Quote:Bill
JTT wrote: Bill, I can't imagine why you would think that you, being in agreement with Tico, should constitute anything remotely approaching a consensus on any issue.
You're shadow boxing, arguing against your imaginary friend or pretending an obvious Straw man may have some effect. Nope. I made no such claim. I simply stated my agreement with Tico's assessment and briefly touched on why.
Why then, would you bring such an insignificant issue to the table.
JTT wrote:Further, you didn't even read my posting wherein I said and I quote,
Quote:Read it and dismissed it since it totally ignored Tico's original point... which shouldn't be hard to find since it's been repeated so often (initially by you). Here, I'll heighten the words a little for you.
Quote: TICO: The "blame America first" crowd is ever on the lookout for creative ways to make the US look bad.
Sure, base your analysis on "percentage of GNP," and go ahead and ignore that most of the charitable giving in this country comes from private donations, not from Governmental aid, contrary to most other countries.
JTT wrote:Now, if you'll just address the facts in those links, some of which I repeated for you, perhaps we can chat again about "avoidance".
Quote:I've little quibble with the facts in those links, beyond the misleading way they exclude the major American private donations in an attempt to paint the U.S. ugly... and your over-eagerness to accept partial truths as comprehensive assessments.
When your government is dead last year after year; when you're the world leader in tied aid; when most of the "aid" is sent to middle income countries; when a large measure [was it half?] of the aid is military hardware, the facts themselves paint the US ugly and what individuals do cannot erase that fact.
Let me make note that neither you nor Tico have made any attempt to illustrate how these "partial truths" are not in fact, comprehensive assessments.
All you provide is your foot-stomping rejoinder that "it just ain't true". Surely there's more to your argument than this, Bill. Surely.
JTT wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:Surprisingly good article for you patchy, and it seems like a pretty damn good idea, too (excluding your idiotic commentary, of course. :wink:)
Your ad hominems are showing, Bill.
Quote:I in no way attempted to weaken Patchy's argument with a personal attack... and, in fact, concurred with what he'd quoted. My description of his commentary was an opinion about his commentary, not his person. No ad hominem there. A better example of ad hominem would be your frequent comments about the beloved cheese I'm wearing in my avatar.
Below, you demonstrate your penchant for erecting 'straw men and 'poisoning the well' which makes debate with you rather unattractive (Looking up terms you don't understand is a sign of intelligence :wink:)
The distinction you're attempting to draw is pretty weak, Bill. I think it illustrates your hypocrisy pretty clearly. You can't chide someone for behavior that you engage in. Pretty much what you do with other countries, all the while ignoring the sins of home.
Don't be so deceptive, Bill. You have got to be clearer. What terms might those be?
JTT wrote: But you're right, this is a good idea. There are many many good Americans out there, people who can honestly embrace and deal with the fact that their government and some of its soldiers have, at times, been guilty of criminal behavior, including war crimes.
But you Bill just want it to go away with not even a slap on the wrist. All you and the blind portion of the America first crowd wantis a free ride all the while posturing and whining about the butchers and dictators of the world who happen to not be in your camp.
Quote:
Prove it. Show me where I even addressed the feeble positioning you're ascribing to me.
JTT wrote: The crimes of Vietnam call out for redress. There are many more examples, but you, in your heart, know that so we needn't go further.
Quote:Prove it. Show me where I even addressed the feeble positioning you're ascribing to me.
That's the whole point, Bill. You won't, don't ever address these issues. It would be easier for you to show me where you've ever stated that these war crimes should be addressed. Even easier, state it now. Explain why the war crimes committed by Americans should not go to international courts of justice in the fashion touted long and hard by the US.
JTT wrote: Ya just can't be this hypocritical. It's losing its cachet. Many are no longer willing to simply accept what America says.
Quote:Correct IMO, I'm not that hypocritical... though you're not even doing a good job of explaining why your straw man can't be either.
There's no straw man, there's just you and me here, Bill. I've asked a lot of questions that you've studiously ignored. A large number of facts have been presented that obviously have shaken your little world. [Note McG hasn't been back to address the facts raised, nor has Tico.]
JTT wrote: Why is there this continuing attitude that the USA has done nothing to cause these problems when your own intelligence people tell you there is? Why do you think you can meddle endlessly in other countries' affairs and not suffer any blowback?
Quote:Here again; you pick an idiotic string of ideas out of the air, ascribe them to me, and then strike your straw man a mighty blow.
Again, it's easy. Explain to us that this isn't your position, that it isn't right for the US to meddle in other countries affairs. Show us that you aren't a hypocrite. Just as you wouldn't want meddling in your affairs, so too you will resist efforts by your government to meddle in the affairs of others.
Maybe these quotes will help:
++++++++++++++++++++++
1. ''The United States makes sure that 80 cents in every aid dollar is returned to the home country,'' she told IPS.
2. Njehu also pointed out that money being doled out to Africa to fight HIV/AIDS is also a form of tied aid. She said Washington is insisting that the continent's governments purchase anti-AIDS drugs from the United States instead of buying cheaper generic products from South Africa, India or Brazil.
As a result, she said, U.S. brand name drugs are costing up to 15,000 dollars a year compared with 350 dollars annually for generics.
3. The U.N. study is also implicitly critical of the much-trumpeted African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), signed into U.S. law in May 2000, as being too restrictive in its scope.
Citing studies by outside experts, the report says that out of the 37 sub-Saharan African countries eligible for tariff preferences under AGOA, the only major beneficiaries have been South Africa and Nigeria.
South African exports to the United States were 45 percent higher in 2002 than in the preceding year while 60 percent of Nigeria's exports to the United States were under AGOA. But the bulk of this trade related to the oil industry.
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24509
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JTT wrote:How can you be so naive? Of all the peoples of the world, I'll suggest that USA citizens would tolerate this the least if done to them. Steve was right. You have no ability to empathize.
Quote:I'm not so naive. I will neither defend your imaginary friend's positions, nor continue to be talked down to by one who argues like a child. There is no profit in it for either of us, since you refuse to learn and seemingly have nothing of value or the wherewithal to teach me. Stick with beating on this guy:
FYI, I've had very similar debates (topic-wise) with members who frame their arguments very well that resulted in little mutual agreement... but still infinitely more than I could reasonably expect to reach with you.
Go ahead and enjoy framing fallacious argument after fallacious argument and the mutual back-slapping from your equally inept peers that will no doubt accompany it.
A rising tide of denial, coupled with some good old ad hominems. You've engaged in pretty lengthy "discussions" up to now, Bill, and now when the noose tightens, you resort to this.
I'm not seeking "mutual agreement", Bill. I'd like you to address the issues raised that you seem to think can be dismissed with simply a rhetorical flourish.
