More on politics and friends
I want to spotlight this question that appeared in the comments section of my earlier thread on politics and friendship [some spelling corrections made here]:
...if this is the state of your personal relationships, is the blog a chance to say all those things you can't with them, a place to find ideological fellowship, or both or neither? Do [your friends] know about the blog? Just curious.
I began this blog mainly because I was spending so much time reading and commenting on other blogs that I figured I might as well start one of my own. At the time, I was writing quite a few emails to Andrew Sullivan, and a great many of them were being published on his blog (this was back when he was still featuring a couple of emails a day). It was fun to think that, because of the enormous volume of Sullivan's traffic, many people were probably reading my words.
But at the beginning, I never thought this blog would generate much traffic. I started out very slowly and tentatively here around the time of the build-up to the 2004 election, not ever thinking I'd be using it as much more than a dump for a few of the emails I'd sent to Andrew, or some of my longer comments on other blogs.
But I did have an idea; that's why I gave the blog the name I did. As I said, I really wasn't thinking that I'd ever have much traffic. But I was thinking that I wanted to make this a place to discuss the changes I'd undergone post-9/11, and to make it a place where people who'd had similar experiences would feel especially welcome. I knew I'd be discussing change in general, and it's interesting to me that so many of my posts have indeed continued to deal with that topic in one form or other.
And yes, since I began the blog in the intense period of the buildup to the 2004 Presidential election, it was at least partly an effort to channel the energy I had to speak about these things away from friends and family, most of whom had made it clear that they wanted to take such topics off the table. I was only too happy to oblige, because the experience with them had been so unproductive and unpleasant.
So the answer to the first question from the commenter is "both." Primarily, however, this blog has been a way to say things I just feel I need to say, and to make them available for others read them. In that I think I resemble most bloggers: we like to get our thoughts out there in written form.
As for the second question, whether my friends know about the blog, the answer is also "yes." I've given all those who are close to me--and many who are less close, but still friends--the URL. I've invited them to read it, with the caveat that they probably would disagree with my viewpoints. But of course, most of them already know that.
I've never sent them links to any political posts of mine, however, unless they've specifically requested that--and very few have. To send such things to them at this point would constitute a sort of mild harassment. Now politics only comes up if they choose to bring it up.
There are two family members who read my blog regularly. It is probably no coincidence that those are the two closest to me, and that they also happen to be the two who have come (at least partially, and to different degrees) over to the dark side along with me. There's one good friend who remains staunchly liberal who reads here regularly and thoughtfully. But most of you probably won't be surprised to learn that the rest of my friends virtually never come here, although I do send them links to some of my lighter, nonpolitical, pieces from time to time, if I think they'd enjoy that.
Of course, there are many possible explanations for my friends' general lack of interest in reading my blog. I was drawn to blogs the moment I first found them, back in 2002. Something about them just resonated with me--I liked the personal voice, the lively give and take, the sense of a Greek chorus (sometimes humorous) commenting on the news that had heretofore been intoned mostly by the likes of Cronkite and Rather.
But since the majority of people don't read blogs--left or right--most of my friends fall squarely into that category. Therefore the fact that they never read my blog isn't all that strange. But I still like to think that, if the tables were reversed, and I was the non-blog-reader and my friends the bloggers, I would have enough curiosity to go to their blogs and read from time to time.
But nothing I write here is a secret, not only in the sense that a blog is in the public domain, but also in the sense that I've given the information out to friends. What they do with it is their business.
I've found a lack of general interest on both sides in reading much of what the other side has to say. Since I'm the Tiresias of bloggers (metaphorically, that is!), I've spent quite a bit of time reading on both sides now. I think that's especially true of other "changers." And I still do quite a bit of reading of the NY Times and the Boston Globe, as well as my old favorite, the New Yorker, as well as a smattering of articles decidedly to the left of those publications.
But back when I was a liberal Democrat, I hardly ever recall reading periodicals on the right. One reason was that I thought I already was reading media that presented both sides fairly (the above MSM publications). I think that's a common perception still, among liberals.
There's also a perception that there's no need to read the other side because it's all garbage any way. And no doubt there are many on the right who feel that way about the other side, as well. But I think it's a bit harder for those on the right to avoid reading views from the liberal side, since it's so well represented in the MSM. And it always strikes me as strange that liberals, who pride themselves on openminded reflection and inclusion, as well as respect for different "truths," should so often be doctrinaire about shutting out the voices on the right from their own consciousness. If liberal stereotypes about the right are to believed, that's exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from the narrow-minded right, isn't it?
97 Comments:
I've found a lack of general interest on both sides in reading much of what the other side has to say. Since I'm the Tiresias of bloggers (metaphorically, that is!), I've spent quite a bit of time reading on both sides now.
I've noticed the same. I'd like to throw in my two cents that I think it's important to read both sides.
It's not just that the sides disagree, they are often not working from similar worldviews or even the same facts. So the disjunction is quite severe and IMO it leads to people assuming the worst about their opponents.
I enjoy your postings more so than the comments. There really is too much ranting and not enough debating or discussion from the commenters.
And it always strikes me as strange that liberals, who pride themselves on openminded reflection and inclusion, as well as respect for different "truths," should so often be doctrinaire about shutting out the voices on the right from their own consciousness. If liberal stereotypes about the right are to believed, that's exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from the narrow-minded right, isn't it?
It was a self-realization for me, that I had actually been the opposite of my self-image. I will be thoughtful of the Left and Right until I die; not just where ideas are best illuminated, but where they are grounded in core democratic principles; peace and security in perspective to the situation at hand, American bill of rights -- list of freedoms, human liberation, etc,. Tyranny doesn’t play by the rule that “peace is precious”. War and peace together is the right soup for humanity – but who are the victors and who are the losers? I would hope that the victors [but not everyone agrees] are the ones that carry the torch of civilization in all its virtues and vices; it is the colossal progress of all our forefathers. If it should collapse, we would start again in a new pre-history, from the beginning and with no history to learn from, and thus repeat all of our vast and horrific miserys and rare miraculous triumphs. I hate doing the same thing twice; I suspect the soul of humanity thinks so too. Is this too Andy Rodneyish?
Posts like this are why I love this blog.
Your posts are crisp, sharp, substantive- and they just float.
Superb.
Misrepresent my word as you wish, it’s your conscious that is missing dinner, not mine.
Here's a hint -- in my reply the top paragraph was in italic because those are neo-neocon's words. The bottom part, those are my words.
Don't worry about an apology, just stay on topic.
I've tried reading Atrios and Koz, but they were just too depressing, vulgar, and abrasive.
It doesn't matter if a blog author agrees with me or not, it does matter to me if I like the blog author and his style.
I don't read blogs that I agree with on ideology, if I dislike the behavior of the author towards me or others. This includes Kos and Atrios, yes, but it also includes some Republican blogs as well.
I prefer reading military blogs, but the lawyers and Instapundit has some good links and new material once in awhile that stimulates the mind.
If you recall, Spank didn't differ on the principle facts in relation to me, thus the disagreement was solely concerned with the behavior and conduct of the writer. Being right isn't enough, you have to have a base line charisma to get your point across without insulting everyone and making them into enemies.
Loyalty in human affairs is not principally an ideological matter. I am not loyal to those I agree with, and disloyal to those I disagree with, automatically. Loyalty in human affairs go both ways, it has to do with respect, and not primarily with mutual agreement.
If there is no respect, if there is no honorable conduct, then it doesn't matter what could be benefited.
What a coward you are, won't even stand by your own words!
Well, it all has to do with one thing, Ryan. Do you expect honor from one's enemies?
I remember when I took English Lit 101, and I had a teacher who was a communist. He assigned the usual sort of reading materials you'd expect, and we had lots of debates in that class, and I regularly was the point man for the opposition... It was great, I thoroughly enjoyed it. After one paper we had written, we all got one-on-one critiques, and he didn't have much criticism of my paper- he gave it an A, and we talked a little about points of view, and he suggested I read some of the more prominent conservative commentators and authors of the time to refine my points- which struck me odd. I told him I was far more interested in reading and talking to the opposition, as I did in his class- it was far more challenging and instructive. It just seemed a foreign concept to him...
Now, a few years down the road, I don't have nearly the desire to read too much stuff from the left. It's become too enraged, too vulgar, and frankly too boring as it's the same-old same-old... Though I try to keep abreast of the latest, it's not much fun.
I long for the days of a lively, intelligent opposition.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sally, that was the best comment you've ever written.
Neo. You write well and express a clear point of view that I imagine is quite common amongst your age group in the usa. I greatly appreciate the way you have left the comments open. I enjoy debating, sparring, trolling :-) and increasingly blogs are not using the comments as they can’t bear the fighting. And yes it is repetitive and the quality is often not very high. But the comments section is one of the big reasons why you get so many hits on the blog. Try turning it off and see how many people still read.
Obviously i agree with comments from confud and bmc and find their points interesting and fun at pricking the pompous right wing ideas on here - but it is easy to like what you agree with. You have some quality right wing contributors on here. S.B. Goesh, Stumbley as well as the more challenged knee jerk right-wingers such as sally and the little apple thief. People like yrmdwnkr are very unpleasant and advocating an ever increasing range of violent solutions to complex political problems. Your lack of condemnation of this leads me to think you tacitly agree and makes me wonder about you. Now you have your own secret agent comrade unpleasant wasp who is admonishing other people for debating….well the arrogance of it. Or is this something else you agree with? Are you frightened of debate?
