US and the rest of the world - Opinion article

[jGilder]

His contribution was nothing more than a useless dig. I someone thinks that discussions are only about insult and innuendo, and they have no interest in contributing to the discussion -- that indicates they're here for the wrong reasons. Bye.

And you are the arbiter?

No I'm not, but I'll ask you now, Mr. Walden; are you here to contribute to the discussion, or just to add to the attacks?

[energy]

His contribution was nothing more than a useless dig.

The post I attacked was nothing more than a useless dig. Perhaps it is a fault of mine that hypocrisy drives me crazy in political discussions; it is better to ignore it, because pointing it out rarely accomplishes anything.

To state my point as clearly as possible: you did not confine your posts to reasonable discussion of facts and the use of logic, but also posted a libelous, contrived yarn which had no purpose but to throw mud on those with opposing viewpoints. This sort of jazz happens frequently and I could have ignored it, except then you went on. You claimed that you had done nothing but provide simple facts and evidence, so if people were "alienated", it was their own fault for not liking the truth. I prefer not to overlook people posturing themselves on the moral high ground, when in reality they are in the same gutter with the people they are accusing. So I posted.

I am not joining the discussion because it is on a topic I have no interest in or strong feeling about. In short: I could care less.

[brianc]

The post I attacked was nothing more than a useless dig. Perhaps it is a fault of mine that hypocrisy drives me crazy in political discussions; it is better to ignore it, because pointing it out rarely accomplishes anything.

Amen to that!

[The Weekenders]

As far as world opinion goes, Bush is an isolationist. He ignores world public opinion in matters where the rest of the world is involved. 90% of world opinion was opposed to the war, and the UN was opposed as well -- but Bush did it anyway. He has demonstrated that he's not the leader of the "free world,” but instead he has behaved more like a fascist. Fascists act in isolation, engage in pre-emptive warfare and illegal occupations of foreign countries. Leaders of a "free world" would not engage in such things, nor would they ignore world public opinion.

This is going back to what started up this, though it was a response to my post, claiming that a laundry list of US actions including capital punishment and Iraq policy was a bit broad.

It has been mentioned that some of us have failed to prove things. Well, the initial statement of 90% was questionable in the extreme, imo. Not scientific, not even provable. Any one of us here would allow that a lot of the people in the world who bother to read or keep up with foreign affairs may have been opposed to the US action in large numbers, but we have a grandaddy political thread and another that preceded it that went on for page after page about UN resolutions, etc etc. The fact that many of us WOULD agree that popular world opinion was against Bush wasn't good enough for Gilder, we have to agree to what he says or we are...oh, tote up the characterizations. And its true, that despite resolution after resolution, the UN or many of its prominent members, refused to endorse Bush' actions in the end. Some of the reasons involved sovereignty, some would seem to involve the Oil for Food program and illegal deals.

GIlder has attacked and questioned many of us and demanded that we respond to his facts. I just wish to revive the memory, 10 pages or so ago, of this initial specious "fact" followed by a characterization that, though some would find acceptable, is also a bit of posturing (using terms like fascist etc.) Bush may well have blundered his way into something that can, in hindsight, be seen through a filter as the acts of a mad Fascist, but to a reasonable thinker, I would imagine that his actions would be balanced by those years of UN Resolutions, pronouncements of support, threats by Clinton, 9/11 fears, etc etc which have been so well-covered.

If Gilder could even allow that there is such a thing as process that leads to bad decisions, rather than evil intent at heart, it would be easier to discuss things. But it has been an unreasonable, one-way haul for a long time here. The quick linkage of Republicans to corporate evil, etc. etc is a familiar song in many of our ears.Iwould infinitely prefer to discuss AND LEARN from a reasonable position, rather than a determined, hardened Chomsky-ite wall of negation.

I don't feel inclined to debate foreign policy because I don't think you are interested in other's opinions, jGilder. We have covered the years leading up to the war in Iraq and I know its not exactly fair to expect you to read up on an old thread, but by the same token, some of us have our reasons for focusing on what we read here rather than reciting the very mixed messages that led to the invasion of Iraq. I think everyone here agreed to that -- MIXED MESSAGES by the UN, etc etc. We didn't agree on much else.

