Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad guys?

Oops....getting a little bitchy there honey........remember this is an opinion forum and opinions vary.........I'm not attacking you big guy, just your post...please don't come south and beat me up....I don't think everything you post is stupid, but I do think this on is......

Nonsense, according to the United Nations in 2000, there were 25 million Iraqis at the least--which is more than three times the population of New York and Detroit combined. I haven't looked for the population of Afghanistan, but would point out that i doubt that the populations of either New York or Detroit are as heavily armed as that of Afghanistan. Redheat is completely correct that this statement by is a non-sequitur in considering the violence in the Muslim world. The motives in New York and Detroit are likely not political--"crimes of passion" and a self-centered effort at personal gain are much more likely explanations.

You're absolutely right about motive, and that the reference was non sequitur ... it was intended as respons-in-kind to a preceeding non sequitur.

I don't see how the math equates to nonsense, however; by your estimates, my "about half" was wildly conservative. But then, I guess thats just how us wild conservatives are

I can see how your thought processes are working suzy, the Israelis are willing togive up 97% of the land and thus are just as much to blame as the palestinians who won't comprimise on the remaining 3%. Yes I can see how that is fair.



There is a problem with your premise suzy:

1) Your Bandar Africans had NO PRIOR CLAIM on that land.


Let me illustrate it thusly:

Once a long, long time ago there was a large extended family that lived on a great estate. They were called the Juden family and they and all their relatives lived on the land and were happy. They had some conflicts with their neighbors but generally kept to themselves.

Many, many years later, the majority of the family was kidnapped from their homes and forced to labor for their captors. The family was held for many generations any yet never forgot the great estate that their ancestors had come from.

Meanwhile, back at the great estate, the few members of the family that hadn't been kidnapped by the foreigners were too few and too weak to defend the estate when their neighbors decided to ?'move in' and begin ?'squatting' on the Juden family's land.

The Juden family and their descendants were scattered about the land where they were abused, reviled and even killed by others. Yet through all this, they never forgot the tale of their great estate that was their home.

After a particularly bad time for the descendants of the Juden family, a group of them decided to make the trip back to their family's estate to live. When they got there, they found the descendants of the ?'squatters' living on the grounds of the great estate and living among the ruins of a once glorious home. The ?'squatters' were not even a united family; they were merely the descendants of the neighbors from the surrounding estates.

The Juden descendants moved back in to their ancestral home and began raising their families and carving a life for themselves in the place that they had dreamed of for so long. But the ?'squatters' had been living on the land so long; they had forgotten that the land they lived on had belonged to someone else previously. The ?'squatters' attacked the members of the Juden family and killed many. The Juden family members, realizing that they would be killed unless they fought back, did just that.

They announced to their neighbors that the Juden family was back and in charge of their family's estate. The neighbors decided that they didn't want the Juden family living next door to them and attacked them over and over. The Juden family won each of those battles and the borders of their estate were regained.

The Juden family didn't just kick the latter day ?'squatters' off their land, they allowed the ?'squatters' to live and work the land of the estate. Yet this was to cause them great grief as members of the squatters burned homes and killed many Juden family members. The Juden family still didn't kick the ?'squatters' off the land; they merely instituted more and more measures to protect themselves from the ?'squatters'.

The families from the nearby estates, unable to destroy the Juden family by force, complained to all the people of the nearby lands of how poorly the Juden family was treating the ?'Latecomer' family. The other families had never heard of the ?'Latecomer' family before that time and the Juden estates neighbors claimed that the ?'Latecomer' family had prior claim to the Juden estate and were the true owners of that land. The Juden family merely shook its head in puzzlement over this claim that a collection of ?'squatters' that had moved into someone else's home were suddenly acknowledged as a new family with land claims on the Juden's home.


Conclusion:
1) Calling a group of ?'squatters' with no previous identity or government a nation is both disingenuous and misleading (There were no ?'palestinians' prior to the British naming the location and administering it.)

2) The Arabs of the area struck the first blows of the wars to ?'Push the Jews into the sea'.

3) The Jews have had prior claim to that land for two reasons, one is a statement of fact and the other a statement of belief:

a) Fact: The Jews held dominion over that land for a very long time; long before any descendants of the modern day ?'palestinians' were there. It was THEIR land.

b) Belief: The Jews have claim to that land because GOD GAVE IT TO THEM.