The choice is up to you. If you don't want people disagreeing with you then have moderated comments and ditch the stuff you don't want. But if you do it the quality of this place will decline. The idea of endless "oh yes i agree" comments must appal any true supporter of free speech.
Well try reading this douglas. I would be interested to see what you count as intelligent opposition.
A good illustration of this is the way university faculties actively purge moderates and rightwing professors and tenure candidates. By generally limiting faculty opinions to the left and extreme left, there is no real ideological debate on campus. This often leaves students unable to formulate a reasoned or balanced personal viewpoint, due to skewed and limited exposure and debate.
honestly paul it will amaze you what this lot believe. You won't see anything like this in the UK because these are American super nationalists. You need to know a bit more about us politics to see how they were created.
Basically they are disillusioned democrats who, as they get old, yearn for the good old days (1950's?). Add to this a complete conviction that the american way is the only way and you get this lot. Most have an idea that because they have changed from being liberals (which in US politics means left wing - still somewhere around the centre of the conservative party in the uk) they have an authority on all sides of the debate.
oh and they can only understand anything in terms of it being pro/anti-american.
Very pro-war they see it as a legitimate role in advancing US interests and therefore the interests of the world.
Don't expect to be welcomed and don't put up with any crap.
Enjoy
oh and expect little sympathy for the victims of american military action...the basic line is they are all terrorists, or sympathisers so f**k 'em.
oh and if you disagree with them you are a terrorist sympathiser or a troll.
Some are much more coherent than others, arguing a realist approach that better the us than a bunch of mad terrorists running the world.. One or two are truly sectionable.
A good illustration of this is the way university faculties actively purge moderates and rightwing professors and tenure candidates. By generally limiting faculty opinions to the left and extreme left, there is no real ideological debate on campus. This often leaves students unable to formulate a reasoned or balanced personal viewpoint, due to skewed and limited exposure and debate.
Exactly, I keep a low political profile at academia where, acting out and approval for, Leftist antics are assumed. Free amateur talent can be amusing to witness; grown men goose stepping around with two fingers under their nose grousing, “Hail Bushit!” I can’t help but laugh, I mean they are just little people like me with their own opinions. I usually end up diverting the conservation to “So what new freeware appz have you come across lately, anything good?” There are rumors that I’m a Republican and colleagues have teasingly asked me. “I’m not a Republican, I’m an Independent you idiot – I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life.” I was to lazy to vote in the 2004 election – pitiful I know. They probably think I’m some kind of misguided moderate that they can win over at some strategic point, so they leave me alone in regards to professional considerations. Also, I don’t put political stickers or posters up on my car or office. When students come to me for help and I want all of them to feel welcome – their political conscious is their own journey. I have also worked on lots of what could be called “leftwing” classroom projects – this is all good. I don’t try to take over the message; I point them to the resources that will re-enforce their message – though I will suggest adding comparative viewpoints when I can because “you can’t get good education if you are only hearing one side of the story.” -- Horowitz
Cliché but true.
From where I sit, if you're writing under the "neocon" banner, you need to address the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq (not Al-qaeda, not WMD, so what was it?). Children are dying at the hands of your soldiers in service of a "neocon" policy - is this what you wanted?
Paul -- neo and "neocon" commenters have covered much of this ground and then some over the past few years. You can try reading through the archives if you are interested. You may still not be satisfied--that's the way these things go.
As to "Children are dying at the hands of your soldiers" -- not intentionally. (We can discuss Haditha after the report, if that's what's on your mind.)
This is not true of the Baathists and al-Qaedists we are fighting. Hussein's minions tortured children in front of their parents and imprisoned children to blackmail the parents. The insurgents and al-Qaedists intentionally kill adults and children to cause terror.
If your concern is truly for Iraqi children, know that they are doing better now than before. I think there are good reasons to oppose the Iraq War, but concern for Iraqi children is not one of them.
neoneoconned--
With regard to the loss of human life, keep in mind the context. Saddam Hussein killed many of his own people. He started wars, one of which we ended up having to support because his enemy was worse. In the 1990s, a huge number were dying under the sanctions. My point is that Inaction can lead to loss of life, and neoconservatives see promoting democracy as the better option in the longterm.
While it is important not to label opponents as America-haters solely on the basis that people have different views, acknowledge that some people really do hate America. Noam Chomsky, who just met with Hezbollah to denounce the West, is an uncontroversial example.
confud--
The Cold War was worth winning.
Paul-in-Sheffield,
As someone will undoubtedly write before I manage to click "Publish": Go ahead and read some of Neo's archives. You'll have to sort through much stuff off that topic before coming to the posts that are relevant, but you'll see what she believes. Please keep in mind that if at some points Neo chooses not to discuss a specific topic -- such as "the motivations behind the invasion...", it's likely because it's been discussed in previous threads. You can look there for those answers.
But please, feel free to engage. All any of us ask is that any debate points be made with logic and reason, and not give in to anger or name calling. Please ignore the comment about not being welcomed or not putting up with crap; as I've said before, some confuse insult with argument, and name calling with reason, and therefore get labeled "troll". They full well know it's their behavior that's causing the labeling, not the stance. I broke with many here in a previous thread regarding anthropogenic climate change, and while the debate got pretty spirited at a point, no one labeled me troll for merely presenting another view. If you present an argument with facts and attempt an honest engagement, people will welcome you. They'll differ, and expect a good give and take from you, but you won't be made to feel unwelcome.
Paul .. let us welcome you into the puzzling world of the American hyper nationalist.
What makes understanding their language difficult is that much of its vocabulary is drawn from English words that have a somewhat different meaning. Three of the most common words in Neo-Con, for example, are the English words "loyalty", "morality", and "patriotism", yet none can be understood as having the same meaning they have in ordinary English.
(1) "Loyalty", in Neo-Con, means what we usually think of as "obedience". It means 100% agreement with authority at all times. It means never contradicting a boss or divulging facts which might contradict the boss's ideology or suggest that he is heading the ship of state toward an iceberg.
(2) "Morality" in English has to do with behaving in ways that contribute to the well-being of others. "Love thy neighbor" is the sum of Christian teaching, for example. In Neo-Con, on the other hand, "morality" is just as likely to embrace hating and killing your neighbors, particularly if they are gay, Arab, or physicians who perform abortions.
(3) "patriotism" means giving unconditional support to the nation's political leaders even if their policies are undermining the nation's future, plunging it into debt, polluting its land, water, and air, alienating its friends, and multiplying its enemies. In Neo-Con, those who died in the bunker with Hitler were more "patriotic" than the generals who tried to save Germany by getting rid of him; Poles who supported the communist leaders in Poland were more "patriotic" than members of Solidarity; Serbs who supported Slobodan Milosevich were more "patriotic" than those who wanted to see him tried for war crimes.
Logic and Reason are out the window here, by all means though, give it a whirl:-)
Confudeforeigner,
Ouch.
You've really been caught in it this time -- admitting you're a troll then trying to cover up the evidence!
Then attacking everyone who tries to point out this blazingly obvious fact. Gawd, you're embarrassing.
I'd be happier if you could find more Leftist anti-Bush/ anti-Rep stuff that you think is reasonable and quotable.
And whether you agree with it or not, and why.
I've tried Kos/ Atrios/ David Corn, but too extreme (Cornuts in comments more so than David). Marc Cooper is often against both big-gov't parties, for different reasons.
I think the pro-individual rights, anti-Christian pendulum has swung too far by the "progressives", who now are "conservatively" fighting the backswing.
Abortion, in particular, poisons the moral argument about "protecting the weak from the strong", which most Leftists want to claim. Killing an innocent human fetus to enjoy sex without the bother of having and giving away an unwanted baby is not such a morally superior choice.
And neoneoconned,
I would say there is a clear distinction between someone who comes on this site to debate issues, and someone who comes on this site to make trouble. Confude, in his own words, likes to "bait stupid neocons". This confirms what I had begun to suspect, which is that he is not arguing in good faith to find answers, but is only arguing to try to get a rise out of people. And such people hurt this site, no matter what their politics are.
For people who are here to actually discuss the issues, and I count you among that number, I and most people here are happy to debate. (As for whether neo-neocon should censure some of the more vocal righties on this site, I say no unless they are intentionally stirring up trouble, which is what I would say of a far leftie who argued in good faith.)
Speaking of debate, and since this thread is already so far off topic, I actually wanted to address something you wrote on the Memorial Day thread a while back, which I didn't read until recently. You wrote:
I would argue that if youare going to fight a war it is a good idea to have very clear mission objectives. If only to be fair to the troops who have to do the job. One of my key objections to this war is it is so open ended.
I completely agree with you that one of the most terrible things about this war, by which I mean the general war against radical Islamic fundamentalists, is that it is so very open-ended. However, what can be done about it? How could it be less open-ended? The enemy hasn't arranged themselves into a nation, with a clear leader, as the Nazis did. They are distributed all over the world, interspersed with civilian populations, vowing to fight indefinitely. The open-endedness of this war wasn't a decision Bush made, it is an inherent characteristic of the current world situation.
I too hate the open-endedness of the war. Everyone does. But we didn't choose it to be this way; it is this way, whether we like it or not.
I hang around hoping to maybe see the apple moved...
I thought the trolls weren't going to be fed anymore?? Has something changed? I'm always beind the times it seems....