I hear patterned, hardened thinking, influenced and somewhat attributed to Chomsky and I have responded to that style of argumentation and what it will and won't allow. If I thought you weren't just trying to out-talk and out-last the opposition and wanted to metaphorically share a beer and discuss POSSIBILITIES of motives and actions, it would be more enjoyable and possibly more enlightening. Despite my bluster about Chomsky and his followers, many times I have eaten my hat on this Forum when I have been wrong, or at least acknowledged that there could be further facts to learn. Your hardened positions make one not inclined to admit anything other than that your form of argumentation is unsuccessful.

There is nothing as simple about Bush and his Admin that can be quickly characterized in a manifesto, though it is music to the ears of his detractors. The same is true during the last admin for Clinton-haters.

And that is one of my biggest problems with Chomsky and his legions. Man, I grew out of buying those goods in the old days of the Socialist Workers Party and their Maoist jargon, like "running dogs of capitalism" etc etc. Through my admittedly single human filter, this is what I am hearing from you, jGilder (even though its MUCH more intellectually based that the old Commie stuff), so I choose not to engage in what I think its less a discussion than a monologue interrupted.

[MurphyStout]

Week, I hate to put this out and stir things up on this thread again but nobody in that thread provided good clear reasons for why we should invade Iraq. I followed them and I would have been the first to agree when somebody brought up facts which supported Bush's agenda according to how he stated it. The fact is that he lied (unless you're one of those people who say he was victim of bad evidence rather than the provider of it). There were no weapons of mass destruction and there was no eminant threat. Suddam was no more guilty than many others in the world and as the other Jack pointed out, Suddam was our good buddy until we wanted his oil. Suddam was a storm in a teacup and he was well penned in.

Now we have a huge disaster waiting to happen as a result of all this foreign debt as a result of this horrible war. After we've pissed everybody off who is going to save us when the Saudi's and the Chinese pull their money out of our markets and put them into the Euro? Bush's current agenda is unmanageble and extremely dangerous. Something has got to give. Regardless of whether you admit it or not or whether you think it's Bush's fault our education is in the crapper, as is our environment, as is our job market, as is our solidarity, as is our society, and many other things. Bush won't fix these things because it's not his agenda.

We are living in a very dangerous time and I'm not even refering to terrorism. I've been right all along about this administration but I hope I'm not right about our immediate future.

[jim stone]

"Man, I grew out of buying those goods in the old days of the Socialist Workers Party and their Maoist jargon, like "running dogs of capitalism" etc etc." Weeks wrote.

It's 'running dogs of IMPERIALISM' you social fascist, you!

In 1966 I ended up in jail for a month in SF with 200
people, many of them members of the Young Socialist Alliance,
The Socialist Worker's Party, the W.E. B Dubois Clubs,
and on and on... Civil rights arrests.

They sat there for a month calling each other 'Fascist!'
Oh heavens, I'm glad that's over.

[Caj]

In this day and age, I have no idea why anyone would call anyone a "fascist" in a political argument.

All that word means anymore is, "I am the kind of person who calls people fascist."

Caj

[The Weekenders]

Week, I hate to put this out and stir things up on this thread again but nobody in that thread provided good clear reasons for why we should invade Iraq. I followed them and I would have been the first to agree when somebody brought up facts which supported Bush's agenda according to how he stated it.

Thanks for a reasonable disagreement and not calling me a chimp. I remember pages and pages of quotations of various leaders calling for the removal of Saddam, enumeration of UN Resolutions, discussions about the inspectors and the likes. I guess I remember more counter-considerations than you do. My only point in bringing it up was to perhaps revive a memory about discussing stuff without going for the jugular every third post or so. And to provide contrast with this thread.

And yeah, its running dogs of imperialism. How could I forget?

[jGilder]

It has been mentioned that some of us have failed to prove things. Well, the initial statement of 90% was questionable in the extreme, imo. Not scientific, not even provable. (…) The fact that many of us WOULD agree that popular world opinion was against Bush wasn't good enough for Gilder

Wrong, it was good enough for me. I’m not sure who it was, but I was being told that world opinion wasn’t overwhelmingly against the war. I remember reading that 90% figure somewhere, but I pointed out that a simple search on Google would illustrate my point. Unfortunately someone couldn't get beyond the 90% thing.

And its true, that despite resolution after resolution, the UN or many of its prominent members, refused to endorse Bush' actions in the end. Some of the reasons involved sovereignty, some would seem to involve the Oil for Food program and illegal deals.

