Re: No fear of debate - just fear of endless threads.
> No, I think, on balance, I will continue responding to Oaf's little
> offerings, if only in the hope that it may in some way keep him tethered
> to this planet to continue hearing arguments that are opposed to his own.
> Not that he listens to those, anyway. You'll notice his tendency only to
> respond to those portions of your post he has a ready-made response for.
> I have no fear of debate, but I do have a fear of endless threads with no
> Moz content, except where at the end of it all he tries to tell me Moz
> despises "people like me" (he's clearly aware that I have an
> army of brainwashed clones, towards whom Moz would have an identical
> response). The problem with Oaf is that he doesn't see people, he sees
> simplistic generic labels for them - "communists",
> "terrorists", "lefties", "Europeans".
Excuse me, but do you not notice when I'm labelled "right wing" "zionist" "fascist" etc etc etc. And I fail to see why pointing out that communists organized a rally, and that communists are amongst the contributors on zmag, is unjust. If someone supports a MArxist style overthrow of the capitalist world, that to me is communist. Why is that unfair? Everybody tells me on here that I'm being led by propagandists, well gee, why can't I say some of you are?
And you know what's the difference between me and some people? If something horrible happens as a consequence of what Bush is doing, I'll be the first to say post my horror about it and my shame in being misled. Not one person here who used to post that America was gonna commit a genocide in Afghanistan is big enough to say, "You know what, the Afghan people DO seem to be better off with the removal of the Taliban." How can that be? It really bugs me and makes me question how sincere people are about what they claim they care about, and if they're capable of learning from their mistakes.
As far as "Europeans," entire threads are created solely to slam America. Which is fine. But I'm sorry if I snort at those who call America "unilateral" or "cowboys" when America chose to go to the U.N. to uphold international law and order (indeed, America is trying to SAVE the ability of the U.N. to have relevance in international law and order) whereas certain other U.N. security counsel members seem to be just concerned with what's in their own political interests. I didn't see France go to the U.N. before sending unwelcomed troops to the Ivory Coast, and I didn't see anyone comment on that here. I didn't see Russia go to the U.N. over Chechnya. I didn't see China go to the U.N. over what they're up to in Tibet. I did see Germany using anti-Americanism cynically in a domestic political campaign, however. I guess we'll have to wait for these four governments to decide it's in their own pragmatic interests to stand up for international order, as they did in passing the last resolution, but I fail to see their moral high ground.
> You see, when he first started posting here, it seemed like he was at
> least willing to enter into some form of dialogue, and I had some
> interesting discussions with him. Lateley, however he appears to have sunk
> into a maelstrom of his own hyperbole. He has become increasingly personal
> in his attacks, and has frankly begun to sound more than a little paranoid
> at times.
Paranoid would be calling Bush a "fascist," or posting conspiracy theories.
> He seems to view the world in these ridiculous polar opposites -
> "good v evil",
When it comes to Saddam, yes it is good v. evil.
>"America v Islam/Europe",
America v. Islam? No, I've never said that. I've said modern civilization v. islamic fundamentalism.
America v. Europe? No, Europe is on the same side, generally speaking.
And some Europeans will be fighting in any coming war on Saddam. And as Tony Blair said last week in the House of Commons, if Bush wasn't standing up to Saddam, he'd be calling him up trying to convince him to.
>"with us
> or against us", "left v right",
Left v. right? Not at all, since I'm not a right winger at all. I don't much like the left or the right, and it is on the far left and the far right where you find the opposition to going after Saddam. Indeed, most of the serious opposition to a war is on the right.
My combination of views is, across the board, against totalitarianism. That's all I've ever been.
>"you agree with me or
> you're pro-Saddam/the communists/terrorism". And the thing that
> frightens me about these ridiculous dialectics is that I fear this is
> representative of how Bush and that sector of the population that supports
> him actually sees the world.
> And that's the thing - it's this kind of thinking that inspired Osama bin
> Laden when he masterminded the attacks on September 11. The objective was
> to goad America into precisely this mentality - to provoke a response
> which placed a clear dividing line between America and the muslim world,
> because when America retaliated, it could then become a rallying point for
> the whole muslim world. Of course, by and large this has thankfully not
> been the outcome - but it has worked on a small scale - and that's bin
> Laden's strategy, to keep provoking America into a polarised response.
> Loafing Oaf will flame me to buggery for saying this, but at a certain
> level (and he'll likewise ignore that qualification - shades of grey not
> being his strongpoint) he is actually doing the work of the terrorists for
> them by allowing himself to be so provoked.
*snort* Tell me, though, since Bush began the war on terrorism, how many 9/11's have taken place, and how many times have you seen Usama bin Laden?
My feeling is (and the words of Usama bin LAden himself back me up) that he viewed the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia (excellent movie on that btw), and the response to the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center, as well as the reckless missile attack on a Sudan medicine factory and a few tents in Afghanistan, as proof that America was soft, and all America would do in response to terrorism would be to file some law suits and launch a useless missile or two that do nothing but give good PR to the president.
