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

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Your replies add so much to the conversation bear.

Thanks ranger bob, probably at least as much as the original premise.

Your statement is a broad stupid sweeping generalization whether you like it or not and I'm betting that most A2kers on either side of the political spectrum agree.

Then don't answer them, don't reply to my threads. If they are such broad sweeping generalizations, then ignore them! Your comments add NOTHING to the thread and only detract from what other posters are discussing.

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......

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

. . . but Detroit and New York combined come to about half the population of either Afghanistan or Iraq individually.

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.

0 Replies

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 Mr. Green

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Bill Clinton wrote in his book of how he came so close to real peace in the region, when Israel agreed to return 97% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. Even he says : "If Arafat had only agreed to that..." (Thereby putting the blame on Arafat). By the same token, Israel could also be blamed for their insistence on keeping that 3%.

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. Rolling Eyes

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

To put it as simply as possible, imagine this scenario: Some African tribe, well-armed and supported by, say, Arab money, decides they need a country of their own. They decide America suits them. So they come over, kick the crap out of us, and set up camp. They rename America and it is known now as BandarAfrica. McG and his family, along with the rest of us, are tossed in a fenced-off portion of Texas, and that is our new country. What are you gonna do? BandarAfrica has a right to exist, right? Tough for us! Oh well! We must accept it, lest we become bad guys. I am sure that McG and his family will be quite happy living in their new world order and won't try employing any terrorist tactics to gain freedom from their oppressors and get their country back, right?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

...supporting Islamic fundamentalists (by arguing about the evils of the US), supporting socialism...

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? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

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?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

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

ehBeth wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Perhaps the Left's angst stems from the fact action is being taken against brutal, totalitarian despots and religio-fundamentalist, indiscriminately murderous thugs, and yet, as the action is being taken by the Right, The Left feels compelled to oppose it. Poor critters ... caught between Iraq and a hardplace.

Set up the despot. Knock down the despot.

Noriega is one of my personal favourites.

Quote:
Noriega was a paid and demonstrable CIA collaborator since the early 70ies, as former CIA-Director Adm. Stansfield Turner admitted in 1988, and he retained U.S. support until February 5, 1988 when the DEA had him indicted on federal drug charges relating to his activities before 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

hmmmmm, early 1970's - Nixon
hmmmmmm, 1988 - Reagan/Bush Sr.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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

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. Very Happy

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

arf arf ! ! !

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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.

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?

0 Replies

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 . . .

0 Replies

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". Rolling Eyes

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.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know