Seriously, Lixy

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The decision went through the ordinary civic audit - so even if you are right regarding when the decision was made (and you aren’t), there is no basis for peddling the argument the war was started under false pretenses. The intelligence was there, and Congress - both Democrats and Republicans - agreed.[/quote]

Your sacrosanct civic audit is far from effective at detecting deceit.

Let me explain: When the political classes have decided to go to war, they will always find pretext to demonize the enemy and have their way thru lies and deceptions. Be it Polk’s exposed lie that lead to the 1846 Mexico-American war, the infamous USS Maine that led to the 1898 Spanish-American war, Roosevelt’s voluntarily letting Pearl Harbor happen, the Korean war, The Tonkin scam, or Reagan’s attack of Granada in 1983

Numerous testimonies came to light to show that the official reasons were nothing more than pretexts to gain the popular support necessary to wage wars.

Saddam had the choice to leave and go into exile.

Absolutely. He’s to blame for a lot of the blood spilled in recent years. It could have all been avoided had he moved somewhere else.

You say he wasn’t a threat. The UNSC said he was. Hmmm.

The UNSC said he had to comply, not be bombed into oblivion.

Your claimed level of support is overblown, and you know that, it has been covered - and whatever level of support was designed to beat back an advancing totalitarian monster.

I can quote you high-ranking officials of the period if you’d like attesting to the level of support, but what’s the use. You’ll throw a “liberal” to discredit them.

Reagan used to call them “Freedom fighters” you know?

Nonsense - trusting “secular” regimes to deliver up Islamists is perhaps the most naive foreign policy you could think of.

A few lines above you say that it’s OK to trust and support Islamist kooks to stop the totalitarian monster. Not very consistent, now are you?

Both regimes assist terror elements against Israel - how far of a stretch would it be to help those terrorist elements who wanted to mess with the US?

Ok, here you’re just blubbering. You just condoned the use of terror against the evil USSR.

Also, Israel can manage to blow Syria and Iraq to dust on a lunch break if it wanted to.

The long-term goal of securing the West from the barbarians requires the isolation and demonization of Iranian and Syrian regimes - not making nice with them.

Hmmm…and there I was thinking the goal was to get rid of militant Islamists called Al-Qaeda because it’s close to impossible to fight them conventionally. Ther regimes in Syria, Iran and Iraq are/were the worst enemies of Al-Qaeda.

And “queers”? Nice.

Oooh, did I offend you?

There’s nothing queer about the word queer.

[i]"In contemporary usage, some use queer as an inclusive, unifying sociopolitical umbrella term for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, intersexual, genderqueer, or of any other non-heterosexual sexuality, sexual anatomy, or gender identity. It can also include asexual and autosexual people, as well as gender normative heterosexuals whose sexual orientations or activities place them outside the heterosexual-defined mainstream (e.g. BDSM practitioners, or polyamorous persons). Queer in this sense (depending on how broadly it is defined) is commonly used as a synonym for such terms as LGBT.

Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of “outside the bounds of normal society” and can be construed as “breaking the rules for sex and gender.” It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows “queer” identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context “queer” is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for “queer” heterosexuals and “non-queer” (straight-acting, conformist) homosexuals.[/i]

Queer

Whether there’s anything gay about queers is different story…

And note what you said earlier - all regimes in the Arab world are corrupt dictatorships (including in there Iran and Syria). And yet you suggested above the US should have worked with them?

It sure has never stopped you. Ever heard of Pinochet? Duvalier? Banzer? Batista?

Explain why you are working with repressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who happen to be harboring and financing Al-Qaeda? At least Iran and Syria can’t stand Ben-Laden and his crew.

Most importantly, Baker and Hamilton suggested that as well. So shut the fuck up!

Make up your mind, Lixy. Should the US stand firmly against all these corrupt dictatorships - seemingly the left-wing thing to do - or should the US deal with the devil to get at some Islamist terror groups - your suggestion?

Since I would prefer a world where I won’t have to worry about bombs when taking public transportations and where my religion’s reputation isn’t soiled by some whack-jobs, I’d say you must put priority on dealing with Al-Qaeda. And yes, that implies talking to Iran and Syria.

If the Iranian and Syrian leaders bother you afterwards, it’ll be easy to deal with them. At least, you know where they live and where they work.

You still have yet to explain how Bush is an “idiot” on one page of a thread, but how he is an “evil genius” type on the very next page.