Liberal-leftist opposition to the virtue of human liberty is both a self-gratifying and self-loathing enterprise; loathing is self-evident, gratifications are myriad as not to be pegged to any one failed scheme: getting "free stuff" under a wealth redistribution system, forgiving of debts in the chaos of revolution and economic upheaval, …why create a list? It goes on and on. Islamic domination, dhimmitude, and barbarism are going to turn those grins upside down, unless they wake up. Over the next twenty years, will diasporas of Europeans flood into the western hemisphere? A liberal democracy ushered in Hitler and the remnants of his victims fled to the Middle East. The crux of the opposition to human freedom is the method of using arms to do the freeing, which is the only way it has ever been done and ever will be done. So, ignore the screaming and yelling and press on. When has a non-democracy ever defended a democracy? When has a democracy ever defended a non-democracy? When has a democracy ever started a war with another democracy? When has a non-democracy ever started war with a democracy? Democracy is humanity's best chance for world peace – there is no Utopia for humanity, but it is a path we should strive for ... if you believe that all human being are worthy of Life, Liberty and a pursuit of Happiness.
Paul -- There are many reasons we are in Iraq. See the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq for a couple dozen of them. They still look good to me. If you have substantive disagreement with those, you could write up some of your objections.
However, so far you are ignoring rational, considerate responses to your posts and prefer to continue shouting rhetorical questions into our faces.
That's troll behavior in my book.
Getting back to the original subject -- politics and friends -- my own experience is that the old adage about not discussing politics or religion in polite company is quite sound. I would never try to argue with my friends about their religious views. These are matters of faith, not reason. The same is basically true of political views. It's a shame that people sometimes let disagreements over politics ruin friendships (or prevent those friendships from even happening), in a way that they would never think of doing over differing religious views.
well done paul. two comments and you are labelled a troll......that has got to be the new record. For your next task see how quickly you can get into trouble with neo, you are probably already in trouble with comrade wasp. He is the one who keeps telling people who they can and cannot talk to. Follow the links on the names as that can be fun. Some of the stuff at the other end is pretty funny. Some people have got themsleves into trouble being flippant with their profiles. I have no profile or anything which is cowardly and should be the subject of criticism more than putting daft stuff there but...well
cheers Alex i like to aim at rational debate but fall into poor behaviour when pushed...always willing to apologise. Someone - I think Douglas said he found the arguments he thoughht were wrong interesting andI am the same. What s the fun in spendingyour days agreeing with like minded people? And you sometimes do get a different view on things, a different colour to your thoughts - it is always interesting to toy with the possibility you are wrong.
As for the open ended argument this is a consequence of seeing the war on "terror" instead of a war against; The Taliban, A Q BinLaden, Saddam or other named people who we can then kill or capture and say "we won". As it is we are getting dragged further and further into a war against god alone knows who and making a bigger and bigger mess of it.
Depressing but true.
The post below begins with a quote by conned, but I assure everyone, veers into more interesting and sane subjects. Notably, why there is friction when people with different fundamental beliefs start arguing. Some insights given below. I'd like to say that what I say is more interesting than what conned is saying, but judge for yourself. Some replies to El Mundo and Alex at the end.
Conned And yes it is repetitive and the quality is often not very high. But the comments section is one of the big reasons why you get so many hits on the blog. Try turning it off and see how many people still read.
Pradon me while I inject some statistical interpretation of misinterpreted facts. People return to the blog for the comments and that is why Neo gets more hits. If people didn't have to return to read the comments, neo would probably have the same number of people reading but lower hits.
Same number of people, less traffic in other words, with the comments turned off. This is notably what I find wrong about the Left, specifically even the rational discourse shown in conned's recent link to KF monkey. It is not the facts that are different, although they are at times. It is not that the interpretation is different based upon the same facts, although some interpretations are different given the same facts. Rather, the primary thing I have find problematic is that their reasoning is completely flawed. Or if not completely, flawed in the basic superstructure and foundations. You could argue facts, interpretations, and whether something is consistent or inconsistent, but how do you argue whether someone's reasoning and logic is valid? Obviously they believe their thinking and capacity for reason would be valid, how else would they even validate or invalidate their beliefs if they had to stop using their thinking and reasoning abilities? The same reasoning they use to check their capacity for reason is the same use of reason that they are trying to verify as valid or invalid. This means it becomes a loop, a logic loop. How do you know whether your reasoning and logic is valid, if you can only check your reasoning and logic using your own reasoning and logic? Someone comes on the landscape, and tells you that your logic and reasoning is wrong, so what do you do? You use the same capacity for reason, that someone else accused of being flawed, to validate his or her arguments to the contrary. Catch 22, circular logic chain, and so forth.
For example, conned's logic that hits mean more people reading, is not statistically valid. But there is no point of agreement, no mutual interests. Conned is asked to disbelieve his own mind in relation to statistics.
KF for example, sets an amount of precepts that is logic and reasonable. I do not complain about that. I only note that his conclusions are not the conclusions I have derived. But his premises, that the civilians have a covenat with the military, is valid and one I also hold as part of my logical axioms, my a prioris. So why the different conclusions? Much as two people can derive two different interpretations of the same facts, two people with the same logical premises can derive wholly different logical conclusions depending upon the variations of the logic used.
I would have included in KF's list of covenat responsibilities,
The civilians must make sure not to demoralize the military and therefore make their mission harder, nor should the civilians betray the military by giving up while the military is fighting.
The civilians should not set the military on and a mission and then contribute to the propaganda of the enemy that they wanted the military to fight in the first place.
Supporting the troops does not mean fanatic obedience to the talking points of the administration, but it also does not mean people are free to sabotage the chain of command through leaks or the reputation and combat effectiveness of the military through unConstitutional sabotage.
KF supports his list of bad armor and bad support with the stories of "inadequate armor for troops" and "troops are not being fed". I guess you could argue the facts of the matter, but presumably someone who can write such a logical and reasonable post should have realized the possibility that his facts were wrong. But he hasn't so far, so what does that tell us? Is this just a simple case of ignorance, poisoning the logic and producing bad conclusions? Or is this a case of simple denial, of alternative theories and interpretations? Or is this even more complex, does he truly believe the troops have bad armor because he doesn't understand what appropriate armor is?
In the end, a true epistemological and metaphysical argument veers more and more towards the person's thinking and less and less towards the issue. I do not refer to ad hominem. I refer to understanding the opposition to an extent that you can thus communicate with them given a base set of values and variables. For Republicans, I can converse with them easily, without this stressful requirement to understand how they think simply because Republicans think alike given a set of shared values and logical axioms. Their reasoning and their logic proceedes on predictable and well worn paths, you might say, that I can easily follow. For the liberals, fake liberals, Democrats, and the Left I have to follow them through jungle terrain, harsh deserts, and marsh lands. This is more difficult than traveling on the road with fellow travelers. If my opponent becomes rude, obtuse, purposefully ambiguous, and vulgar then I see no need to committ extra resources to understanding him. Unless of course I sought to destroy him, then the extra effort would be justified regardless of my opponent's personality or politeness.
Don't expect to be welcomed and don't put up with any crap. -Conned
I asked Ryan this question before, but I will conclude with a question to the readers in the audience, so that they might ponder this for a certain length of time. Do you, the readers, believe there is honor amongst one's enemies?
El Mundo,
I broke with many here in a previous thread regarding anthropogenic climate change, and while the debate got pretty spirited at a point, no one labeled me troll for merely presenting another view.
Oh, but it is just a part, just a part, of the dastardly neo-con tradecraft at work. Once you go to sleep and let down your guards, we shall drop a thermonuclear device upon your head, and boy will you be surprised that no one had attacked you before ;)
Alex,
This confirms what I had begun to suspect, which is that he is not arguing in good faith to find answers, but is only arguing to try to get a rise out of people. And such people hurt this site, no matter what their politics are.
One reason why I said if I had a propaganda army made up of Spank and Conned, (now Confud) I could make the terroists cower in their holes waiting to be sent to Allah. The objective of psychological, guerrila, terroist, and propaganda operations are to hurt and destroy the willpower of the enemy. Through the means are endless.
However, what can be done about it? How could it be less open-ended?
As was refered to before, asymmetric or asymmetrical warfare is about using Sun Tzu's principles to win. The guerrila uses his strength against the occupation's weaknesses, and the occupation uses their strengths against the guerrila's weaknesses. The way you make an asymmetrical war into a symmetrical war is to fight fire with fire. That is the entire purpose of Special Operation Forces, they fight using small unit guerrila style warfare to combat other small unit guerrila style warfare enemies, in order to decrease the casualties conventional forces would take. I wrote before about how the Iraq war was designed as a conventional armor thrust into the heart of Baghdad, which is totally different from the design of the Afghanistan war, which was led by Spec Ops leading indigenous forces.
I will tell you that you won't be willing to make it less open-ended (which I refer to as symmetrical). Because if you want to line up the occupation with the terroists, you have to basically adopt terroist strategies. A mob war is symmetrical. A mob fighting against the police, is not symmetrical. Do you see the difference? A mob fighting against the police is an open-ended war because there are no agreed upon rules, both are fighting all out. A mob fighting another mob obeys certain rules, whether to avoid the police getting into it, or because there are other familes that will pick apart the pieces.
Why would rules make a war less palatable, you might wonder. It is simple. If you are using the same rules as the terroists, and this is basically what symmetrical warfare means when you apply it to tactics, then basically you're ignoring human shields, blowing people up, and doing whatever the terroists are doing, except with more firepower and brutality. The terroists try to intimidate people into not reporting them, if we obey their rules, we would have to intimidate the same people into obeying us. Sort of like an extortion racket, except we got the bigger muscles on the street.
You can't make it open-ended, because there is no way you can convice Army High Command, Bush, the American public, or the media that we should adopt terroist tactics even if it would end the war sooner and lessen the casualties. Other than say, 10 million American casualties, that is of course.