I watched CSPAN the day Powell presented his case to the UN Security Council, and unlike what you see on mainstream media – you could watch the whole thing on CSPAN. I watched as Nation after Nation questioned the evidence he presented, and questioned US motives, and rightly so.

When you talk about the countries that supported the war, you have to figure in the intimidation techniques the US used; wire-tapping member’s phones to customize their strategy of how to coerce each nation’s dignitary into going along. It’s no wonder that most of the countries that were coerced into going along didn’t enjoy popular support from their people.

GIlder has attacked and questioned many of us and demanded that we respond to his facts. I just wish to revive the memory, 10 pages or so ago, of this initial specious "fact" followed by a characterization that, though some would find acceptable, is also a bit of posturing (using terms like fascist etc.) Bush may well have blundered his way into something that can, in hindsight, be seen through a filter as the acts of a mad Fascist, but to a reasonable thinker

Well I didn’t say “mad fascist” although I might agree, but he is a fascist. I’ve already demonstrated on this thread that the Republican Party represents corporate interests. I could fill dozens of pages more with the Bush family’s ties with corporations, and the Bush Administration’s corporate nepotism with regard to cabinet appointees. The policies that have been generated by the Bush administration and the way they’re handling detainees has obvious fascist overtones, but if you look into the definition of the word you’ll find out that in 1932 (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) Mussolini wrote an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. He wrote: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

And here’s a definition of who represents corporatism from Wikipedia: “American corporatism is evidenced in the close ties between members of the Bush Administration and many large corporations, such as Halliburton.”

If Gilder could even allow that there is such a thing as process that leads to bad decisions, rather than evil intent at heart, it would be easier to discuss things. But it has been an unreasonable, one-way haul for a long time here. The quick linkage of Republicans to corporate evil, etc. etc

Now now Mr. Weekender – it’s not nice to put words in people’s mouths. I never said, “evil.”

I don't feel inclined to debate foreign policy because I don't think you are interested in other's opinions

Pure speculation on your part, and it serves no purpose. And besides that, you're just plain wrong. I would normaly consider this an insult, but I can see you're just struggling to come up with a reason to get out of the discussion. I wonder if it's because you aren't interested in other people's opinions. Hmmmmm

We have covered the years leading up to the war in Iraq and I know its not exactly fair to expect you to read up on an old thread, but by the same token, some of us have our reasons for focusing on what we read here rather than reciting the very mixed messages that led to the invasion of Iraq.

It was hardly a “mixed message.” They said we were threatened because Saddam had WMDs… and nuclear ones to boot. There was a 45 minute launch or some such none-sense. They also drew connections between Saddam and 9-11. I got the message loud and clear, no mixed messages – they lied. Simple as that.

I hear patterned, hardened thinking, influenced and somewhat attributed to Chomsky and I have responded to that style of argumentation and what it will and won't allow.

You have yet to respond to what the man said in the quote I posted. It was relevant to the discussion at the time when someone asked if the Bush Administration had World domination in mind. Chomsky’s comments were about the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy. The very first response you had was that Chomsky was a “whacko” and then you went on to attack him. I was on topic – you were somewhere else. Not a very sound discussion style in my opinion.

If I thought you weren't just trying to out-talk and out-last the opposition and wanted to metaphorically share a beer and discuss POSSIBILITIES of motives and actions, it would be more enjoyable and possibly more enlightening.

That’s what I WAS doing while you insisted on attacking the messenger.

There is nothing as simple about Bush and his Admin that can be quickly characterized in a manifesto, though it is music to the ears of his detractors. The same is true during the last admin for Clinton-haters.

Right… Clinton was impeached for improper use of cigars between consenting adults, but Bush got away with lying to congress and the people of America getting us into a pre-emptive, illegal war. I much prefer the cigar president in that case – no one died -- just a stained dress and a damp cigar.

And that is one of my biggest problems with Chomsky and his legions. Man, I grew out of buying those goods in the old days of the Socialist Workers Party and their Maoist jargon, like "running dogs of capitalism" etc etc. Through my admittedly single human filter, this is what I am hearing from you, jGilder (even though its MUCH more intellectually based that the old Commie stuff), so I choose not to engage in what I think its less a discussion than a monologue interrupted.