My usage of idiot there didn’t properly convey my thought. I have a limited lexicon and couldn’t think of any other word to mean “devoid of humanism”. It was the first derogatory word that popped in my mind. So, yeah, I’ll grant you that much.

Can Lixy the Obfuscator ever square that circle?

Can you ever debate without resorting to ad hominems?

[lixy]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I have to admit I haven’t read every word he’s written. Did he really condemn all of Islam? I find that hard to believe. However, if you produce the posts, I’ll be happy to read them. [/quote]

See every thread started by HH with the words “Islam” and “Nuts”. I believe he has one where the title of the thread makes the generalization with “All”. Pretty hard to miss.

I’ve said this many times, America is like a family (including dems). While I may want to smack you around sometimes, you are still family. However, when other family members start ripping on you, my loyalty is to you first.

That didn’t make sense, now did it?

Now, I think you’d be hard pressed to find an American with a reasonable IQ who thinks “we are all good.”

How about your president? He said that he received his mission from God. I can’t think of anything more “good” than God himself.

I’ll say again, it should make you SHUDDER when lixy names you directly as an ally.

Ally is a big word. It implies that we are in a state of war.

Beowolf and I are clearly on opposite sides of the political spectrum. We totally disagree on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That we try to mitigate HH’s raging Crusade against anything Muslim doesn’t make us allies, now does it?

One more point, if you think that the democrats cannot go too far, I think you are wrong.

This discussion of cutting off troop funding is WAY BEYOND the pale.

Again, if you believe that there’s a war going on and that you can win it by throwing more violence and money at it, then I can understand your logic. If I were you, I’d check those premises though.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this crisis the most critical divide between sides of the aisle on a foreign policy issue? I can’t think of anything that comes close. If it’s true, then Bush’s extremism and arrogance is the only thing to blame for the clash.

[lixy]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Produce one quote from any poster saying American lives are more valuable that Iraqi civilians and I’ll buy you a new bicycle. [/quote]

Jesus! You really haven’t been paying attention the last few year.

What message do you think not keeping a body count of Iraqi casualties sends?

And HH said MANY times that carpet bombing had to be done, then blames the “liberals” for not letting Bush do it. I’d fetch the quotes for you, but I feel you won’t hold you bicycle end of the deal. So, look it up.

[John_S1]

Lixy, most of us here view almost all life as equal(I do not hold a terrorist’s life equal). The fact you think just because I am against terrorist that I somehow view the Iraq’s lives as less, if that was the case I would not have joined the army to help them out. just some food for thought man, America is not out to get you.

[lixy]

[quote]John S. wrote:
IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? [/quote]

You gotta lay off the steroids for a while. Or better yet, get laid!

[quote]GKhan wrote:
…
[/quote]

You seem like a rational guy. So let’s tear it to pieces.

The initial assault used a technique called “Shock and Awe”. That doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States in 1996. According to those two theorists, “Shock and Awe renders an adversary unwilling to resist through overwhelming displays of power”. Ullman cited the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of “shock and awe”. In this light, you can’t possibly say that you minded the civilian casualties.

Now, ponder this:

“A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the “invasion phase”, including the Shock and Awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.”

Shock and awe | Casualties

How many suicide bombers do you thing it takes to wipe out almost 7000 people? How can you possibly convince someone who lost his family in an undiscriminate bombing that you are not practicing terrorism?

I’ll skip the Lancet report that talks about the 650,000 deaths that died as a result of the invasion.

[system]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lixy,

If we (the USA) were evil, like you have said we are, would Karbala, Tehran, Falujah, Mecca, and so on still exist? If we were like Nazis, do you know what would have happened to the Muslim population via reprisals?

It doesn’t happen. Why not? Check your premises.

Remember all the Iraqis with blue fingers? They did a thing called VOTING? Some of the candidates were extremist whack jobs — they got few votes. Why?

The Middle Eastern countries cannot even wipe out tiny Israel. If we were evil, what do you think would happen if we unleashed our power on these countries? They still exist. Why?

Terrorists are often called Muslim extremists. What does that mean? Does it mean that they take Islam to its extremes? As a system, is this a religion of death? Who worships death more, the country that builds schools and hospitals, bridges and power plants, or a system that unleashes animals to wear suicide bombs into crowds of old ladies and children?