I thought the trolls weren't going to be fed anymore?? Has something changed? I'm always beind the times it seems.... - goesh
The previous four threads they have given up, because they were not fed. Here, some people still have a certain amount of curiosity it seems. That will end soon. Well, either they gave it up cause of starvation or they couldn't find a witty remark against my getting in the last word in those threads.
I ask people to consider how many gushing you are great comments is here, compared to the accussations that neo has a lot of gushing you are great comments
Paul in S..., if you want to know why Bush invaded, read his pre-invasion speeches, available at the official White House site. A nice summary is this AEI speech.
Bush's actual speech includes: " In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)"
Let's go thru slowly:
Saddam's a dictator.
He's building weapons to allow him to dominate the ME. [not much found after invasion -- but Bush clearly believed this statement to be true.]
Has close ties to terrorists. Note terrorists, NOT "9/11 terrorists".
Saddam could supply terrorists with weapons to use against America. *** this is the clincher for me, that anti-war Leftists refuse to accept.*** I believe Saddam was a danger, both to America but especially to Israel. In fact, more of a danger than a drunk driver.
We will disarm Saddam by force, if he doesn't prove to the UN that he has disarmed. [Blix asked for more time for inspections, but did NOT say Saddam was fully cooperating, NOR did Blix say Saddam demonstrated that he had no WMDs.] If Saddam "surrenders" and does everything the UN wants, and proves there are no WMDs, then the US won't invade. Saddam failed that high standard of surrender/ cooperation.
That danger will be removed. Yep. Saddam's on trial now; why not compare Iraq with Darfur, being handled by the UN? I think Iraq makes the US process look pretty good, so far.
And why are still there? Look at what happened in Vietnam after the Dem Party voted to defund the S. Viet regime, our corrupt ally -- some 600 000 murdered by the commies. Most Americans don't want another such bloodbath.
I'm not sure you really wanted an answer.
Usually the Leftist method of disagreement is denial that the above IS an answer, rather than addressing the arguments. NYT H. Thomas asking "why are we really in Iraq?" is an example of such denial.
Laughable, pathetic.
Most of my friends oppose the war. One of them has ceased to be a friend on that account.
My anti-war friends and I may occasionally discuss the war but we keep an eye on the temperature and break off if it gets too hot. Mostly we leave politics alone where we know that we disagree.
It does seem that there is often a personal dimension to political discussions--that some interpret disagreement with a position as an attack on them personally or as evidence that one's opponent is an enemy.
It's OK with me if people disagree about the Iraq War--it's a complicated issue and IMO there's room to disagree honorably. After 9-11 I initially stuck with my progressive positions but over time, I shifted in response to my own research and discussions with more conservative friends.
If the anti-war folks could present more persuasive arguments, I could return to that side, but so far I haven't been impressed with what I've heard and mostly I've been depressed by the abusiveness they often bring to the discussion.
You *used* to be a liberal Democrat. Wasn't it painful to change your mind on things?
It was uncomfortable but I wouldn't call it painful. My approach has always been to test my beliefs, see what works, and change if need be.
What I did find painful and quite surprising was the abusivesness of the anti-war folks who I had thought were the good-hearted, open-minded people.
Which is not to say that red-staters are necessarily all sweet, rational discourse either, but it does seem to me that the Right has more of a commitment to reason than the Left.
Which is not to say that red-staters are necessarily all sweet, rational discourse either, but it does seem to me that the Right has more of a commitment to reason than the Left.
That's hard for you to judge, because communities centered around fake liberal and Democrat values, like Bookworm's community, is ostensibly different from Southern Republican communities.
While you can get a synopsis of behavior on the internet, it is not complete.
If you just came out of a democrat community, then you would lack the experience of living and growing up around a Republican majority community.
Someone is going ballistically insane here. 2 guesses, as to who it is.
Wy do they all start with a disclaimer of sorts...
"I came to your site by some unknown route that began with a news report on Iraq then Google, Wikipedia, mention of neo-cons [in the UK, where i live there's no such thing] and, by happenchance, to you."
Why the need to announce one's not being sent here?
Well, doug, maybe this is such foreign terrain to them that it helps them fixate on their position through writing down how they came to this foreign and exotic place, called a neo-con blog.
Nicely done, Sally and Tom Grey!
Paul -- You now have three thoughtful responses to your questions. I don't imagine that they will change your mind to support the Iraq War, but they are answers and IMO they are sufficient to counter the notion that supporting the war is proof positive that one is either stupid, evil, power-mad, or all three.
As I've said, I think the Iraq War is complex issue on which informed people of good will may disagree.
Sally and Tom -- yes thank you both. I was busy most of the day trying to get miserable Camtasia to work to way I want it too, turns out the computer, not the software, is causing the audio to lag -- off topic personal multimedia mumbo-jumbo, grumble grumble.
the oil, which it would be, and is, far cheaper to acquire in other ways.
Another a pearl of wisdom emerges from the torrent of right wing talking points.
It merely serves to illustrate the all encompassing incompetence of Bush and Co. They can't even get the one genuine goal right.
Confude,
The issue isn't the profile. The issue is that you lied about the fact you were coming here to bait people, not to discuss the issues.
Also that you destroyed the evidence.
This is a big deal. Maybe not to you, but to anyone with integrity.
I am perfectly happy to debate with people who want to debate in good faith. But I don't debate with liars like you. How could I ever respect or believe anything else you said?
Be assured, this issue isn't about to go away.
I just can't help but notice how Alan Colmes argue. He actually thinks that if his position is challenged, the immediate response should be to go on the attack and try and conduct an offensive against the enemy. As Colmes responded concerning Dean's photo op at New Orleans, when Colmes responded with the infamous mission accomplished piece of tripe.
We see this kind of "best defense is a good offense" strategy many times on the internet and here from Leftists. The ironic part is that they so contest treating anyone in this hostile manner, let's say the foreign enemies, the terroists. Don't attack them, they say. Leave them alone, they say. THeir behavior is a bit weird then if they treat their supposed allies as mortal enemies and their mortal enemies as supposed allies.
Another one of those 180 twilight zone issues.
neoneoconned wrote:
As for the open ended argument this is a consequence of seeing the war on "terror" instead of a war against; The Taliban, A Q BinLaden, Saddam or other named people who we can then kill or capture and say "we won". As it is we are getting dragged further and further into a war against god alone knows who and making a bigger and bigger mess of it.
Depressing but true.
I'm not sure I agree. Imagine instead of calling it "the war on terror" (a name I've never liked, I might add) we called it "the war on the Taliban, al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Saddam". Would that make a difference? Sadly, I don't really think so. It would still be a fairly open-ended war. When we capture Saddam, Zarqawi pops up and starts terrorizing Iraq. Do we not fight against Zarqawi, simply because he wasn't part of the original mission objectives? No, we must fight against him because he is fighting against us, murdering Iraqi civilians, etc.
Sadly, no matter what you call it I do believe it's the same war. And that war is difficult and open-ended. But, I believe, it must still be fought because the alternative is even worse.
KARL L. SCHOTTE
Berlin-Lankwitz,
Dürkheimerstrasse 14,
GERMANY.
August 7th, 1933.
Dear Ken:
Dont think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor that the world is coming to an end. This is not so, and I must object very sincerely if the fact of my sitting down again after only several months write a letter to you gives you such impressions.
The reason for this outstanding event is much rather the hotheaded criticism about Hitler and his Government which you gave us in your recent letter to Ruth, and which indeed surprised me very much.
However, before giving you my point of view on the new turn that has taken place in Germany I should like to ask you to in the first place do me the favour of keeping your shirt on, otherwise it is you who is making "an ass of himself". One should never speak the language of a truckdriver, no matter how much one likes it.
Now, don't be mad, but calm down. You did not hurt Ruths or my feelings at all, but there are two reasons why I feel I should answer you. The first reason is that your remarks are very unfair to Hitler and his new Government, and the other is that I intend to do my share in preventing the your American generation to which you belong to be equally as ignorant as the generation of the whole world was which tumbled into the last war.
What makes you believe and in such a definite way state that we are unable to see the things as they are, since, as you write, we are hypnotized by Hitler.
It is not true, that you and all those of our friends who you claim take the same viewpoint as you are taking are basing your opinion upon reports and comments of American newspapers and perhaps upon interviews of American visitors who recently have been in Germany, and while you are willing to disregard certain exaggerations you readily accept the rest as the truth? Is it not possible that thus you are receiving but one side of the story?
apologists always sound the same, no matter what injustice they are defending
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I note that bmc has retreated from making arguments based on facts or logic to the usual Bush=Hitler, neocons=Nazis analogies.
bmc -- Hint: saying something is so, doesn't make it so.
We are the people opposing fascism, not you, not your friends. That's a fact.
If you are intent on 1930s analogies, you and your friends are the people appeasing today's Hitlers and Mussolinis.
bmc -- Again to remind you as an Irish person: Ireland sat out World War II.
When fascism had to be defeated, Ireland let Britain, the US and the allies do the heavy lifting, the fighting and the dying.
Seems to me you're doing it again. So please, no further analogies about Thirties fascism here. It doesn't work for you or your side in general.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I note that bmc has retreated from making arguments based on facts or logic
Tried that. Alas it simply bounces off the hyper nationalist hide. I really did give it the good old school try.
I thought perhaps some glaring analogies might be appropriate, but I see that isn't working either:-(
I guess you people are simply irredeemable.
Maybe this girls testimony will cut through the miasma?