So in other words, your errant preconceptions prevent you from engaging in this discussion. Interesting.

[jGilder]

The post I attacked was nothing more than a useless dig. Perhaps it is a fault of mine that hypocrisy drives me crazy in political discussions; it is better to ignore it, because pointing it out rarely accomplishes anything.

Hipocrisy? I don't think so. Could you be more specific please?

[jGilder]

Amen to that!

Hey look -- Brain's back. Are you all rested... schedule clear, sox drawer organized?

Hey Brian, tell us again how corporations don't support Bush -- that was a good one. (if you're wondering, it was on page 10)

Are you ready to defend US foreign policy now, Brian... come on... you've had enough time to think about it.

[energy]

The post I attacked was nothing more than a useless dig. Perhaps it is a fault of mine that hypocrisy drives me crazy in political discussions; it is better to ignore it, because pointing it out rarely accomplishes anything.

Hipocrisy? I don't think so. Could you be more specific please?

First, let's reinsert the line I quoted before writing the above. In context, it looks like this:

His contribution was nothing more than a useless dig.

The post I attacked was nothing more than a useless dig. Perhaps it is a fault of mine that hypocrisy drives me crazy in political discussions; it is better to ignore it, because pointing it out rarely accomplishes anything.

In other words, my original post was an attack on a useless dig, and then you accuse my attack on your useless dig as being a useless dig. That's hypocrisy. But I digress.

To get to the real point: I have clearly established that the post you made which I addressed in my first post on this thread was a resort to personal insult, correct?

Second, I will provide quotes:

I have addressed each of the challenges against my position thoroughly and with ample documentation, but instead of acknowledging that and continuing the discussion, some contributors to this thread resort to personal insult and innuendo...

...I think with all the abuse I had to endure in this thread...

I(f) someone thinks that discussions are only about insult and innuendo, and they have no interest in contributing to the discussion -- that indicates they're here for the wrong reasons.

So, it is clear that you think that others in this thread have launched personal attacks on your character, and that you think this is wrong. I will now quote myself:

To state my point as clearly as possible: you did not confine your posts to reasonable discussion of facts and the use of logic, but also posted a libelous, contrived yarn which had no purpose but to throw mud on those with opposing viewpoints.

In summary, you resorted to personal insult and innuendo to throw dirt on the character of your opponents. Then you went on to accuse others of doing so to you.

[brianc]

Right… Clinton was impeached for improper use of cigars between consenting adults, but Bush got away with lying to congress and the people of America getting us into a pre-emptive, illegal war. I much prefer the cigar president in that case – no one died -- just a stained dress and a damp cigar.

BZZZTTT - wrong, but thanks for playing.

Clinton's impeachment was directly related to his perjury while under oath. In fact, in the same perjury, his license to practice law was revoked, and he was fined $89,000 by Judge Susan Wright.

The United States went to war in Iraq in March 2003 with the consent (as required) by Congress.

Gee- and you claimed that you weren't a fan of Clinton. Ha!

[jGilder]

To state my point as clearly as possible: you did not confine your posts to reasonable discussion of facts and the use of logic, but also posted a libelous, contrived yarn which had no purpose but to throw mud on those with opposing viewpoints.

In summary, you resorted to personal insult and innuendo to throw dirt on the character of your opponents. Then you went on to accuse others of doing so to you.

You need to review the thread from the beginning, I was attacked, and my sources were attacked -- I reacted. In the process of defending my sources and myself I might have retuned a little fire, but I didn't initiate the abuse.

This tactic of attacking the messenger rather that addressing the issues is a typical ploy among conservatives, and it always seems to play into their hands when they fail to argue their point adequately. I should have been more saintly I suppose in retrospect, but when I came under attack -- it was hard to just turn the other cheek. The fact that I was attacked initially will be obvious to anyone that truly and objectively reviews this thread.

[jGilder]

Clinton's impeachment was directly related to his perjury while under oath. In fact, in the same perjury, his license to practice law was revoked, and he was fined $89,000 by Judge Susan Wright.

The United States went to war in Iraq in March 2003 with the consent (as required) by Congress.

Gee- and you claimed that you weren't a fan of Clinton. Ha!

I'm not a big Clinton fan, but I'll still take him over Bush anyday. At least no one died when Clinton lied.