadership, and promote the wellfare of our enemies, that's your right."
You're correct -- I have the right to criticize our leadership. For the rest, kindly retract the personal slur.
Perception: "I see little chance that you [Asherman] have been successful in penetrating the state of mind that creates such a distorted perception of current reality."
Again, personalizing the argument. Perception, I ask you also to retract your insult.
Fellow A2K'ers, I am a relative newbie so I'm treading carefully here. It seems to me that to have an occasional lapse into personal insult is part of the price we all pay for having a great forum here. But I think the insults are increasing exponentially whenever we get close to examining our differences. We ought to be able to discuss the details of our areas of disagreement or partial agreement without calling each other names or impugning our fellow participants' loyalties. All of us have the right to label, shout at, characterize, protest and fight the policies of our political leaders. That's an accepted part of democracy. However, if we insult each other in the course of discussion, we are killing the discussion. People get insulted enough -- they walk away. That leaves a small group of bored insulters in dying discussions with no one left to insult. Check out Abuzz.
blatham is not Quebecois, whatever else he may be. I once knew a wonderful Quebecois bistro waitress from Montreal, and there was a weekend during the Montreal Olympics ... but that has nothing to to do with blatham, The US, The UN, or Iraq. Still, her name was Marie-Ange, and she ... well, never mind.
timber
Tartarin, I'm in full agreement with the sentiment of your most recent post.
timber
No, I know he's not Timber but I just had to get the "French connection" in there somewhere.
Tartarin wrote
"That leaves a small group of bored insulters in dying discussions with no one left to insult. Check out Abuzz".
True enough----you could also have a support group all with the same view and slapping each other on the back and attacking the same target that can't fight back. Which would you rather have, stimulating and. yes somethimes emotional, discussion or back slapping self serving aggreement.
I withdraw nothing---I have suffered my share of insults but I just consider the source and move on.
Tartarin, there are several boors on these threads that must be totally ignored.
perception, Insults are sometimes more perceived than intended. All in all, I think the participants here are more or less incredible in regard to "maintaining focus" and avoiding personification of argument; this thread is over three months old, has well over 3000 replies and somewhere around 25,000 views, and is still "On Topic". That is incredible. Thanks to everyone who has been here, and thanks for letting me play.
timber
Please, let it go back to focus - Thank you timber!!!!!!!!!!!
I too am generally slain by the ability of the posters here to hold in check the more prickly aspects of their characters, in the pursuit of stimulating exchange of thought. I actually feel graced by the opportunity afforded me to continue to air my humble views. Thanks, and bravo.
(stepping warily over the bodies herein)........As an old crone, I quess it is time for me get off the fence.
Unfortunately, I do believe that there are some things worth fighting for....outside of our own personal interest. I won't go into detail, as others have said it far better than I ever could.
I believe (at least I think I believe) that this is one of those times. We can't march to the history of time, without being keenly aware of how it might have ben changed, IF BUT we had acted differently. I do think we are at one of those junctures, again.
Therefore, I agree with timber, and others, that we are at one of those horrific periods of time, in which we must act.
timber
Marie-Ange is my mother.
I agree, sumac. I do not doubt that some of the cynicism of those who do not is well founded, but the shade of grey is more towards the dark side.
sumac
If I may, it doesn't matter which direction we turn, any path results in an 'act'.
The call to war is easy, really no trick at all. You just say "There's the enemy, he's the enemy because he's evil, therefore you must go to war to beat him". It clearly doesn't matter whether this reflects any kind of reality, there will be lots of folks ready to follow along, and then it is real. They'll be slapping each others' backs and telling the old hero stories over and over and everyone will have purpose. It'll be life and death, bravery and cowardice, friend and enemy. No art, no play, no music, no sporting event can move our spirits like a good war. It clarifies. It gives meaning.
perception wrote:Hazlitt
thugs and psychopaths NEVER conform to reason and logic.
As is proved every time George Bush opens his mouth.
On another thread, which I would post here if I could figure out how, Tom King wrote:
Quote:As for the circumstances under which I would support the war, these would need to include:
1. Irrefutable evidence of weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to weaponry for defense, which any country should be able to maintain),
2. Full NATO support, including a pre-determined, pre-approved plan for managing the country, establishing a new government and maintaining peace after the hostilities are concluded,
3. A congressional declaration of war approved by at least 2/3s of the House and the Senate,
4. The congressional passage and presidential approval of a series of tax increases that will offset the cost of the war, the current military buildup and the subsequent peacekeeping effort; said taxes would need to remain in place until the associated national debt is eliminated. ....
If these conditions were met, would any persons here opposing the war change their opinion?
Joe
BTW the Bill Keller piece that Strssd quoted in part MUST be read in full. It is a great piece of writing.