I await the shit flinging monkeys.
that won't count as it is from the MSM and the uk as well - well known cowards and lovers of terrorists.
Do not get disheartened with the way facts have no impact on this lot. Somebody has to chip away at the edifice of yankosupremacist nonsense.
if all you neo cons want to have a look at some well thought out opposition consider this article in today's Guardian.
But Iran can do the most harm in Iraq, where Iran's infiltration of Shia militias, especially the ruthless and well-equipped Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, gives it the ability to attack not just American interests, but American soldiers. Indeed, Iran's influence over its neighbour is such that any hope of salvaging a stable, viable government in Iraq would vanish with the first bomb to fall upon Tehran.>
It argues that attacking Iran will be difficult and extremely dangerous in its consequences.
It would be a source of great entertainment watching some of you posting your ideas on the comment section.
have fun
Sooo, when they do something it is principled but the US tries to sit out the war (re: do the same thing) it is for profit
Oh c'mon it's documented fact that the US entered the war only when the existential writing was on the wall. I personally think that was the right choice by the way.
I also agree with you about Ireland, and I have often said that our current neutrality is of dubious value. That said there were some extenuating circumstances, what with 800 years of oppression and all:-)
However, you didn't participate in the genocide against the native peoples of America, and I didn't sit out WWII. These events have no personal relevance for us.
American marines however are currently killing civilians in Iraq, it appears now both by accident and design. That is relevant.
As regards stuck in the 1930's! This is almost the exclusive province of your boys.
The repeated hysterical contention that the Islamofascists are going to rise to power and take over the world and must be stopped at all costs, that this is WWII all over again, is the delusion that feeds justification for the Iraq war. It is the wellspring from which an attack on Iran will be launched.
And it is a grand, sweeping and unsupportable delusion. Even China with it’s sterling growth will be hard pressed to catch up to the US and the EU by 2050. The Islamic world doesn’t have a farts chance in a hurricane. As an existential threat to us they are exactly no where.
The entire islamic world co-operating as one, and with fire in their hearts and bellys wouldn’t be able to launch a land invasion of the EU, let alone the US. The Swedish Army on their own could hold them off.
There is a small risk that these people will get a nuclear weapon. True. However short of killing every single muslim in the middle east, you are unlikely to eliminate this risk entirely. Plus with each innocent civilian death, the odds inch incrementally higher. Plus the most unstable military dictatorship in the region already has nuclear weapons making much of the bitching moot. So the entire enterprise is contradictory, inconsistent and basically hopeless.
Whats the lesson? Don't attack Iran I suppose, I've no idea what should be done with Iraq.
But as you so often say, "whats the use? Logic and reason is simply lost on these people"
BMC the problem is that so few of them are willing to concede the possibility that military action can actually make the situation worse. A culture of cowboy films and war gaming produces simplistic ideas about how wars operate.
The war always used as a moral benchmark for military behaviour is ww2. However moral it was to fight hitler - and it clearly was - much of the related morality was tempered with practicality.
The UK declared war to help Poland. And where did Poland end up in 1945? Best part of 50 years in a nasty dictatorship. Why? because in fighting hitler we needed Stalin - it was the Soviet Union who really defeated the Wermacht - and had to accomodate his demands at the end. In fighting Germany and Japan we allied ourselves with many shady groups and abandoned several allies to a grim fate.
It was not the simple good-evil duality that these neo cons live in. Life would be a great deal easier if that is how it was....but it isn't.
And where did Poland end up in 1945? Best part of 50 years in a nasty dictatorship.
An excellent point, which highlights the reality that the Cold War is a far more applicable historical example to the GWOT, notwithstanding attempts to hijack that as well.
Even though the threat of destruction was many times greater, for 55 years the east and west faced off until the west eventually won the argument. The same is true of the gradual conversions of Spain, Greece, Portugal and more recently Turkey to relatively stable democracies.
Note that all of this was accomplished (largely) without violence. In the main, we won the argument, not the war. We avoided the war.
The same can be accomplished in Iran, in fact everywhere now that people living in democratic nations are numerically more numerous, than those living under totalitarian regimes. Although we have suffered some terrible setbacks since 2003.
However these guys are too frightened, or too gung ho, or perhaps both, to take that route, because it entails some small element of personal and national risk.
This is anathema, because they, like a significant minority of Americans are subconsciously proto fascist, the master race/idea/political system in this case being American. Thus any number of worthless foreign lives can be sacrificed, to offset a single American death. This is the mindset of total war, but Americans seem to have internalised this logic even in peace time.
Worse still, the "other" (Iraq/Iran/Syria) in this case is much, much weaker than for example the Soviet Union was during the cold war. This has the counter intuitive effect of making the option of force more, rather than less attractive. That’s the badly frightened bully factor kicking in. Too attractive for a weak minded incompetent like Bush to resist:-(
confude said:
it isn't like I was lying about WMD in Iraq, nonexistent terrorist links and greed for oil, is it?
So what you're saying is, you didn't lie about anything important, just that minor detail about your intentions. Minor lie, minor coverup.
But see, you didn't have anything important to lie about. You're not a policymaker, you're a commenter on website. And you lied about the most important topic available to you: who and what you are.
I repeat, now that we know you're a liar and a troll (self-proclaimed), why should we ever give you the time of day again?
first bomb to fall upon Tehran
Yea, all hell is going to break loose and very soon I suspect. I would suggest that European leaders take it serious, end negotiations, and stand up to Ahmadinejad with one united fist -- like brothers of Liberty should. Timing is everything… Just a bit of wisdom to bounce off the walls.
(who addressed me as Anonymouse when I prefer to be called anonymess--how very clever; perhaps I should call him confusedforeigner, but I won't because I refuse to stoop to his level)
That's actually what his name means, mess. Iwas the first one to engage him when he came onto this blog posturing as an open-minded confused foreigner that just wants to understand the opposition. When he didn't like my answers, he started throwing around attacks like racist and what not. WIth conned, the clever sidekick, goading him on.
Just to re-iterate neo's request, she wants people to stop engaging with trolls as they hijack a thread and people have to waste valuable time scrolling past tens if not hundreds, of just back and forth comments that concerns only the respected authors, and not anyone else. We've already seen Confud and Conned's behavior, ourselves, and there is no greater testament than their words, as proliferous as they are. Of course, neo has to recognize that even if nobody talks to Confud or Conned, they will either post multiple times to bait the audience or they will just start talking to each other, with clever implied insults to others, and otherwise acting like they own the house that they are crashing in.
Jeeeezus wept, it isn't like I was lying about WMD in Iraq, nonexistent terrorist links and greed for oil, is it?
Remember what I said about Alan Colmes style of attacking as a way to defend themselves? This comment from Confud is a good example of that.
I actually don't give a flying one, mate, whether you'll argue with me or not. The fact is, when I first came here I wasn't trolling but I was abused anyway.
Well, in the interest of historical accuracy and for anyone too curious, just go to my blog here and you will see a quote by quote summarization example of Conned's first foray into the land of the neo-cons on this very site.
Self Marketing
Oh, and BTW little Ms Prim I tried to register as "Confusedforeigner" but it was already taken.
Doh!!
That is actually not true, because in the initial foray thread that introduced Confud. He alternated between two names. Confused and Confud. So I predict and speculate that he registered, forgot, and then tried to register again except now it wasn't available.
Just so people know, the UK abandoned Poland long before the Soviets were invaded by Hitler. It was part of the mutual defense pacts that the UK did not honor, in the hopes of appeasing Hitler's expansionist policies.
The same can be accomplished in Iran
Not if Iran is going to pass on enriched Uranium to Islamist in Britain; gleefully detonate, that wouldn’t be good – gross miscalculation, but if one little person is personally willing to take that chance in argument – it’s their conscious. Thank god for the likes for Tony Blair. Whewwww. Just goes to shows how fragile civilization can be – it’s easy to destroy and very difficult to create and once it’s gone – goodbye dreams and no more frozen ice cream. Hey! But on the bright side the landlord can kiss your butt – no more rent to pay!! Wooohooo! And credit cards, won’t have to pay them either will we! :D It’s weird – my point.
They don't have a conscience, Nyo, so what do you mean it is on their conscience?
Living in a post-apocalyptic world is fun, if you have a Fallout 2 character at lvl 50 that is. Real life? Not so much, more like MadMax. Or Waterworld. Bad, very very bad.
great post Senescent Wasp
:)
I had Fallout 1 -- I used to host "Gamma World" back in the pen and paper days.
I'm lost :)
Internal rivalries are more dangerous to spy and tradecraft organizations than external threats.
Good summarization post, Jen.
I have to say, it is amazing how many Jacksonians are floating around after 9/11. I do have to wonder the actual percentage of Jacksonians in the neo-conservative movement.
I was watching a Discovery channel and they featured the nuclear submarine development history and cycle. Notably, the Russians and Americans were competing to build the better and faster and more stealthy attack sub. When the US first developed a ballistic missile submarine that could fire a solid state fuel missile from a submarine, this changed the strategic ratio so much that Russia had to respond by building and researching their own. This was a very hard strain on their military-industrial complex. Because the military-industrial complex, if it grows to a large enough percent of your GDP, is just as corrosive and debilitating as welfare. Putin himself admits that they spent too much on the military industrial structure and not enough on economic infrastructure, on one of his State of the Union speechs recently.
