THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Lol, Tico - I got drawn into this Groundhog Day-esque discussion simply by asking a question about your interpretation, and then trying to elucidate your quibble firstly to others, and then to you - and then to audit your re-elucidation.

I have no desire to enter JW's mind - or anyone else's for that matter (reminds me of work) - for reading or any other purposes.

I am sure she will elucidate for herself should she wish to.

I remain quite able to wait however long such elucidation might take - even if it is until I die.

I still think you are quibbling on an unimportant point.

However, let us lock the damn groundhog's front door, and get on with our lives.

Anything important you want to argue about?

0 Replies

lol. Well, I might be drawn in to a good discussion, but I'm in no mood to start an argument. Plus, It's approaching midnight, and I'm battling some flu-like symptoms. So, I guess I'll decline the invitation to argue, and accept the invitation to help nail that aforementioned door shut.

0 Replies

Damn! I could do with a good silly fight.

On another thread, of course.

Sleep well, you right wing bastid!

0 Replies

This one sounds so familiar....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4108659.stm

0 Replies

Yeah. That sounds like Iraq under Saddam. Is that what you were thinking of?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Well, for starters, I think you are very likely wrong about what she meant. I suspect she DOES think that the US attacked in order to bring peace or whatever to the Iraqi people. Only JW can say for sure.

Or, apparently Dlowan... since she seems to be an expert at deciphering what others really mean. Rolling Eyes

I thought it was pretty clear myself. I think she meant this country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future, while others just criticize and snipe (France Idea

) . Also, that her intuition is that the anti-war people here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush. Frankly, that's obvious. Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?

dlowan wrote:

The important part of her argument was how wonderful the US is, and how awful are those who dare to disagree with this war - (or whatever else the US feels like doing - I am not sure from what she says how general she wants it to be).

How awful are those who disagree with whatever the US feels like doing is part of her argument? Shocked

Or is it part of your hateful cartoonification of it? You're trying real hard to discredit her for her 2 posts to ehBeth, but how do you explain your half a dozen unprovoked, hateful posts about her?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, YOU are guilty of the exact same type of generalizations:

dlowan wrote:

In general, I find that the pro-Iraq folk here have managed completely to convince themselves that a primary justification for the invasion was ALWAYS "to rid you of the evil dictator, and bring you truth, justice and the American way", rather than this being a post-hoc face-saving move.

You are, I think, unusually honest in this respect.

The hypocrisy you've shown in that hateful string of posts is more than a little surprising. Re-read your handiwork... I think you might want to do some editing. Confused

0 Replies

"People here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush. Frankly, that's obvious. Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?"

Only to people like you Bill.

When you make comments like that, I cannot be bothered responding to you.

After all, why bother attempting rational discussion with someone who already has the colossal arrogance to believe he knows what all truth and reality is.

Also, Bill - we have had the tired old argument about Iraq many times. I assume you never read what opponents say, because you keep trotting out the same stuff. But also, the likes of you, go on to say that there IS no other possibility of another side. I believe that people of your ilk are well-meaning but misguided. I do NOT assume that you have evil intent. Since you appear to assume that anyone who thinks differently from you does, I have no further interest in discussion with you.

When you say this: "Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?" which is such a clear and utterly blatant distortion of the anti-war argument, I despair - and I have better things to do than spend more time with your arguments.

If you consider my posts personally hateful to JW, so be it. I am certainly contemptuous of her comments to beth and her "argument". It deserves it. I bear no general ill will towards JW - but I will attack such arguments.

And I suggest you do some reading if you want hatefulness.

0 Replies

I think there is no one on A2K who has not taken a pot shot at somebody at some point or another. Sometimes these are deserved. Sometimes not. But if it is wrong for one member to tell another member what he or she meant by a post, its wrong for any member to tell another member what he or she meant by a post. Some members at times actually are immature, patronizing, shallow, insulting, condescending, or insert your favorite uncomplimentary adjective here ____________. Others are perceived that way purely because they say things others disagree with so vehemently. But none of us know what background, expertise, insight, intuition, or observation a member brings to the forum, and it is probably presumptious when any of us take it upon ourselves to analyze the intent of another member via his/her post.

Object to the post yes. Take issue with it, tear it apart, rebut it, yes. Make generic references about an ideology, yes. Insult a political party or even a country yes. Say how it sounds to you yes. But who among us is wise enough to really know the motives of another unless he or she tells us?

I would like to not see friends quarreling with friends in this forum especially over something none of us can really know.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

"People here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush. Frankly, that's obvious. Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?"

Only to people like you Bill.

When you make comments like that, I cannot be bothered responding to you.

Ya, I'm the bad guy. Dlowan, one can either see 2 million needlessly starved people as a justification for war or not. There's no middle ground. There were lots of justifications for war. Some were more compelling than others. Ultimately, we all had to weigh pros and cons in making up our minds if we thought there was sufficient justification for war. Different people found different criteria compelling but obviously anyone who says "there was NO justification for war" didn't recognize any of it... including 2 million dead Iraqis. Now since that is too obviously true for you, you've twisted it into some generalization about well here:

dlowan wrote:

When you say this: "Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?" which is such a clear and utterly blatant distortion of the anti-war argument, I despair - and I have better things to do than spend more time with your arguments.