Now I think you can fathom what America is all about. We love life. We are joyful. We hope others will join us in this approach to living. You stand with those who oppose this worldview when you denounce us. Is this what you SERIOUSLY want to do?[/quote]

head hunter,

it is kabbala, not karbala.

if we were nazis, we would side with the muslims to get rid of jews, just like the nazis did.

in all fairness, we do hold many muslims and immigrants uncharged and without chance of bail, just like the nazis did before they started exterminating everyone.

extremist whack jobs getting a few votes… maybe because they rigged elections and/or had their buddies vote for them?

we are a huge country and have not wiped out any of our opponents. we have kept them from growing too large however, as have the islamic nations. after all, israel has no oil revenue to speak of and it is in their own back yard is it not? some one is keeping their hands out of the cookie jar and it isn’t the US.

terrorists are called muslim extremists yes. propaganda. terrorists are also called christian extremists in other contexts. (think abortion clinic bombers)is the sytem a faulty one? a few people don’t speak for the majority. the KKK’s official name is the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and they claim to be defenders of christianity and the white race.they also carry out terroristic activity on their own country men. are they accurate representatives of the christian system in america? no.

people the world over enjoy life. culture is a subjective thing. our culture is awesome to us, but not to someone raised in another culture. our presence and often forceful change of anothers way of life would be akin to russia beating us in a war and forcing communism on us. it is different, we don’t like it and we don’t want it in OUR homes. it is the same thing on the other side of our coin.

now i am an american and love this country as much as the next american, but lets be accurate and fair.

[John_S1]

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE?

You gotta lay off the steroids for a while. Or better yet, get laid![/quote]

Alright, ran out of arguments now your goign to attack me directly. This is very low, is what I am saying wrong? or is it in fact you know im right but just can’t admit it? please continue down this road of name calling I would love to return to a third grade level.

[Sloth]

Wait, wait, wait a damn moment. Now the argument has gotten circular. Now it’s being suggested that the US SHOULD work with despotic regimes to go after Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists…For how damn long have we been told that this leads to terrorism?! So let’s see…

We oppose despots, and we’re creating terrorists. That any sanctions, embargoes, and perhaps and even military action, just hurts the people and they begrudgingly rally around the despot in question. If not the despot, they rally to their flag at least and begin to oppose us. This hatred fuels terrorist recruitment, we’re told. Not to mention, the despot could choose to use proxy armies (terrorist organizations, i.e. Iran).

Or,

We make a deal with a despotic regime to fight terrorists, give him resources he needs, and show him our support. Now we’re accused of propping up tyrants. And, we’re accused of giving the tyrant a stronger arm to oppress his people with. Not to mention any extremes the despot might take militarily with what resources we do give him. So now, we’ve pissed off the oppressed…fueling terrorism against us.

It’s mind boggling.

Here’s my idea if we pull out of Iraq. Build missile defense, get control of our borders, and cut off ALL foreign aid. No stepping in to save Darfur, somalia, etc. The Europeans can handle themselves, same with Japan and S. Korea. Good luck.

The only caveat is this. The first nation which opts to shelter a terrorist cell that has attacked us, foreign or domestic, WILL get carpet bombed. When the carpet bombing is finished (whenever the hell we say it is) don’t even think we’ll be offering to rebuild your cess-pool nation. Learn to eat sand.

[Jerkwad]

Lixy –
Last I checked, this was a weight-lifting site. You should check it out some time.

[Sloth]

[quote]lixy wrote:

[i]"A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the…
[/quote]

That’s it? All the military power that the US could bring to bear, and the number is that low? Wow. Sorry, but I’m having a hell of a hard time seeing this as anything but restraint.

How many suicide bombers do you thing it takes to wipe out almost 7000 people?

Including car bombs, roadside bombs, Islamic/sectarian death squads? Not too damn many. When 20-100 are being killed at a time with each type of bomb delivery (thanks Iran/Al Qaeda!), it catches up and surpasses rather fast. Not to mention many dozens Sunni/Shia corpses being dumped off in ditches by death squads. The biggest killers of Iraqis are Iraqis. Oh, and the Al Qaeda schmucks some of the Sunni faction like to pal around with.

[quote]
I’ll skip the Lancet report that talks about the 650,000 deaths that died as a result of the invasion.[/quote]

By the way, how does that jive with your earlier numbers? That’s a gigantic jump. Of course, sectarian/terrorist violence post-invasion certainely hasn’t helped.