The devastation possible in a nuclear ballistic missile submarine is very scary. They could be anywhere in the seas, undetected, and able to fire a nuclear MIRV missile that can separate out into multiple differently targeted warheads. And they carried as many as 22 of these MIRV nuclear warheads. I think the number quoted on the show was somewhere in excess of 100 to 1000 times the number of Hiroshima bombs from one MIRV alone.
The billions spent on MIRV and nuclear submarine technology, was well spent if you asked a Jacksonian. If you asked BMC, however, he would say that it was a waste, that it was foolish to try and make weapons to destroy humanity when peace was a better alternative.
Again, we have this weird 180 degree Twilight Zone phenomenon. Same facts, peace is better, different interpretation of those facts.
S. Wasp: Yes. That's why the trolls are here. It's a backhanded compliment if you're in the mood to take it that way. Reading the comments lately is like spending a Sunday afternoon in Hyde Park at Speakers' Corner. Heckling is an old brit pastime, and they're much better at it than we dull, earnest Americans.
But it's a barren skill. When they want to get through to us, they don't know how. You may remember how during the 04 elections, their newspaper The Guardian tried to organize a letter-writing campaign, directed to the voters in one district in Ohio. It bombed, badly.
In a 'Father, forgive them...' spirit, maybe, the paper published some of the replies from Americans, and I've never been prouder of this country than when I read all the slurs, 4-letter words, and threats that the leftish milksops got in return for their smug lecturing.
Me? I'm here for the same reason most of us are. We may have to come by different routes and times, but I think we all have this realization in common: that it's either the USA or the dark ages.
Our job here is to draw mutual enouragement and inspiration to fight the good fight, so it will be the USA and not the dark ages.
Hey Wasp, I'll take a guess and speculate that you find some or all of my words annoying because you find it hard to understand it because of its length.
Care to say anything to clarify?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Far be it from me to answer for bmc Jack, but surely Eire's stance as neutral in WW2 was more principled than the US's stance now. Think of the butchers that you count as your allies."
As opposed to Stalin in WWII? I suppose that was a bad idea too?
"neoneoconned said...
BMC the problem is that so few of them are willing to concede the possibility that military action can actually make the situation worse. A culture of cowboy films and war gaming produces simplistic ideas about how wars operate.
The war always used as a moral benchmark for military behaviour is ww2. However moral it was to fight hitler - and it clearly was - much of the related morality was tempered with practicality.
The UK declared war to help Poland. And where did Poland end up in 1945? Best part of 50 years in a nasty dictatorship. Why? because in fighting hitler we needed Stalin - it was the Soviet Union who really defeated the Wermacht - and had to accomodate his demands at the end. In fighting Germany and Japan we allied ourselves with many shady groups and abandoned several allies to a grim fate.
It was not the simple good-evil duality that these neo cons live in. Life would be a great deal easier if that is how it was....but it isn't."
Actually an excellent retort to BMC and Confude, but you can't stop the back-slapping long enough to realize that.
As for Poland (and the rest of the Eastern Bloc) we could've prevented their imprisonment of 50 years, but that would've required more fighting and dying... and that wasn't going to happen, for any number of reasons... but you see fighting might've been a better choice in the long run...
It seems the simple duality belongs to you- US in- bad, US out-good. We see that often things are gray and you're left with choosing bad or worse- so which shall it be?
At least conned gets that much.
Jen- excellent.
Ymar- the problem is your refusal to edit your stream of consciousness.
In my misspent adulthood I researched almost every conceivable subject and some inconceivable ones too. Seems to me I remember that during WWII the IRA had contacts with the Nazis and there was actually some Nazi planning for a landing in Ireland to coincide with an invasion of England (Operation Sealion).see /www.historyireland.com/
magazine/features/
13.3FeatA.html
There was also apparently a small contingent of German Nazi party members on the civil service payroll in Ireland. sss http://irelandsown.net/
nazi.html
Confud said Actually I said that Eire's stance was more principled than your current stance. There is a difference. Eire had been under 800 years of British oppression, their country had been carved up and the British still occupied part of it.
Huh? Rugby? Cricket? Confud really is the foreigner here! What gives? What has this blog or the thread to do with the British? It appears Confud has outed him/her/itself. The last I heard Eire is doing beautifully. It doesn't seem to be suffering now. Perhaps Confud has a few old relatives from the 1950's or before in the USA when they could push around Jews when they could corner and outnumber 'em on the street, but otherwise shrank as the sissies they were.
such a lot of comments.....
ok a few responses.
1. We could not have fought and beat the soviet union in 1945.
2. Yrmdwnkr says
Just so people know, the UK abandoned Poland long before the Soviets were invaded by Hitler. It was part of the mutual defense pacts that the UK did not honor, in the hopes of appeasing Hitler's expansionist policies.
Neville Chamberlain said sep 3 1939
This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.
The UK had to wait as long as possible to fight WW2 because we were so woefully ill equipped in 1938. Try for peace and if that fails and there is no other option fight.
In the US at this time Roosevelt was doing his best to get the US in the war against Hitler, but many Americans were isolationist and it was only the attack on Pearl Harbour that achieved this.
3. The discussion about Ireland shows the nonsense of treating countries as individuals. Yes there were some contacts between nazis and the IRA. But, there were many Irish who fought fascism in Spain and later fought Hitler in the British Army - and many were killed.
4. I see comrade wasp is still telling people what do. You should have been in East Germany when I went in the 1980's. You would have fitted right in, the fact people disagree with you really annoys you. The point about democracy is people are allowed to think what they want.
5. Alex - I take the point
Do we not fight against Zarqawi, simply because he wasn't part of the original mission objectives? No, we must fight against him because he is fighting against us, murdering Iraqi civilians, etc.
But do you not recognise that this could be an endless process. Each event of the "war on terror" serves only to radicalise a further group leading to another US armed intervention. What is the end point of this. Or, what is the point when you recognise that the policy is not working. You may think the price in death and destruction is worth it. I do not
6. Oh and little apple thief
I would suggest that European leaders take it serious, end negotiations, and stand up to Ahmadinejad with one united fist -- like brothers of Liberty should. Timing is everything… Just a bit of wisdom to bounce off the walls
Even Bush recognises the ill advised nature of that move. You start a war with Iran and see what happens. A lot of dead people, a lot more terrorism and another country to occupy when we are not doing so well with the two we already have.
and ...surprisingly
Sl0re I agree with you !
the US needs to develop a range of allies to move the world in a more peaceful and stable direction. It will not achieve this through armed interventions and ignoring the existing systems of interanational co-operation such as the UN. This will simply provoke people.
.......and neoneoconned's final thought
You know folks it is hard to achieve things with violence. So many people and things get broken in the process. And although we would love to pretend we are in some computer game where all the characters are good or bad life is a little more complex. Sometimes blowing things up, while great fun, just makes a whole bunch of people mad at you.
Take care of yourselves and each other.
Doug- the problem is your refusal to edit your stream of consciousness.
The problem is that people are too prejudiced to see the flaws inherent in their own matters. Such weaknesses does not engender a motivation for improvement, so much as the need to drag others down into the mire.
What I don't understand when Wasp says something, I will ask and have asked a few times recently, as befits all those who deny prejudice and seek truth. His refusal to answer questions for clarity and elaboration, is not a flaw contained within me for I do not demand that he change his ways for my benefit. One might as well side with the High School dropout in California that demands that his lack of knowledge about English warrants him special exclusionary status. Perhaps someone that doesn't know English should take some time to learn it rather than prejudging.
Such a position is always inflexible and arrogant at heart, to demand proof without offering any, to demand clarity without providing any, to demand meaning and truth without obeying anything that the truth has meant.
As others have presumed without trial nor evidence, they seek no clarifications and produce no benefit of the doubt, for they already have decided that I will not provide them. Thus is the flaw of prejudice and blindness in belief and certainty.
And it is only one reason why I don't read specific Republican and Democrat mainstream blogs, for that one reason alone. I could never abide prejudging, especially done in the shadows, away from the light of day and confrontation.
In the end, the real problem is that people won't engage in open debate, and I don't mean the Leftist version of open debate. They won't answer questions, they won't ask questions, and they won't explain their answers. They are quite reluctant to describe their views towards me, like sally, when they are very open with describing their views of conned and confud.
Everyone thinks as they write, and writes as they think. This is not some special trait you've singled out in me, doug.
It is quite interesting, and yes disappointing, to see people like Wasp prejudge me by calling me names or creating variations on my name, when I have neither personally attacked them nor complained in any way concerning their conduct. Their use of sarcasm and the use of sally's sarcasm is such a surprise, not because they are attacking me personally, but that it occurs at most inopportune times.
People perhaps misunderstand me when they think that what I mean by the "Left" I mean political liberals or political fake liberals. No, that is not what I mean. There are certain human flaws inherent in everybody, the Left simply has more than their fair share.
I cannot ascribe any malicious motivation to people who are sarcastic, rude, or plain hostile towards me. I after all, had neither engaged them in spirited debate nor had I accused them of being anything, good or bad. You can believe what you will, as doug believes what he wills. But as we see with trollish behavior, or whatever term you name it as I have not used the word troll to describe anyone in anywhere, there is a certain line that should not be crossed.
If Wasp does not want to debate on the merits of his beliefs, to bring them out in the limelight and Sally also does not seem inclined to do the same, then the lest I can ask is that they stop trying to stab me personally in the back for personal satisfaction. Keep the gut sucked in as they say. If you don't have anything polite to say, don't say it. If you want to tell me to grow up and change my focus on tactics to strategy (wasp's strategy) based upon a post I did concerning Future Weapons, don't do so because you personally dislike me. Or if you do, at least be honest with your intentions and not try to hide them as others do.
