You mean how Americans did treated Indian tribes exactly the way they treated each other - only to again, like slavery, help extinguish this kinds of practice?
[/quote]
Don’t try to rationalize the American governments behavior. The government didn’t extinguish anything.
I brought up examples to highlight what I was saying to Kroby.I’m not damning America to hell. I’m simply pointing out facts. You can make your own judgments.
Your arrogance baffles me. I have a history degree, sir. I’m well aware of the reasons behind supporting Stalin. I was, again, pointing out America supporting SOBs. As you know, Stalin was a big SOB.
Oh, well I guess the rest of America is glad that you’re deciding for them what is “important debate” and what isn’t.
I’m not, nor have I ever said the U.S. is the reason for the worlds ills. That broad statement is like the idiots who equate criticism of the Iraq War with supporting Saddam.
If your sick of “stupid radicals”, just ignore them. It’s not hard.
Are you through with personal attacks. I think some of your stances, especially your rabid defense of Bush and his blunder known as Iraq to be quite “bone-headed”, but I don’t make personal attacks.
[quote]
Does your silly radicalism permit you to do that? Or must you continue to whine and dither about the US not being “perfect” according to some abstract standard made up in a coffee house by affluent radical brats?[/quote]
It’s not that I have a problem with America not being perfect, it’s with people who defend its deplorable behavior (when such things do happen). Your stance on Iraq is a perfect example.
Contrary to your dillusions about me, I’m quite nationalistic and conservative, which is why I loathe Bush and his fake conservatism and his hideous foreign policy.
I also joined the Army (combat arms no less) during war time.
Honestly, your retarded labeling of me as a radical actually pisses me off. It’s kind Jeffr-esque. (Yeah, I went there)I’m not a radical, I just have no problem being critical of the government or pointing out its dark periods in history. If more people were critical, the government wouldn’t be able to get away with some of the things it does. That’s something I’m sure we can all agree on.
You can set your watch by this when getting into a “debate” - if you can call it that - with wannabe radicals.
To say a country is “better” than another - a reason for relativists to wet their panties - is not the same as saying “perfect”. Just don’t pop the radical’s illusion - then they might have to get a job.[/quote]
I hope this wasn’t directed at me. You know what I do for living.
Don’t try to rationalize the American governments behavior. The government didn’t extinguish anything.[/quote]
I don’t have to “rationalize” anything - it’s rational. Is it awful? Never said it wasn’t. But it is more than awful - it is tragic and common to history. And the US has had a hand in moving the world a way from that (very large) part of history.
No, you said based on past behaviors, the US did not have the moral capital to lecture or lead. Don’t try and distract - you added context to the “facts”.
It isn’t arrogance - it doesn’t take a genius to understand that support of Stalin have been a necessary condition of a greater good - and the whole “the US supports SOBs” is meaningless without that context, and your point didn’t include that, and it was wrong.
As for your history degree - super. But that said, given that I now know you actually have a degree in history, I am even more disappointed in your flimsy analysis.
I am not deciding, so stop the whining - but radicalism is the annoying mosquito that distracts the rest of us from the important debate.
That is actually a pretty good point - debating them often means providing an education to them on stuff they should already know. It is a lot of heavy lifting, and it usually devolves into an irrational exercise in paranoia rather than a rational discussion.
I’ll keep that useful advice in mind.
If I say “not well thought out” instead of “bone-headed”, would that make you feel better?
And if you disagree with my defense of the Iraq war, no problem - I welcome a debate on it. You can point where I am “bone headed” - just stick to rational arguments. Can radicals do that?
I have made the case on Iraq over and over - and have welcomed a debate on it. Unfortunately, my defense of “depolorable” actions are often deconstructed into apologies for evil oil barons, international masterminding Jews, racism, and so forth.
I am still looking for the good rational reason to not invade Iraq - it exists, I am not being flip. Unfortunately for you and others like you, the radical paranoia is easily dismissed, and it is hard to take you seriously after that.
Being an apologist for Chomsky set my alarm off. If you don’t think you are a radical, fine - but you do far more than “point out dark periods”.
