The UN, US and Iraq IV

if so, lets all encourge Cheney to drink more.

Just an aside, of no particular topical relevance, but, when informed that Grant had an inordinate fondness for whiskey, Lincoln oberved that perhaps it would be wise to determine the brand Grant most favored and distribute generous quantities of it to the other generals.

"The way I see it, "the other nations" are disinclined to do much about bullies, state or stateless, beyond bemoaning their existence, if even that. It is they who fail to cooperate in the matter of making the planet a safer place to live for all concerned."

I don't agree, Timber. The problem (for over-entertained, violent Americans) is that they don't go in for "shock and awe." Nor do they share, by and large, the kind of immaturity which demands "I want it done now."

Heah Tartarin, "bring'em on"!!!!

Uh oh, Bill, do you mean "let's roll!"??

Maybe it was, "I'm not a fact checker"!

The Iraqis seem to think its their oil.

I'll get a fact checker right on that. :wink:

Well, ya know, Tart, we're just not gonna agree on this. I see the US, not "the other nations", having the maturity and resolve to proactively address the urgent issues of global security. Far from "Want it now", the US stance is that a generation or so of dithering and handwringing has been far more than enough, IMO.

Well, Timber, so, you're one of them and Proud Of It, right? Just don't expect everyone to respect (much less agree with) those who believe as you do, okay?

It is absurd to anthropomorphize politics.

Picture Italy, the boot, wringing their hands... And Australia on the toilet eating cookies....

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the US was one of the only nations who considered the "grave threat" to be a threat at all. And the nice barb about people wringing their hands is silly.

The pertinent issue was WHETHER the threat existed, and it's a bit of a low ploy to argue from a position that assumes that is not a point of contention and that the real issue is that the people who don't agree with you just like to "dither" and "wring" their hands. It's convenient to do so, of course, you get to assume you are correct and make fun of the people you disagree with without having to address their points.

Anyone can make one up. Here is one to counter:

"The US was like chicken little crying that the sky is falling and that Iraq was a threat that needed to be acted on NOW!!! The rest of the world was kicking back and watching the paranoid shrieks in amusement."


If silly characterizations are what you want then anyone can play.

"It's more like the US was sitting on the toilet twiddling its thumbs, that's why we shouldn't raise taxes."

"I don't like France's decision not to support the war because they are like a bunch of cooks who are buttering an orange loaf of bread while wearing pantyhose."

"The left is always right because they are like a man who has lost his newspaper and is walking down the street to steal his neighbor's."

"The right is absolutely wrong because they are like a three legged boy trying to pick an apple on a cloudy day."

Facts are nice, but anyone can make up a mindless characterization.

This whole, "they do nothing and all we want to do is something" type of argument is lame, in reality it's "we want to do something and they want to do something else, but characterizing them as indecisive idiots who are wringing their hands is a nice, though meaningless, rhetorical ploy to make their decision look worse than mine" is lame.

So you see threats, and imagine that everyone is wringing their hands and dithering about what to do about it.

I can see why you like that picture but it is as far removed from reality as the one I have of playing point guard by Michael Jordan. In reality most people simple don't share the US opinions about what is and is not a threat and nations don't "wring" their collective hands.

I wish you guys wouldn't make politics equitable with comedic improv. If you have a metaphor make sure it corresponds with reality, not just what happens to be a nice sounding rhetorical setup.

But hey, if ya want to quip, quip. It's just that to me it reminds me of a polar bear who is washing his boxer shorts on a rainy day wishing that the fish would have kissed him more passionately on their.......

All I can say, CdK, is that the polar bear analogy has been discredited time and again, and not solely on the basis of the putative emotional insufficiency of the fish . . . this is so characteristic of the Chicken Little School of Rhetorical Rhubarb . . . you should be ashamed . . .

I disagree, I think I'm right because I picture you sleepwalking with your pants down and I see lots of yellow snow....

I should have added the caveat that characterizations can be nice rhetorical icing. But my frustration is that they are sometimes used as a way to deliberately mischaracterize the dissenter.

For example, if one wants to discribe the world as indifferent to threat it is a far more honest claim than to characterize them as recognizing the threat but being frozen in inaction.

The point of contention is whether the threat exists, and the point of contention is not that one wants to act on the threat while the other prefers to wet undies.

One of the most egregious examples of this, Boss, which i have seen, is the contention that one is disloyal, or even traitorous, for not supporting the administration in time of war. There is an awful lot of distance in time and in disputed evidence between September 11th, and the invasion of Iraq. Given that the dissenter does not acknowledge that there were a threat, it is hardly demonstrable that the dissent is traitorous.

I consider it to be much the converse, the hawks are unAmerican and unpatriotic for squandering the treasures and goodwill of my blessed American at the word of a lying imbecile. Gees!!!!!!!!!

Then come up with any kind of illogical argument to try and justify his criminal actions.

The EU has given funding to (social, economic) projects of the Palestinian Authority ... the PA "helps Osama" .. there is a connection between the EU and Osama bin Laden.

The US supports the new Colombian president ... the Colombian president has supported and largely tolerates the paramilitaries .. there is a connection between Bush and the murdering paramilitaries.

I helped out a friend of mine, that friend helped out a friend who happened to be a dealer - there is a connection between me and drug crimes.

I confess :wink:

I see that there was quite a lot of dicsussion here on the "Syrian passport" - did y'all read the news about how the statement that a Syrian passport had been found was later retracted?

The EU gave money above the table as supervised its use.

Who are they murdering? I don't know much about Columbia...

Did you give your friend money to go support the dealer?

nimh,

Last I heard was that the guy might be a Yemeni but that the existence of the passport hadn't been retracted.

Well, i know that whenever i go out to play with intetnational terrorists, i always have my passport with me . . . don't leave home without it ! ! !