People, from my experience, don't like each other just because they agree on basic beliefs. I don't expect them to, of course. In that manner, I'd like to act with a bit more politeness and class than attacking people because I'm personally frustrated at my own problems. I'm not one of Wasp's lower division blue book authors. I'm not Spank's version of a war monger and fascist. I'm not Confud's and Conned's version of neo-con oppressors and illiberal robber barons.
I am an individual, and humanity has many people who seek to crush the individual into tools of power. Regardless of the politics. A true believer is a true believer, bar nothing. When I say that the Leftists, whether Democrats or Republicans, are human and have the same human flaws with neither being inherently superior than the other, I do not speak on a metaphorical spiritual level. I am speaking directly to actual reality.
When Spank, Wasp, Confud, Conned all blur into one, then you might want to ask yourself if there might be a common human flaw in existence. I know I do.
****
P.S.
The UK had mutual defense pacts and obligations to defend Poland before the Nazis invaded Poland cut it up to divide between them and the Soviets. That was the UK's failure. The UK may have been behind their militarization schedules, but so was Hitler. Nazi Germany were pushing the West and seeing how strong they were, but Hitler himself knew how risky it would be to start war so soon, he needed that time to gear up. The UK gave it to them. The question is not about wisdom, who did what right or wrong. However, I must clearly state that it be recognized that the UK did forgo their promises to aid Poland, regardless of the reasons provided. No other exclusionary circumstances can mitigate that, to any degree.
I did the first half without reading Wasp's reply. Just to see if my characterizations are on target, whether my beliefs could stand the test of reproductible reality.
Yrmdwnkr go and learn some history,
However, I must clearly state that it be recognized that the UK did forgo their promises to aid Poland, regardless of the reasons provided. No other exclusionary circumstances can mitigate that, to any degree
the UK went to WAR because of Poland. Polish soldiers fought alongside the British in many campaigns and had a squadron in the battle of britain. You can argue that Czechoslovakia got a shitty deal, because they did. Poland never got out of trouble because of the power of Stalin. The UK should have supported the Republicans but .... Hitler had modern weapons in the condor Legion; Stukas, ME 109's etc. which the uk simply could not match.
Hammer worn out nncd? :-(
lol
i feel kindly disposed today.....well 'cept that comrade wasp - i am not good with bossy people. insubordination runs through my soul
On September 1st., 1939, 1.8 million German troops invaded Poland on three fronts; East Prussia in the north, Germany in the west and Slovakia in the south. They had 2600 tanks against the Polish 180, and over 2000 aircraft against the Polish 420. Their "Blitzkrieg" tactics, coupled with their bombing of defenceless towns and refugees, had never been seen before and, at first, caught the Poles off-guard. By September 14th. Warsaw was surrounded. At this stage the poles reacted, holding off the Germans at Kutno and regrouping behind the Wisla (Vistula) and Bzura rivers. Although Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. the Poles received no help - yet it had been agreed that the Poles should fight a defensive campaign for only 2 weeks during which time the Allies could get their forces together and attack from the west.
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html
Let me just state that logically, people declaring war need not be mutually inclusive with them actually helping anyone out in that war.
There is no dishonesty in saying that Britain did not fullfill their mutual defense pledges to Poland, as others have stated in order to belittle the United States' contributions. There is only disagreement, and in disagreement there need be no lies.
hey yrmdwnkr iseffectively deploying evidence.....
......
oh, hang on, is that from some Polish Nationalist with a bit of a grudge?
still i think you might have a point
read this then lets argue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Poland
sorry it was the french who gave the 15 day promise....a satisfying result for all we can blame the french.
see here
still it would be interesting to know what the effect of an immediate invasion of Germany would have been. French and British forces were not really up to much at that stage of the war. Don't forget thus is 9 months before the battle of france which ended in total defeat.
I suspect that the soviet invasion of Poland made the whole deal look a great deal more difficult.
my god i agree with an american general
General Wesley Clark: Bill, I think- Here's my last word. I'm glad you've come around. Iraq was an unnecessary war. Here's the other point. It's, it's a failure, by the way the President defined the mission. The problem is how do we move gracefully from this position. What we've said is, we need to turn this over to the Iraqi government and-
Bill O'Reilly: Alright.
General Wesley Clark: -begin responsible redeployment, but we've got to protect the men and women in uniform and the integrity of our institutions.
what a day....a sane argument from yrmdwnkr and now this....
this general is a dude
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
ok then neo cons what is wrong with this guy?....
I would like like to suggest thread disintegration into incoherence.
I am sure you would sunshine but everybody is a little bored with being bossed about so why don't you get back to your life. Good god even yrmdwnkr thinks yrmd
now this is depressing, from that malkin woman.
KING 5: How do you feel about the villagers involved? Um, you know, do you have emotion as you think about them or not really?
Crossan: No. Because half of them were bad guys. You just never know, so. It really didn’t cross my mind.
KING 5: There are reports of, you know, little children being killed and women being killed.
Crossan: Little kids I can see being bad and even some of the women, but just over there, you just can’t tell who the bad guy was...
if half were bad guys what were the other half? Also the 'bad guy' language. I bet it is not that straightforward. The line between guilty fighters and innocent civilians is probably blurred as they are all from the same communities and families.
Sl0re. What you say about the media is true, but there is still an underlying reality we need to understand. The media are helpful and unhelpful at the same time. They are also a weeapon used and manipulated by all sides.
I would defend the BBC as it is subject to more criticsm and controlk of the nature of its output. I find it much too accepting of the world view of powerful groups but am heartened by the checks that exist on it. This is hardly true for Fox, which in the context of european media comes across as a very right wing barely serious news channel, as there is little checking on the balance of its output other than the demands of the market.
I see comrade wasp has become a pigeon fancier again :-)
As to the question of what country, Confud was from, I originally suspected he was from an Anglo Saxon country. Whether that be Australia, Britain, or Canada. His mannerism and idioms directed me to believe British origin. He denied that he was European. But the Brits actually don't think they are part of the European continent either.
So the best bet is now Australia. Some other commentator here reminded me of New Zealand, which was too small for me to include in the initial list. But it is an alternative possibility to Australia.
Confud is most likely in Australia or New Zealand, or has spent a prodigous amount of time in either of those two countries. His use of British mannerism and "mate" strongly support the thesis that he lives in Australia. Because AUstralia was colonized by the Brits.
********
I say again, it is not about whether people agree or disagree with me on any "fundamentals" as Wasp terms. I don't treat people differently based upon whether they agree with me or not. I treat people based upon how they treat me.
Mutual respect, lack of contempt, a refusal to allow personal prejudices to be projected onto the other person as their problem and not your problem. These things are the important facets.
Nobody likes to be patronized, ridiculed, or made to seem inferior. Regardless of whether this is your blood family, your elder, or your closest friend. Regardless of whether you agree with them politically or philosophically.
What fool believes everything is all right so long as everyone agrees on a common fundamental belief? It is more likely that people don't agree, that the cracks and flaws are hidden by agreement. I don't like to be in an echo chamber
*************
Poland refused this in order to retain its independence [2] and was backed by a March 30 guarantee from Britain and France. The goal of British foreign policy between 1919 and 1939 had been to prevent another world war by a mixture of "carrot and stick", a strategy of appeasement. The "stick" in this case was the Polish-British Common Defense Pact, intended to discourage German aggression. At the same time, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax hoped to offer Hitler a "carrot" in the form of another deal similar to the Munich Agreement, which would see the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor returned to Germany in exchange for a promise to leave the rest of Poland alone.
ok then neo cons what is wrong with this guy?....
Every American knows General Clark, advisor to Clinton for Kosovo and a former NATo commander as well as a Democrat Presidential nominee.
Since the U.S. is actively engaged in trying to provide or assist the government in providing all these things, I guess failure is defined as anything short of utopia.
Jen, I only hope you know just exactly how precisely you nailed it! :)
Ariel, you've got quite the touch. Confude made civil- I confess, I'd lost hope.
Confude, This might be a particularly instructive point to discuss, because you have rather pointed opinions about the palestinian issue.
You said- "I assume when you talk about terrorists and ambulances that you are referring to the old Israeli chestnut. The UN and the Red Cross have invited the IDF on numerous occasions to provide evidence. To this day they have declined."
The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs might beg to differ. But I won't bother with the link, as I'm certain you wouldn't trust an Israeli Gov't link. Fair enough.
Then there is this: "Reuters has provided video of healthy armed men entering ambulance with UN markings for transport. UNRWA initially denied that its ambulances carry militants but later reported that the driver was forced to comply with threats from armed men"
Video available here
Now I'm willing to grant that the UN or the UN ambulance driver were unaware of this/forced at gunpoint to do this, but that doesn't negate the fact that the terrorists hold no regard what so ever for the sanctity supposedly given ambulances,as is apparent in the video. They don't even hesitate, which lends credence to the idea that it's a regular occurance. Once they do violate that sanctity, it is GONE. Their actions hurt many people, but to blame Israel because they are forced to treat ambulances as any other vehicle is absurd, is it not?
Thie issue is akin to blaming the US for deaths of 'innocents' in Iraq when terrorists are killed, and others are killed with them. Who is to blame, the US for shooting at a house where a terrorist is shooting at them from, or the terrorist for deliberately fighting from a location where there are innocents? I blame the terrorist.
You?
Confud said...
My impression is that they do feel threatened by what they see as a new world order under Bush and that radicalism will increase amongst the young whilst discrimination and injustice increases. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since Iraq. I can feel a distinct chill toward westerners where there wasn't before.