Actually, we can. Definitely common ground. I just want the criticism to be well-informed and not based in conspiracies, “bad faith” assmptions, or abstract theories that don’t hold water when critically examined.
And the US has had a hand in moving the world a way from that (very large) part of history.
[/quote]
Maybe, but there are millions of people around the world who’d disagree.
Correct, I don’t think they do. I guess I’m missing something?
I said I recognized why Stalin was supported. It still doesn’t change the fact that he was an A-hole.
Flimsy analysis of what? I outlined some of the low points in America’s past. These events are documented. Did I not put them in the “context” you like?
You kind of are deciding. Just because you think it’s radical doesn’t mean that it is. Pointing out historical facts, whether they’re in the American PC context or not, doesn’t equate to radicalism.
It makes others more willing to debate when you refrain from using personal attacks.
I don’t know if they can. I can’t speak for them.
That’s (Iraq) another argument for another time though. I should be doing work related stuff as I type this. Or going to bed.
“Others like me.” Common Jef…I mean Thunder. You come of as an A-Hole when you say things like that. You don’t know the first thing about me.
Again, I’ll have to discuss this with you later. I will say though, that you get a different perspective on the world when you look at foreign news sources.
I’m really interested to know what you’ve read of his work. I certainly don’t agree with everything he says. I’m certainly not a "libertarian socialist’, or whatever he calls himself, but I find his analysis (not solutions) to be pretty accurate. He documents his books well and quite thoroughly. And once again, if you use foreign news sources, Chomsky’s analysis tends to make more sense than the “filtered” American media (another topic he and many before him have written about).
I’m certainly not beyond making a mistake, so please point out any flimsy historical analysis you think I might have made.
I won’t be able to reply back until tomorrow however, it’s my bed time.
Maybe, but there are millions of people around the world who’d disagree.[/quote]
So be it - and what if they are wrong? Do we listen to them just because they aren’t Americans? Isn’t that just as dumb as listening to someone on the basis just that they are American?
There is nothing inherently right or magical about “world opinion” - so stop relying on it as such.
So you are going to keep moving the goal posts around - first you say “I am just stating historical facts”, now you are back to “and the facts suggest the US has no moral capital to lead”.
Well, which is it, Dustin? You just spittin’ facts or making an argument based on the facts? Just make up your mind, if you can.
See above. First you say “facts only”, then you say “facts mean the US can’t lead”. So I am still waiting on you to make up your mind and then supply the “in-between” stuff as to why the US doesn’t have the moral capital to lead.
You have assumed your conclusion and left out all the stuff in the middle. Flimsy analysis.
I can measure you only by your posts - and you have taken the same tact as others. Why does that bother you?
Two things.
As for “foreign sources”, what makes you think I don’t read the sacred “foreign sources”? It is a lazy, cheap claim. What is your basis for haughtily assuming that I don’t?
As for Chomsky, I have read enough to have my time wasted and wish I could have it back - his documentation that you worship has come under withering attack by critics for misleading, mischaracterizing by shredding context, and downright false in some instances.
And Chomsky’s analysis isn’t “better understood” if you read foreign news sources - Chomsky is a master of linguistics, and he feeds his disciples everything they want to hear and packages it in a way that makes them never question his wisdom.
It is almost like a mindless cult - and Chomsky, presumably, laughs all the way to the bank.
And what have I read of Chomsky’s? Manufacturing Consent, start there - to which any basic student of Economics 101 can poke holes in his “media theory”. Just don’t tell his followers, who would rather drift in the cloud of conspiracy rather than be introdiuced to the shocking world of reality.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You guys are missing the point. I’ll reiterate:
As for Iraq, Amnesty found that “the worst practices of Saddam’s regime - torture, unfair trials, capital punishment and rape with impunity - remained very much alive.”" [/quote]
I think that would just prove that Islam continues to fail in its position as a “Religion of Peace”
Ok…so now go ahead and tell me how all these attrocities are being committed by US soldiers. Because I know when i was over there all i did was Rape and Pillage. It was so much damn fun. I would put on my Norse Metal and just Pillage away. I’d be all “ARrrr and Avast that IED”
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Dustin wrote:
How any American can lecture another individual of another country on moral superiority is comical. [/quote]
Understand. You are an american, lecturing another on moral superiority. You don’t see the hypocritical in this?
