The Lefty Boom

BTW, re the "resonding in kind" : It is often a bad idea to present your previous examples of bad behaviour as a defence for new bad behaviour. Just a thought.

Guns, Rhetoric and Retribution!

not at all pedantic or condescending, nimh, good logic and I hope we can all consider it to be good advice.

Nimh

Thanks---you meant it well and it is well taken----but check above------see what I mean???

This are neither my pespectives nor I'm a close observer of both cultures - I just quoted a website and copied and pasted from there.

Just above Lola ----- that is------Lola-----you sexy thing---I'm listening to all the wise words----You didn't say anything about my suggestion for a test case of thread originator having the prerogative of kinking someone off that thread. Make the assumption that I or anyone has the desire to discuss a topic seriously when we originate a thread. One prerequisite to entering the thread would be a statement such as-----sounds like a very interesting topic --may I join the conversation? They would be immediately welcomed. If there was not that courteous request then they would be immediately suspect and then the first ad hominem attack on anyone would be grounds for bannishment from that thread so they could go start one of their own. They might find it difficult to get any responders.

If you all are so certain that I am the only bad actor on this forum now is your chance to box me in and force me out. You may be surprised how much of a teddy bear I can be.

teddy bear perc,

I'm afraid if there was such a thread, there would very quickly be a lot of discussions of one, the moderator alone. We all try, some of us try harder than others. It would be nice if you'd join the group of "trying harder." And why don't you take back that offer to be thrown out, this is your thread anyway, isn't it? If we didn't want you in the discussion, we wouldn't be here. And thanks for the sexy compliment. That was nice.

No, dys, you heirs get the "points" and if it's stuff instead of money, it usually all gets auctioned off an ridiculously low prices. I constantly get calls about how much some piece of art is worth because the heirs want to get as much money as they can get for the "stuff" they don't want. I sometimes enjoy giving them the bad news.

Lightwizard...huh?

Now I dont like W much, but I think this is one thing we need to cut him some slack on. 11 September: foreign terrorists do a direct attack on the nerve centers and central symbols of the country's government and business, killing thousands of people while they're at it. That would have been enough for instant retaliation in any time of history, for any country. You show me a country that would not hit back immediately and massively if that'd happen to them.

Only problem W. had, was, who to hit back at, exactly. It wasnt as clear as a foreign state government declaring war on them, but it was clear where the perpetrators had acted from quickly enough. In the end, the Bush admin waited for a whole month before doing anything, whatsoever - and eventually acted only after having grouped together a true internationalist coalition. I'd figger he earned some compensation brownie points there, concerning his trigger-happy cowboy image, if anything.

Pity he didnt follow up on it with Iraq :-( ..

Maybe (and I mean this only somewhat humorously) they hadn't decided which country to blame. You're being awfully nice, Nimh. However, he might have accompanied the slack with a serious, hard look at the lack of defenses (both intelligence, and those Air Force planes which were notably absent). Bush has done everything possible to stall, prevent, diminish the inquiry into those oddities. I don't think there's an American who isn't still wondering What The Heck???

While I admit that Bushy-Poo II did the right thing by getting international support for the attack on Afganistan, it ahs been documented elsewhere(Bob Woodward being the most accessible source) that the administration's first impulse was to attack Iraq. I also think that Afghanistan displayed the inability of the military and political establishment ot think in terms of other than nation-state actors. They are slowly beginning to come to such understanding, but it is taking a great deal of time.

Gee Lola---will you marry me---we can ride off into the sunset and start our own -----forum

I'm not being nice, I just got kinda fed up. Or, lets say, I was in the middle.

Most of my colleagues are Moroccan, Turkish, etc - and the rest, like myself, is Dutch but leftist enough to kinda instinctively suspect any trouble would be coming from the US. But Anastasia is American, and sensing 9/11 through her, the outrage of it was perhaps, yeh, more directly available to me than to them.

And though not a single colleague in any way showed sympathy for the 9/11 attacks, I didnt like the way many of them seemed awfully eager to direct the sudden spotlight of outrage away from the Arab world, back onto the US again. I mean, for a few days everybody was just shocked, obviously. But far too soon the stories of how the US also kinda somehow historically deserved it came up in halfhearted apologetic explanations, and as soon as Bush even just started pointing fingers and talking tough, all the talk was of aggressive American imperialist bullies again. There was a lot of tough talk at the time, so there was a lot of knee-jerk alarmism around about it as well - and not one colleague remarked on the fact that, amidst all the tough talk meant to satisfy the American viewers' anger, Bush was not actually doing anything yet, for quite a while, in terms of impulsive retaliation.