[lixy]

[quote]texasguy wrote:
head hunter,

it is kabbala, not karbala. [/quote]

Unless you are making an elaborate pun which I missed, the Iraqi city is called Karbala.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Wow.

So the only way you can justify actions taken by the US government is:

1. Point out that worse has happened (We’re not as bad as the Nazis!)

2. Ignore it completely

3. Build up strawman exaggerations like “America is to blame for all the suffering in the world” and “Americans are all evil”.

4. Keep repeating variations of “No really, we’re the GOOD guys! We value life! We celebrate freedom!”

5. Attack and label anyone who admits that the US is far from the comic book “good guy” as being “friends” with terrorists.

[lixy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We make a deal with a despotic regime to fight terrorists, give him resources he needs, and show him our support. Now we’re accused of propping up tyrants. And, we’re accused of giving the tyrant a stronger arm to oppress his people with. Not to mention any extremes the despot might take militarily with what resources we do give him. So now, we’ve pissed off the oppressed…fueling terrorism against us. [/quote]

I’m afraid you’re right.

But you need to relativize here. Iran IS a democracy compared to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. It might not be as free and tolerant as its Western counterparts, but it sure was made by the people and the Iranians get free and transparent elections.

Nothing can guarantee you that backing an oppressive regime won’t blow back in your face, but a realistic approach would be that Al-Qaeda is a threat NOW while the other is a threat LATER. It takes a couple of generations for oppression to breed terrorism.

[quote]Here’s my idea if we pull out of Iraq. Build missile defense, get control of our borders, and cut off ALL foreign aid. No stepping in to save Darfur, somalia, etc. The Europeans can handle themselves, same with Japan and S. Korea. Good luck.

The only caveat is this. The first nation which opts to shelter a terrorist cell that has attacked us, foreign or domestic, WILL get carpet bombed. When the carpet bombing is finished (whenever the hell we say it is) don’t even think we’ll be offering to rebuild your cess-pool nation. Learn to eat sand.[/quote]

That actually is an excellent idea. Too bad nobody’s campaigning on it. Here are the reasons why it’s irrealistic:

• The Jewish lobby in Washington will never let you back off the aid you’re giving Israel. For good reasons; we’re talking BILLIONS of dollars a year.

• What’cha gonna do with all the military installations, personnel, equipment and all the rest? You’ll have fierce resistance from the people with interests in those areas.

So, as you can see, it’s not an option politically. Now, if only could reclaim your independence from the big buck crowd…

[lixy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s it? All the military power that the US could bring to bear, and the number is that low? Wow. Sorry, but I’m having a hell of a hard time seeing this as anything but restraint. [/quote]

Shameful reply! For me, it’s 6,616 too many. Especially given what was achieved by invading Iraq.

Including car bombs, roadside bombs, Islamic/sectarian death squads? Not too damn many. When 20-100 are being killed at a time with each type of bomb delivery (thanks Iran/Al Qaeda!), it catches up and surpasses rather fast.

The average of deaths from one suicide bomber is a lot less than the range you have in mind.

By the way, how does that jive with your earlier numbers? That’s a gigantic jump.

Well, the first figure looked at the invasion. The latter represent deaths from the whole occupation period. Just so you know, the Lancet report was considered a serious study by the Blair government.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Your sacrosanct civic audit is far from effective at detecting deceit.[/quote]

See below.

Let me explain: When the political classes have decided to go to war, they will always find pretext to demonize the enemy and have their way thru lies and deceptions.

Ridiculous. You mean such imperializing warmongers as the liberal Democrats who signed on the Resolution?

And did the “political classes” extend to all the relevant nations of the UNSC, who agreed that Saddam was a threat?

You like to invent and blame abstract enemies - even when common sense refutes the whole exercise.

Be it Polk’s exposed lie that lead to the 1846 Mexico-American war, the infamous USS Maine that led to the 1898 Spanish-American war, Roosevelt’s voluntarily letting Pearl Harbor happen, the Korean war, The Tonkin scam, or Reagan’s attack of Granada in 1983.

Now, here is where you completely lose it.

You haven’t shown that a deceptive pretext here. Even if we take your conspiracy kook list of pretextual claims above as true, they don’t demonstrate that a pretextual claim in this case. This is the most basic logical error you can make.