[quote]How far back, indeed. Let’s see… US government has been in place just over 200 years.
Slavery?
Pre-dates 1776, as well as most of the world having this act in place. Your chirp falls flat.
And lasted well into the 19th century. What the rest of the world did at that time regarding slavery holds no relevance. Where talking about the U.S. My “chirp” is quite pertinent and proves my point.[/quote]
Understand. Slavery at that time in world history was acceptable. Or is it your stance that we re-try all past crimes with today’s standards of law? One cannot go back in history and judge them. History just is.
We define ourselves through history, by historical contexts, but don’t make the mistake of trying them by today’s standards. Mankind evolves. Socially, genetically. Of course things were worse back then. Observe how much we’ve progressed. How much more we have to go. Not “how horrible” my five times removed grandparents were. Those times are uncomparable to todays standards.
[quote]Yeah, they were forcibly rounded up from the Southeast and herded like cattle to my homestate.
The life-blood of the plains Indians where intentionally killed because our government new that “for every buffalo killed, and Indian would die”.
We can sit here play synonym games if you want, but the truth remains that the U.S. government instituted methods to remove, displace, and kill off American Indians. [/quote]
Did I deny this? Did I not say that though horrible it was, the current First Nations are doing quite well - hardly the genocide you claim it to currently be.
[quote]Portugal originally drew the Philippines per Papal edict… We replaced them.
With ruthless force. The military slaughtered them until they gave up. Try to rationalize it if you wish.[/quote]
We did not come into the country as if it was pristine. They were abused by another before we came in. We did not create this, we continued it. Get your facts straight.
[quote]Last I checked Haiti was originally a French colony until it’s independence.
It was forcibly occupied to make sure that “American interests were safe” under Woodrow Wilson. More ruthless aggression that you’re trying to rationalize and excuse.[/quote]
Rationalize? I’m trying to get your facts straight. As in proper perspective. Let me analogize: You don’t start the alphabet at F, you start at A. Start from the beginning, Dustin.
[quote]As for Hawaii, despite the death of the native - er, I mean - colonizing polynesian indigents due to disease, they sued to enter this Union.
See the Philippines and Haiti. We invaded the Hawaiian Islands and put down anyone that didn’t play by our rules.[/quote]
The polynesians in Hawaii were colonizers. Not native. Neither were we. So what?
[quote]Moral superiority? None of this excuses any single thing Saddam had perpetrated. This is the argument, Dustin.
No one is excusing Saddam’s behavior. Why do the Iraq war apologists always try to make this argument? We all agree that he sucked.
It’s not a matter of who was worse, when, or moral superiority. There is no comparison - that is the argument.
The statement was made that American presidents have done some unsweet things as well. I pointed those out.
You’re right, there is no comparison. Because while American presidents weren’t setting up torture chambers, they had no problem supporting dictators that would do such things. With military aid, or economic aid. These presidents also had no problem with their military intentionally targeting civilians during times of war, or to protect economic interests like I highlighted above. So yeah, if we had some type of running tally on the amount of lives that were lost either directly or indirectly because of the U.S. government, I’d say we would far surpass Saddam.
Dustin[/quote]
True, America traditionally supports dictators when in it’s own interest. So that makes us responsibe for their actions? Way to take responsibilty away from the actor. As for wartime… civilians were killed all the time until recent history. It’s no new news. Again, you’ve lost perspective on history.
You may think that I cheerlead america, but you’ve certainly not read enough of my posts to make this conclusion. I’m very critical of our country and it’s lack of progress. I do cheerlead against lixy, because it’s fun.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
It still does not refute the fact of Saddams hands being bloody, and lixy being obtuse to this fact.
Obtuse? I have repeatedely denounced the horrors of Saddam in this very thread. I’ll refresh your memory.