My impression is that the West is being envaded by a new world order under Islam and that radicalism will increase amongst their young whilst discrimination and injustice increase and the west appeases more and more. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since 9/11. I can feel a distinct chill toward suicide bombers where there wasn't before.
I'm certainly struggling to comprehend the neocon phenomenon. i've never had much time for extremism.
I'm warning people not to fall for it. I've encapsulated Confud's first foray into this blog, here, which is all that is necessary for me. No need have I for more evidence of people arguing in bad faith.
Confud's first foray onto this site, proof positive of bad intentions
Ariel My first post regarding Malkin, whom I neither support nor attack, was simply that I viewed it differently. ... I threw race-baiter at you to see how you like it, because if you throw the term "racist" out trivially, you are a race-baiter.
In propaganda wars, in wars of psychology in which the aim is to destroy the very self-identity of the enemy then anything is game, anything can be used. Confud obviously sees specific people here as enemies, and yet others treat him as a fellow traveler among the path of war. Backstabs happen for a reason, and that reason is perhaps not so conveniently known.
At 9:24 PM, June 04, 2006, stumbley said...
Gloves off.
Does that mean we are going nuclear? Come on, where's the nuclear MIRVs that were promised!!??
Have you noticed that you can't seem to post anything without saying something nasty about someone. Is this what your filled with? Man, I hope you don't do this around your children.
The psychological explanation is simple Ariel. People who aren't confident in their personal beliefs will try to make other people comfortable with their respective beliefs, in order to bring company to misery.
Everything Confud says about respect and other reasonable things are just stuff he deceives people with, including himself. The evidence, in the link, supports my conclusion. There is no need to go past that initial first hand behavior of Confud on this site. Since it was before the insults, before the arguments, before the tempers, and before the hurling of accussations. That was, until Confud started it of course.
I don't think Confud has inspected his own behavior with a microscope, so I don't expect him to deny or affirm the evidence of his own conduct. But that doesn't mean everyone will behave in the same way.
Confud's story is reasonable on its face. He came here with curiosity in mind, was attacked as a Leftist and supporter of terroists, and therefore lashed out in justified and righteous anger.
The other, true, story is that Confud came here saying he was curious and asking questions, but when he didn't like the answers and got to be insulting, I answered back in a calm manner that was neither hostile nor particularly argumentative. To which, Confud finally replied with contempt, patronizing behavior, and more insults. Psychologically speaking, extremism angers Confud and Confud will take out his anger on any extremists he sees, because he treats people who disagree with him differently than those who agree with him. Others, like me, treat people based upon how they behave towards others and towards me personally, not based upon what their ideology or beliefs are.
People like Ariel can get Confud to feel guilt, thereby forcing Confud to look inwards and examine his own behavior in order to correct it, but this is only temporary. So long as Ariel avoids the "extremist" positions or advocating those positions in front of Confud, and stays to the safe topics of her own personal behavior and what she expects from polite people, Confud is forced to remove his prejudiced view of extremists.
Passive-aggressive was always an interesting phenomenon, because it was so irrational.
I have no urge to attack people personally because their ideas were different from mine. People may recall steve, which I disagreed wholly concerning many matters of the Iraq War. Steve, (not steve j) however, always kept his calm and his discipline, and did not resort to childish name calling or showing of contempt. I was interested in understanding his position and the reasons for his behavior, thus the reason why I asked probing questions and was aggressive in challenging his positions because otherwise they seemingly did not make much sense to me.
Confud came here asking questions in seemingly good faith, I answered with respect and politeness representing my view of things, but this olive branch was knocked down and stomped in the mud by Confud when he didn't like the answers. Such is the behavior of mercurial and undisciplined beings. No more need be said.
Standard Aussie fair is calling people psychopaths and racist fantasists.
It might have something to do with all those sharks swimming around.
I would add that New Zealanders too, but I think they might be a tad miffed if I compared them to Australians.
confud said... The muslims are coming! The muslims are coming!
How terrifying for you. There there it'll be alright. GWB and Halliburton and Bechtel will save you. And you'll get a tax cut if you're rich enough, for your trouble.
Tax cuts? Hurrah! Hurrah!
The rich don't need any tax cuts, all their assets are in foreign banks that can't be taxed. You can't cut taxes on the rich when they don't pay much of their current ones.
"the video of itself proves nothing. It could have come from anyone with an axe to grind."
Curiously then, It came from a Reuters cameraman, probably appalled at the sanctity of the ambulance being violated. I don't think you can count Reuters among the organs of the United States government. As for it 'proving nothing', I beg to differ. At a minimum, it proves that palestinian militants have no regard for the sanctity of the ambulance, and thereby endanger many other people on both sides.
"If you care to cast your mind back to before the Iraq invasion, we were shown a video which according to 'US sources' ie probably Rove's White House Iraq Group 'proved beyond doubt' that Iraq was training terrorists in hostage taking on aircraft.
The only problem was, that it was Iraqi training video of antiterrorism troop training at their purpose built facility. (I can't remember the name of the place. Om something)"
Why would Iraq be doing anti-terrorism training of this nature?
It's also classic non-sequitur. There's also a hugh difference between a Reuters news camera 20 feet from the action and a satellite or drone reconnasiance aircraft video...but again, non-sequitur.
"It is incumbent on the IDF to answer the UN and Red Cross's demand for evidence, not to play propaganda games via youtube. If they have evidence the Red Cross would like to see it. Unless you think the Red Cross is part of the great arab conspiracy."
You keep mentioning the UN and Red Cross/Crescent's call for evidence- You fail to mention that it was about specific allegations of a UN ambulance being used to transport weapons, which was based on thin drone video evidence. The UN maintains that they do not support the militants with transport via ambulance, and so, for now, I'll take them at their word, but that was not the issue. If militants force drivers to take them, it still violates and negates the sanctity of the ambulance. Why you cannot concede this point is beyond me. Is your entire world view so brittle?
As for your unsourced cut and paste of the ambulance attack, If it is as you portray it, it's criminal. It is also non-sequitur to this discussion. Please try to engage us in a way that seeks clarity, not obfuscation, because ultimately, that will be seen as a dishonest position in itself.
"The hypocrisy is astounding given the context of the creation of Israel. Utterly mind numbingly astounding."
I don't think that's really a response to Ariel, was it meant to be?
Why wouldn't they? Saddam was ruthless with islamists and jihadis. That is one of the great ironies of all this warmongering. You've been had.
"Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind?" Can you not see? Your uncle is wearied by your malcontent, your warmongering."
I agree with Confud, when he said that he sait back while 6 million people are being screwed right now in addition to watching them.I would go further and say that Confud is paying for the slaughter of 25 more million people in Iraq, with his paid for propaganda.
I don't think you can count Reuters among the organs of the United States government.
Don't be so sure Doug, you never know when "we" might have the Zionists use their tentacles to infiltrate Al Reuters as a double blind.
Sorry, missed the tagline. But why the little bit at the end? Why doesn't Israel just BUY hellfires? Oh, wait, I think they do...
None the less, it is still non-sequitur. You still seem to miss the point that if the Israelis did something wrong, it changes nothing about palestinian sins- or does it? What then do you say about Haditha?
Why always the blind defense of the palestinians?
How about a real answer this time?
To the original question of why the ambulance is no longer sacred in the territories, not the rhetorical question of why the blind defense...
I told you people before, not to get scammed by Confud's seemingly reasonable conduct. So, at least people had forward warning. You can do as you like, of course, but this is not unexpected after all given what I said before.
The reason is simple. There are specific things that you cannot talk about to Confud, or else he will blow up on you and engage his prejudices in overdrive.
If you were just talking about yourself, and not Confud's support columns like Palestinians and racism, then Confud can talk to you like a normal person. But the moment you get out of line, he comes down like a load of bricks on you.
Once you have a person's psychology nailed down, not only are they predictable but they are completely open to annihilation attacks.
What the heck are annihilation attacks? These attacks are designed as such to destroy a person from the inside out. You start with their key beliefs, destroy them, and their entire edifice will implode on itself. But you can't do this with just words, words has never convinced the true believer, the fanatic, or the religious zealot. You need something more. Something that is so psychologically traumatic, that either the target reenergizes his conscience and changes, or the target goes into a coma.
It is sad to say,but the people who like America the most are the ones who live the crappiest of lives under the regimes that are anti-American. They see the truth and can never deny it. You can't make someone living in peace and prosperity, protected by the American Navy, to like America. Obviousness is not enough, psychological trauma must be necessary for those who have integrated so much anti-American philosophy or socialist beliefs. Or in Confud's case, pro-Palestinian jihad beliefs.
There comes a point when your beliefs become your identity. And therefore once someone understands your beliefs (such as love for your child), then that person can destroy you by destroying your beliefs. Or making use of your beliefs to destroy you. Either way, the end goal is accomplished.
I'm sorry I've wasted valuable time with you. If my family is at threat because of your beliefs, then a curse on your family is in order I believe.
Confud feels betrayed by Ariel's words. Which I thought was quite overly cautious in making things clear and inoffensive.
Why then does Confud feel betrayed? Because Confud thought Ariel was a reasonable person, that he could talk to. And a reasonable person would never disagree with Confud on the things that he has believed in in his heart, now would they? So when that reasonable person believes in something that Confud considers taboo, Confud believes he has been betrayed.
Confud is correct, but Confud should realize that his own beliefs and integrity betrayed him, not the beliefs and integrity of Ariel.
Such is psychology, useful but not a godlike cure.
Post a Comment
<< Home