<shaking head> Where do you get off interpreting people who say something quite specific ("quoted even" Idea

) as a generalization of the entire anti-war argument? Is there just one anti-war argument? Or, like the pro-war argument, is there a range of variables that various people with various beliefs considered when coming up with their arguments? Not only did you promote my specific, quoted statement to be a generalization covering an impossibly large group then proceed to tell me that that's why it's not worth responding to YOU DID DO what you falsely accused me of doing here:

dlowan wrote:

In general, I find that the pro-Iraq folk here have managed completely to convince themselves that a primary justification for the invasion was ALWAYS "to rid you of the evil dictator, and bring you truth, justice and the American way", rather than this being a post-hoc face-saving move.

But I'm the bad guy, right?

dlowan wrote:

If you consider my post personally hateful to JW, so be it. I am certainly contemptuous of her comments to beth and her "argument" It deserves it.

But somehow your argument, which didn't require any assumptions whatsoever, doesn't deserve it?

dlowan wrote:

And I suggest you do some reading if you want hatefulness.

dlowan wrote:

I am glad you now know what cartoonish is.

dlowan wrote:

You might wish to try and avoid it.

dlowan wrote:

Also, Bill - we have had the tired old argument about Iraq many times. I assume you never read what opponents say, because you keep trotting out the same stuff. But also, the likes of you, go on to say that there IS no other possibility of another side. I believe that people of your ilk are well-meaning but misguided. I do NOT assume that you have evil intent. Since you appear to assume that anyone who thinks differently from you does, I have no further interest in discussion with you.

Still more ridiculous, insulting drivel. In order: I read every word of every post I respond to a minimum of twice. That my arguments don't change does not prove otherwise. Rolling Eyes

And finally, I don't think those who disagree with me are evil, (that suggestion is just another meaningless insult).

dlowan wrote:

After all, why bother attempting rational discussion with someone who already has the colossal arrogance to believe he knows what all truth and reality is.

Yet another "gratuitous insult". Pity you don't hold yourself to the standards you expect JW and I to live up to. Interesting how you felt you need to rub the "not worth responding to" mantra in repeatedly. Since you've utterly failed to address a single thing I said without first twisting it to suit your profile for garbage, I don't think I'll miss your lack of responses. At least not till you get over whatever's got a hold of you now.

0 Replies

Not gratuitous, Bill - the stunning insular arrogance of many of your political posts has been on show for a while now - and finding that distasteful will not cease to "have a hold of me".

I think you're a nice guy otherwise.

And you STILL do not get the point.

Here it is - one last time.

That you think your arguments compelling is a no-brainer. Most people with a strong position do.

What is disgusting to me is not that you do not change your mind - but that you are able to believe things like this:

"Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?""

How is believing that people who, for various reasons do not believe that invading Iraq was justified do not "give a rat's ass for the deaths of MILLIONS of Iraqis" NOT saying that anyone who does not agree with you is evil. Ok - here - what would YOU call it???? Clearly not evil - what is it? Never mind that I, and I imagine many here, were active in doing what we could to remove the terrible embargoes on food and medicine.... but I suppose you do not care to know about that - it might upset your belief that we are whatever the hell you believe we are that isn't evil, but is really bad.

Bill - how can you say you are not arrogant when your words say there can be no opposing view that is not only wrong, but indicative of some sort of moral wrongness???- that only yours is right????

If I am wrong, then tell me what the hell your words actually mean.

0 Replies

Some people's arrogance is sometimes more than just disturbing.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
there is a difference between benevolence and altruism.
A huge one... but it's a tough distinction for club members to see. :wink:

Thank you for attempting to explain my language to me/ us, DTM. :wink:

I would probably have agreed more with Bill had he used the word altruism in this context. Plenty of what the US and its people does is altruistic. I just don't think we should blind ourselves to the downside- Chile, Colombia, Iraq- not altruistic or benevolent at all.
As Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney have said, "There's good and bad in everyone". My concern now is, with the US's dominant position and its puppet chump-in-chief (sorry, Bill), that there is no balance any more. So I fear more bad.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Some people's arrogance is sometimes more than just disturbing.

Lol! You talking to me or him??? Shocked

0 Replies

Or both?????

Some would say we need our heads bumped to gether!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Some people's arrogance is sometimes more than just disturbing.

Lol! You talking to me or him???

I'm just having a morning talk with my alter ego. :wink:

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Now, as far as my views on the subject, IMO the invasion of Iraq was fully justified based upon the actions of Iraq in failing to fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors and to account for the whereabouts of WMD....

So the US military is the executive arm of the UN? No further resolution or mandate was required? Just the Congress: "Some Saudis have attacked us. We will declare a War on Terror and attack Iraq."