That bothered me. Not because the Bush admin hasnt showed its measure of aggressive American imperialist bullyism, but because of the blatant unwillingness to confront the question, "so, what would you have (wanted to be) done, then, if it had happened here?" Much more easy to quickly resort to the old stories, the still / also valid stories, about all the things America had done wrong in the past, and was still doing wrong - justified stories, stories with a point, but - stories that were not about the topic at hand. Here was an act of terror that so singularly put the US, for once in its life, into the position of undeniable victimhood, and they somehow didnt seem to be willing to even acknowledge that, let alone reflect on it too much. Reflect on the evil hiding in other countries, in places that maybe were a little too close to home. I remember being seriously pissed about that.

I mean, by all means, be critical about America's horrid record of foreign policy, but not if you're not seriously willing to throw an equally critical look at any other country as well, your own foremost. So, it wasnt that I was pro-American (heh!) - it was that I was anti-laziness.

So, thats where I was coming from ... :-)

But, just to be nice for once,



wouldnt the thing you point out here serve as just as valid an argument in defence of the American government, when it comes to the "reckless vengeful cowboy" reproach? Their first impulse was to attack Iraq ... and then they didnt. Apparently, someone thought again, which would be remarkable enough if you're right about rightwingers having the lust for retaliation in their blood.

Well, back then, someone did, anyway. Pity it didnt last long.

Oh, Tartarin, your point about a nation-state-focused foreign policy being misfocused in today's new world disorder is very good, thats a real issue. But again, on the other hand, concerning the case in question, there is no doubt about how the Al-Qaeda and other Arab groups in Afghanistan were closely tied up with the Taliban regime, in some kind of reluctant, intense inter-dependence ... So I dont know how relevant it is here. Was there ever a realistic option of attacking Al-Qaeda within Afghanistan without launching an attack on the Taliban itself?

Well, I find I agree with nimh here. The USA is not an angel nation, as I was brought up to believe it to be, but I can't say that we deserved (well, let's not get into that) that we were so provocative that we could be expected to turn the other cheek. Provocative, yes, and unforgivably so, in my opinion, but a response in the name of self defense, I think was called for. But of course, Bush and his bullies couldn't stop there. It's interesting to me that they actually resisted their temptation to attack Iraq right away, since it was apparently on their agenda all along. In this sense, 9/11 was advantageous to them. Actually, I think they did the right thing first, perhaps, I agree with Tartarin, less force would have accomplished the task as well, but it's Bush and Buddies actions since that time which I consider to be unforgivable, criminal, in fact.

(and perc, you make me a very nice offer, but I am already so taken and very happily so.)

I like the idea of being anti-lazy, Nimh. So am I. But only about others' laziness!!

Lola---it's just as well----- my wife would have been a major problem and then when you start with :

"I agree with Tartarin, less force would have accomplished the task as well, but it's Bush and Buddies actions since that time which I consider to be unforgivable, criminal, in fact". ---------it may have been a very short honeymoon

Hmm-- curious and sort of depressing that eventually many discussions migrate back to Bush, Iraq and al Queda.

What would you rather we discuss on a forum devoted to politics?
The stated reason for starting this thread would seem to have been to stimulate discussion about the increase in visibility of left leaning groups and politicians in the United States. Given this framework, discussion of Bush, Iraq, and al-Queada are exceptionally relevant, since they cover aspects of the far right's efforts toward eroding the principles of personal freedom and social welfare which have become characteristic of the way of life in the United States, supposedly in the name of "national security."
If the originator of this thread were sincere in his desires to discuss this issue, he would not have bemoaned others' efforts to do so. It would seem that this thread's originator would instead like to discuss how he has been "unfairly" chastised by other posters for insulting them, for posting dubious comments without attribution, and for attempting to replace reason with animosity. It that is his desire, why not start a thread devoted to such a subject?

You mean a thread called "Chastising Perception"? (Either in the film or visual arts forum, depending on whether you see it as a follow-up to "Chasing Amy," or another discussion about dealing with offensive artists who suspend the cross in urine, etc.)

(Joke)

well, it's true, perc that I am a lefty, have been for a long long time now, and us lefties are pretty upset about what we perceive to be a rapidly diminishing protection of our civil rights, and it is Bush and his puppeteers who are behind this terrible loss. Still, we'll be friends, in spite of your wife and politics (and my sweetie won't stand in the way either).