First, there’s this statement in the OP:
“I don’t think getting down that Saddam thug…”
Then I go on to explain that:
“Saddam didn’t wake up one morning and decided to become a monster. He’s been a tyrant during all his reign and his horrors date back to 68 when the Ba’athists came to power.”
That you have the nerve to say that I’m being obtuse to the fact that Saddam had bloody hands is beyond me.
Do you want me to praise your government who, despite the fact that it got hundreds of thousands innocents killed, rid the world of Saddam? Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen. Saddam had to go, and I don’t think you’ll find anybody on this planet besides his entourage that says otherwise. But getting countless people killed, wrecking a country and providing a breeding ground for terrorists was a too high price to pay.[/quote]
lixy, I specifically remember you stating that it would have been better that Saddam stay in power than what’s currently going on in Iraq. That, sir, is the specific point I have against you. Do not deny you said this.
I will dredge it up. You are a Saddam sympathist. It is this reason alone that makes you the number one antagonist. I will not rest until you are utterly discredited as having any rational reasonable viewpoint. Or until you apologize.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is nothing inherently right or magical about “world opinion” - so stop relying on it as such.
[/quote]
Another baseless claim. How do you know what I rely on for news or information?
For the sake of argument:
If the rest of the world is saying one thing, and the U.S. is saying just the opposite, do you think we should maybe take what the rest of the world has to say and consider it?
Or another example:
When Israel is condemned by the international community for certain behavior and the only country to back Israel’s questionable behavior is the U.S. Call me crazy bet that sets off red flags for me. Maybe we should look at what the rest of the world is saying not dismiss it.
Yes, I’m stating historical events that suggest the U.S. isn’t much different than any other country and has no right moral authority.
The few events I did list (and I could list many more) do provide all that “in-between” stuff
You seem to be knowledgeable in various aspects of history, but now you’re playing dumb to the events I brought up? Do I really need to go into detail in the events I brought up? I know what happened and I’m sure you do to, so I’m not following the reason behind my “flimsy analysis”.
This is a message board, I don’t have time or the patients to sit here and go in depth about a certain historical event.
First off, you have made plenty of lazy, cheap claims when responding to my posts in the past and currently. And I’m not just talking about your Jeffr-like attempts to put ignorant labels on me. I could easily do the same with you, but it’s a little silly.
I only assume you don’t read foreign sources much because you seem to dismiss them when others use them to make a point.
“Documentation that I worship”? Is this another lazy, cheap claim made by you in an attempt to be witty?
Obviously Chomsky can make mistakes. I certainly don’t think he’s perfect, but I do agree with many things he says.
He’s also attacked by the mainstream media, which is notorious for not reporting certain things or misquoting or misrepresenting individuals.
Generally speaking, when the mass media ignores and/or attacks an individual, said individual has something important to say.
Obviously his mastery of linguistics has nothing to do with writing, public speaking or being glib, of which is really is neither. His lectures can be quite boring at times and his writing skills are subpar, also weaknesses he admits to. So, your claim that he has some Hitler like hypnotic spell on his audience is false.
You do also realize that Chomsky began writing political theories around age 10. Point is, he wrote many books for years without these “disciples”, as you call them. I seriously doubt he cares what people think of him. He’s said numerous times he doesn’t like the cult following that he has.
See above.
[quote]
And what have I read of Chomsky’s? Manufacturing Consent, start there - to which any basic student of Economics 101 can poke holes in his “media theory”. Just don’t tell his followers, who would rather drift in the cloud of conspiracy rather than be introdiuced to the shocking world of reality.[/quote]
You’ve reduced probably Chomsky’s most critically acclaimed work to kenneling for a fire. Good job.
So, mass media efforts to dupe or deceive Americans like the Creel Commission never existed?
Chomsky definitely wasn’t the first to talk about the mass media. Were the others before him living in OZ?
I was actually thinking of buying that book next. I see nothing but good reviews about it. The only negative to it is that I hear it’s difficult to read at times.