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Not gratuitous, Bill - the stunning insular arrogance of many of your political posts has been on show for a while now - and finding that distasteful will not cease to "have a hold of me".

Arrogance, stunningly insular (quite a statement Shocked

) or any other kind, I would doubt is new. Your finding it so troubling might be, but I get this same story when people get mad at me forever. Easily verified by looking at my early posts.

dlowan wrote:

I think you're a nice guy otherwise.

Likewise Deb. Your attack on JW today was uncharacteristically hypocritical... and considering the quantity of pilers-on already, unnecessary as well.

dlowan wrote:

And you STILL do not get the point.

I don't?

dlowan wrote:

Here it is - one last time.

That you think your arguments compelling is a no-brainer. Most people with a strong position do.

What is disgusting to me is not that you do not change your mind - but that you are able to believe things like this:

"Anyone who thinks "there was no justification for the war" clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the MILLIONS of Iraqis who were needlessly starved to death by Saddam & Sons/UN OFF program. Where's the confusion?""

How is believing that people who, for various reasons do not believe that invading Iraq was justified do not "give a rat's ass for the deaths of MILLIONS of Iraqis" NOT saying that anyone who does not agree with you is evil. Ok - here - what would YOU call it????

Fiction. I said no such thing. The ones who don't give a rat's ass are the one's who believe "there was no justification for the war". That's a group that doesn't think the plight of the Iraqis is any of our business, and there's no shortage of them... but that's not the same as everybody who was anti-war. Some saw that as a justification, but ultimately thought the establishment of international authority was more important. Some saw it as justification but thought we couldn't afford it... or would leave it in even worse shape or some combination of factors. Are you backtracking, or did you really not get that from the quotes AND the breakdown in my last post?

dlowan wrote:

Clearly not evil - what is it? Never mind that I, and I imagine many here, were active in doing what we could to remove the terrible embargoes on food and medicine.... but I suppose you do not care to know about that - it might upset your belief that we are whatever the hell you believe we are that isn't evil, but is really bad.

You must think I'm a hell of a lot friendlier than I am. If I thought about you the way you suggest, you'd hear my disgust in my every post I ever sent you, if I did at all. We certainly wouldn't be friendly. I'm not that nice a guy.

dlowan wrote:

Bill - how can you say you are not arrogant when your words say there can be no opposing view that is not only wrong, but indicative of some sort of moral wrongness???- that only yours is right????

I never said I wasn't arrogant, Deb. You are on the same side of right in every such statement I can recall. I think your priorities are whacked, in the same way I think my sister and brother-in-laws and many others here on A2K are whacked, but I've never questioned your moral compass. If I ever did it would be to make a point I thought you were missing, not serious.

dlowan wrote:

If I am wrong, then tell me what the hell your words actually mean.

I do hope you got them this time. If not, please tell me... because this is important enough to keep trying.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
there is a difference between benevolence and altruism.
A huge one... but it's a tough distinction for club members to see. :wink:

Thank you for attempting to explain my language to me/ us, DTM. :wink:

I would probably have agreed more with Bill had he used the word altruism in this context. Plenty of what the US and its people does is altruistic. I just don't think we should blind ourselves to the downside- Chile, Colombia, Iraq- not altruistic or benevolent at all.
As Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney have said, "There's good and bad in everyone". My concern now is, with the US's dominant position and its puppet chump-in-chief (sorry, Bill), that there is no balance any more. So I fear more bad.

LOL, I've called him worse myself. I think you missed DTOM's point. Altruistic implies unselfishness. Benevolence does not. Consequently, one can be benevolent and selfish simultaneously. I AM at least when I'm feeling benevolent. :wink: If you consider selfish always to be a bad thing, than you probably won't understand me, my philosophy nor what makes my country thrive.

0 Replies

It's okay to give it to her straight Walter, I can take it. :wink:

0 Replies

I was just passing by, on my way to get a glass of water, when I decided to have a look at what's been going on here. I would just like to say that there has been some mis-understanding of the American right-wing position by several persons both here in the United States and abroad.

Principably the error has been that people are not listening and shutting up after, they are arguing, making points and proffering contrary evidence and all that is contrary to the way it supposed to work in America now.

Here is what you need to know: America is good. Our intentions are always better than good. Errors or misapprehensions are the result of actions taken by our enemies and never our fault.

Now when you hear this you are supposed to just take it and go about your business (unless you're up to no good) if you don't, then we will be forced to do what we do to those who do not listen in this country, which is to SHOUT the same thing over and over until you do listen. (You should have been here at Thanksgiving.)

Now I hope everyone sees the pointlessness of failing to agree with everything this US administration has done thus far and plans to do in the future. It is absolutely UNAmerican to for any American to fuss about and while we appreciate the good intentions of our foreign friends making input, we find it most unnecessary and your intentions not as good as ours.

That said, well, that's really all I can say. I'm in America.

Joe (They are handing out the gags on Inauguration Day) Nation

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know