My feeling is that , if there'd been no strong response to 9/11, we'd have witnesses several other cities around the world suffer similar or worse attacks. We still may, but I think since the war on terrorism began, it's been reported that 100s of terrorist attacks have been prevented.
I was always taught, when faced with a bully, you stand up and be strong.
> I have no problem with Loafing's posting various news articles which
> support his position, so long as he's actually read them first. It is
> important in any such debate to continually have your viewpoint challenged
> by others, and I am perfectly open to changing my position on anything if
> given enough reason to do so. At least they show some broader research on
> the Oaf's behalf.
And I guess you don't notice that many of the articles I link to or post are written by LEFTISTS whom I admire.
Because the fact is, the *intelligent*, *thinking* LEFT is where I came to my support for Bush's foreign policies with respect to the war on terrorism.
> Finally, my biggest problem with him is that he has become soooo defensive
> and unquestioning about America's moral supremacy in world geo-politics,
But I have attacked lots of America's foreign policies. I know what I've posted and I know what i believe, and there's plenty actions I feel were not in line with American ideals (I think the Cold War made everything murky). Although I think the past 15 years has seen Ameican foreign policy take a dramatic turn for the good, with a couple large exceptions.
And it's one thing to oppose immoral or short-sighted interventions, which is right to do. It's another thing to only come out and protest those wrong interventions long after they occurred, and doing so only to oppose a current intervention that just might be moral and just, and seeming not to care to work out if it would be moral and just. I didn't see the marches against Reagan's team when they intervened in Iraq. I do see the marches against Bush when he's intervening for the good. Well, yeah, of course whether it's for the good is debatable. But IMO, there's a long list of examples of good interventions and uses of the military, and a long list of bad ones, and so I'm gonna try and work out what the good ones are and support those. I'm not going to *automatically* condemn any American intervention. Not when to take that view would have led to such horrible consequences in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and back when Saddam invaded Kuwait, to name just a few. And not when there's so few other nations willing to do the job instead.
My beef is, I don't see much effort from people trying to work out the morality in policies. They're just against anything America does, period. And no, they have no ideas for what the policy should be.
> he mouths off at Europeans, as if that were some form of generic insult
> (to the exclusion my antipodean snivelling leftie nonsense, most
> infuriating!). Yet in an earlier post, he acknowledged to me that he felt
> both Carter and Reagan were both morally bankrupt (at least in an
> international relations sense).
See, I attacked Carter and Reagan. Fair and balanced, as the lovely Laurie Duhe says on FOX NEWS.
> This is what frightens me- that since September 11, for the first time in
> recent history, America now has the opportunity to portray itself, and
> justify its behaviour as a victim - and America was a victim on September
> 11, of course, but in the greater scheme of things remains the world's
> only superpower.
Yes, and what did America do after being attacked? They patiently put together a very rational, controlled, wise plan to oust the Taliban. They waited weeks and weeks and weeks before they responded. And the manner and swiftness in which they fought the Taliban is one of the things I think America can be completely proud of. No one has ever fought a war with such care, to my knowledge. We changed the course of a country for the better in just a few weeks time with shockingly few civilians caught in the crossfire and countless civilian lives saved. Millions of exiled Afghans have poured back in.
>But it's now a superpower which has a mechanism to feel
> morally upright when it interferes in and seeks to dominate world affairs.
> That's what shines through in Mr. Oaf, and in his attitude, I fear I see
> the attitude of middle America - an America that would once have baulked
> more strongly at it's country's aggressive posturing on the global stage.
> And that's why I won't be boycotting him, because we all (wherever we live
> - the Bali bombing showed us that) ignore that attitude at our peril, and
> we must all continue to have a dialogue with it, because at the moment
> some essentially good people, and an essentially great nation are planning
> some diabolical things.
Diabolical?
Refresher:
-Saddam invaded Kuwait.
-Saddam did not leave Kuwait until they were forced to by the international community and it's armies.
-Saddam signed a cease fire agreement, in which he was to fully disarm.
-Saddam proceded to ignore this cease fire agreement, and breach every U.N.
resolution for 11 years.
-The U.N. imposed sanctions on Iraq to try and force compliance short of going back to war, and the sanctions have not worked, and indeed Saddam has been able to make the IRaqi people suffer greatly under them.
-What to do now?
-If you let Saddam get away with it, and just say, "well, I guess we'll just call it a day on that and go home," what you are saying is there is no international law and order, that it is the law of the jungle.
-The only other option, it seems to me, is to have called for one more chance for Saddam to disarm, under a strong resolution with international support, and put a gun to Saddam's head. If someone told me one other option that would face the policy of the 90s failed, but would guarantee the threat of Saddam would be ended, I'd go along with it in a heartbeat. War is the last resport, but it's looking like we're at the last resort to me.
I hope to see Saddam on trial by this summer.
> Removing these people even further from discourse with the world would be
> to all our detriment.
Well thank ya.
Look, I'm well aware most people don't wanna read this shit. But it's clearly labeled in the subject headings, so what the f*** is the issue?
Just Mindy's drama. She only succeeded in continuing the thread. : P