Why are you telling me what a bunch of dead politicians did back in their day to “prove” the current deceit of the Iraq war?

Do you have anything better than sniveling anger at “historical imperialists”? Because it’s getting pretty bad here.

Numerous testimonies came to light to show that the official reasons were nothing more than pretexts to gain the popular support necessary to wage wars.

Bizarre claim - we certainly learned that the intelligence was riddled with gaps. But where is evidence of a pretext?

And if Bush was the evil man you say he is, why invade Iraq and prove your “pretext” was false? He could have easily planted weapons to cover his tracks. And he would have strengthened his hand at his broad agenda of taking over the Middle East.

These are claims you keep running up against - but nowhere in your leftist playbook are their answers, so we keep getting a dumb silence out of you.

The UNSC said he had to comply, not be bombed into oblivion.

That has nothing to do with it - we are discussing whether or not Saddam was perceived as a legitimate threat. I never said the Resolution authorized action. Keep up.

You are trying to change the subject. You have claimed over and over that Saddam wasn’t a threat, but that is patently false - everyone thought he was a threat. The disagreement arose over what to do about the threat.

Don’t try and weasel out with red herrings now.

Reagan used to call them “Freedom fighters” you know?

Sure - local fighters trying to beat back a giant left-wing machine attempting take over the country. They have a right to do that, what is the problem?

What does that have to do with them moving beyond their own borders to cause mischief in a way similar to the USSR? Once they did that, it changed.

Not that unusual - look at the relationship with Russia in and immediately after WWII.

A few lines above you say that it’s OK to trust and support Islamist kooks to stop the totalitarian monster. Not very consistent, now are you?

Poor Lixy - you keep missing the ball. You act as though Iran and Syria are actually enemies of Islamists. Laughable.

Would we have supported Afghan “Freedom Fighters” if we thought they really were on the side of the Soviets? Would that have made sense?

Ok, here you’re just blubbering. You just condoned the use of terror against the evil USSR.

See above - and fighting the army of the Soviets is different than acts of terror.

Qualitatively, the risks aren’t the same. Plus, we have the advantage of learning from experience. Our realpolitik has changed over the years, Lixy - you should learn up.

Also, Israel can manage to blow Syria and Iraq to dust on a lunch break if it wanted to.

I know - interesting what happens when you embrace modernism, liberal government, and 21st centruy values.

Hmmm…and there I was thinking the goal was to get rid of militant Islamists called Al-Qaeda because it’s close to impossible to fight them conventionally. Ther regimes in Syria, Iran and Iraq are/were the worst enemies of Al-Qaeda.

Tragically stupid. Which of those filthy regimes would honestly say no to a terror element interested in hurting the Great Satan (Iran) or the Western bully that humiliated Saddam (Iraq, and don’t forget he was so angry as to want to assassinate Bush I).

Given those levels of animosity, you are going to tell me that Iraq and Iraq would have refused to aid terrorists to hurt the US, and possibly even have worked with the Western world to deliver the bad guys up?

You are completely detached from reality. But then, we knew that. You keep flailing around like the child who can’t swim, but is desperately trying to show that he can.

It sure has never stopped you. Ever heard of Pinochet? Duvalier? Banzer? Batista?

Heh, predictable. Wouldn’t it make sense - by your own theory - that if the US was guilty of working with all of these bad guys in the past, we have a duty to remedy that by not doing it in the future?

Most importantly, Baker and Hamilton suggested that as well. So shut the fuck up!

When would you listen to Baker and Hamilton on anything?

Baker is one of the old realists who liked to work with bad guys to help promote stability. Like him now?

My usage of idiot there didn’t properly convey my thought. I have a limited lexicon and couldn’t think of any other word to mean “devoid of humanism”. It was the first derogatory word that popped in my mind. So, yeah, I’ll grant you that much.

Pathetic attempt to whine your way out of it. You know English just fine - hell, you used the word “lexicon” - on one hand, you say America voted for an idiot (and you knew what it meant) and then you said he was an evil genius.

The “me don’t talk English good” is nonsense - you got caught trying to be an irritant saying idiotic (and inconsistent) things.

[hedo]

[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Lixy –
Last I checked, this was a weight-lifting site. You should check it out some time.[/quote]

He’s not here for the training advice.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

HH has literally condemned the entire religion of Islam as being evil, and has requested that we bomb the hell out of them and kill them all, while trying to say he supports there freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Thats hypocritical. Very, very hypocritical.