Just my two cents. (Pre tax)

Huh? Since when does 'the Left' on A2K support Islamic fundamentalists? What about this: 'the Left' (what 'Left'?) does not support Islamic fundamentalists, but does not entirely support the way how the Bush government wants to fight it. Same thing with Israel: 'the Left' (what 'Left'?) does not entirely support the Israeli government with their actions - but that does not mean that they are supporting the ones who seek to destroy Israel. I mean, you can probably find some examples of Leftish people who said this thing on A2K, I'm positive you will, but 'the Left'? But eventually, "reasoning" that criticizing the Bush administration in its fight against terrorism means that the critics support Islamic fundamentalism... what have you been smoking? :wink:

And probably you will say now: 'I said arguing the evils of the US, not the evils of the Bush administration'. But in what posts did 'the Left' argue a fundamental part of (the) US (society) to 'support', 'justify' or whatever Islamic fundamentalists? What I can think of, the times that we argued this the Leftish people on the A2K criticized the Bush administration, and not 'the US' in general.

And another thing: one of the bad things 'the Left' does on A2K - according to you - is 'supporting socialism'. Since when is that a bad thing? Or do you mean communism?

Gota wonder 'bout God's sense of humor; if the Jews are his "Chosen People", how come he stuck 'em with the only patch of sand in the Middle East without oil under it?

God always does things like that so in the end he can say "See. I took the weakest with the least and still kicked ass"

God has no self esteem problems. In fact if the deity thing doesn't work out he could have a fabulous career in marketing.

Don't waste your time, Rick, as far as McG is concerned, if you do not support the Shrub, you must be a supporter of international islamic terrorists--he will accept no substitutes.

If McGentrix wants it, I can change my name to Rick bin Laden

That's just not true. If you guys would stop being Saddamites, we would get along just fine.

This one deserves repeating, especially seeing how its been all ignored and stuff ...

Habibi, i gave a long list of the favorite tin-pot dictators of the Right over more than fifty years. It has been ignored. It is not commensurate with the inferior rhetorical position into which McG is attempting to put those whom he wishes to bait.

Let's take a look at that, shall we?

When it is in the best interests of the USA, we support various governments. When those interests stop being served, or worse, threatened, we do not support various governments.

Seems like sound foreign policy to me.

what choices do we have? Isolationism? Ignoring governments? Creating puppet regimes?

<shakes head>

you liberals and your outrage...

Well, I suppose it could be said that if you would remove your head from a dark stinky place and come up for air once in awhile you could hear what was being said by other people.

I however would not say that, because it would be considered an ad hominem attack, even though it seems to be all right to call the left Saddamites in your world.

So I will bite back my comments for the sake of civility.

No outrage, McG, just reality.

As eBeth pointed out:

"Set up the despot. Knock down the despot."

Rummy was video-taped in Baghdad grinning and shaking Hussein's hand. A generation later, he oversees the military action to bring him down.

Then we have you, attempting to contend that those who don't approve of the process must be in bed with islamic terrorists. What a laugh riot.

Set here's a bone and a belly rub. Good dog.

arf arf ! ! !

OK, fine, but whats with the good guys/bad guys stuff then?

I mean, either you're gonna claim to always (or even just usually) be supporting the "good guys" - but then you're gonna get called on it when it turns out you've in fact supported a whole myriad of bad guys.

Or you're gonna say, good guys whatever, we're just gonna support whoever happens to best serve our interests, but then its also bye-bye to the sanctimonious messianistic note in the rhetorics. Right?

With McG?

No, you'll never be right in his eyes. He's got an axe to grind, and if you won't play grindstone, get out of the way . . .

So tell me Set, what will you change right now? So that after 20 years of hind sight we will be shown to have been right? Do we invade N. Korea? No? What if it shows in 20 years that we should have invaded now before Kim went insane and kills everyone? What should we do RIGHT NOW?

Hindsight is a great and magnificent tool, especially when used in abundance with the ability to say "I told you so".

But, in the present, with no ability to use hindsight, the best interests of the county must be served by what happening now. We supported Saddam to defeat Iran, a more dangerous threat. we supported Osama to defend afghanistan against communism. It was the right thing to do at the time. We invaded Iraq to rid the country of Saddam and to protect the world from his using and spreading WMD's. It was the right thing to do at the time.