While I can honestly say I’ve learned and agreed with at times the three of you (JeffR, Zap and TB), I cannot say the same for HH. 90% of everything he says has no substantial backing. He makes little to no truly admissible argument (everything he says has fallacies). He’s a closed minded hack.

So, same question back to you… and no, the “He’s still better than Lixy” is not a real answer ;)[/quote]

Bombing the hell out of them worked in Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan. Do you think those regimes were LESS bloodthirsty than the terrorist nations and groups we fight now? Ask the people of Warsaw or Nanking.

Also, if the philosophy or religion of a group of people permits some of them to express their faith by killing innocent people who’re doing them no harm, what can we conclude about said philosophy or religion? (Note: I use philosophy as meaning a worldview. Philosophy itself is too noble to have anything to do with the terrorist scum.)

[Headhunter]

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Produce one quote from any poster saying American lives are more valuable that Iraqi civilians and I’ll buy you a new bicycle.

Jesus! You really haven’t been paying attention the last few year.

What message do you think not keeping a body count of Iraqi casualties sends?

And HH said MANY times that carpet bombing had to be done, then blames the “liberals” for not letting Bush do it. I’d fetch the quotes for you, but I feel you won’t hold you bicycle end of the deal. So, look it up.[/quote]

I will save everyone the trouble: War is WAR! It doesn’t mean you slap a mugger’s face — it’ll only piss him off. You rip out his throat or his eyes.

The problems we’re having in Iraq is because WE ARE TOO DAMN NICE! You CAN’T WIN if you are ‘nice’. Therefore, if we go to war, we should carpet bomb the whole damn place. Think Dresden = Baghdad = Tehran.

Because we did not obliterate these hellholes, we now have IEDs, RPGs, and our wonderful young guys are DYING!!

“Only fight if you know you’re going to win.”
— The Art of War

Oh, and I think one young Marine or Soldier is worth more than ALL the people in the Middle East.

The Closed-Minded Hack

[system]

[quote]lixy wrote:
texasguy wrote:
head hunter,

it is kabbala, not karbala.

Unless you are making an elaborate pun which I missed, the Iraqi city is called Karbala.[/quote]

my bad. i thought he was talking about the religion.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

He’s said some radical stuff, but you guys really don’t get the core of his message.

He doesn’t think we’re MORE evil than terrorists and dictators, he just thinks we’re blind to the evil we do. We like to pretend America is the good guy, always looking out for the little guy. When, in reality, we are most definetly not.

While I don’t agree with everything he’s said, and I think some of his arguments about Israel and Palestine are absolutely ridiculous, he still does a decent job of pointing out when we’ve done wrong and all of our hypocrisies.[/quote]

I think your post deserves a fair response.

The problem is, I don’t think there is a “conservative” here that believes the US to be flawless. I don’t. I am perfectly willing to have a legitimate conversation on the topic.

However, usually - especially in the dullard Lixy’s case - it is never a good faith argument. Every premise - and I mean every - starts with the notion that there is an oppressor and an oppressee, and that any “bad stuff” in the world stems from that ubiquitous relationship, and the US is always, in every category, the oppressor.

Now, not a nuanced argument. And any basic reading of history refutes it. But that is the problem - basic history and logic are afforded no position here. Lixy’s mind is made up, regardless of the facts he is shown - the US acts with “bad faith” by its mere existence.

No one - even “conservatives” willing to see that the US has its warts - will be amenable to a conversation about said warts when the premise is always the same, flawed, ideological position.

In other words, if a sensible critic of the US comes in who is not immune to history and logic - as Lixy surely is - there could be a discussion.

But you say Lixy “points out” where the US has been hypocritical, etc. - that is nonsense, he merely parrots the left-wing playbook and ignores all kinds of important issues that actually mitigate the hypocrisy he is trying to display.

As for being “blind to the evil done”, you should shine that light of perception against Lixy, who routinely derides the US for all the sins that the people he defends are much more guilty of. The problem is, remember - the atrocities committed by the people he defends are forgivable, because, after all, it’s never their own fault - not in Lixy’s predictable neo-Marxist model.

Such a flimsy and blinkered viewpoint can never be the foundation for a decent discussion of what the US has done right and what the US has done wrong. The premise is wrong, so the rest of his points simply won’t be entertained seriously.