Understand. You are an american, lecturing another on moral superiority. You don’t see the hypocritical in this?
[/quote]
I’m stating we don’t have the right to do that because of past and present actions. Is that clear enough?
Absolutely not. It was an example I used to prove a point. Nothing more.
They’re doing quite well after generations of suffering. But hey, everything is “cool” now.
Okay, it wasn’t as bad because we just “continued” it. Makes sense.
My facts were straight. Our government/military said, “do what we say, or we’ll put a bullet in your head”. Whether we “continued” the behavior or not is a moot point.
The U.S. government was about third in line (behind Spain and France) in the subjugation of Haitians. The order is irrelevant.
The point with Hawaii and my other aforementioned examples are that a morally superior nation doesn’t act in that manner.
[quote]
I’m very critical of our country and it’s lack of progress. I do cheerlead against lixy, because it’s fun.[/quote]
My apologies, I haven’t seen this statements that you’ve made.
Another baseless claim. How do you know what I rely on for news or information?[/quote]
Well, since you were lecturing so hard on the value of it, I drew that inference.
And if what you say to be true, how could you possibly come to the conclusion I don’t read international media? How could you know?
Absolutely depends - is it a matter of US sovereignty? Or is it a general issue of international concern?
We can consider it, sure - your problem is you think “considering it” means agreeing with it. I can consider it thoroughly and still disagree with it 100% of the time.
Ask yourself - why are the other countries condemning Israel? What is their basis? I am not sure the US “ignores” what other countries think about Israel so much as the US disagrees with their anaylsis, assumptions, and conclusions. That is a big difference - but one you don’t seem to understand.
And one very important question - do you hold the same rule in the opposite: should the rest of the world look at what the US is saying and not dismiss it?
No they don’t - you mean to tell me that because the US once had slavery it has no moral authority to shake its finger at a backwater African nation that allows the trade of sex slaves? All because, at some point in history, we, too, had slaves?
We can’t tell the African nation “they are wrong”?
Laughable.
See above. Can we or can we not condemn nations that currently have slavery - or must we sit back and say “we can’t take a lead on the issue, we have to sit back and respect it”?
And no, I am not “playing dumb” to the events you brought - you densely act as though they speak for themselves, when they surely don’t. Your bringing up the events of slavery and Indian treatment don’t answer a question anyone is asking - the mere presence of those events in American history do nothing for your claim.
Good, because despite your wagging your tongue about your degree, I am not sure you would shed much light on the events, since you think their mere existence in history constitutes an argument that the US has no ability to take a position of moral superiority over a country that still engages in those awful acts.
Negative and a lie - I don’t dismiss international media, never have. You made that up.
I do criticize media that is passed off as “straight journalism” when it most certainly is not, but I have never once condemned something just on account of it being non-American.
Pure nonsense.
You champion Chomsky on the basis of his “documentation” when there is no doubt in my mind you haven’t checked his sources. Chomsky fattens his work with a ton of footnotes, and you instantly praise him as “legitimate” - else why would you bother bringing up “documentation” as a defense to Chomsky’s writing?
Here comes the backpedaling and qualifying. We aren’t talking about mistakes - we are talking about willful mischaracterizations. That’s propaganda, Dustin, no matter how hard it hurts to admit it.
I have never seen him attacked by “mainstream media”. Did you make that up?
An author criticizing Chomsky may have gotten something published in the mainstream media - but this “boogeyman” of the mainstream media is ridiculous. Chomsky is a fringe character who is easily dealt with by his opponents - and it is little surprise he remains on the fringe.
This is therapeutic horseshit - how about apply some common sense? How about the mainstream media ignores Chomsky because he has little to say of value and is a raging moonbat that rational people roll their eyes at?
Instead, your “hero” must have something important to say on account of being ignored. That answer makes you feel better, but it isn’t the right one.
Your little theory is more bogus conspiracy - how about just go for the answer that doesn’t involve a wicked plan to silence “people with important things to say”?
Every tried to have a debate with a Chomskyite? Wait - not possible.
Then he shares something in common with me.
“Kenneling for fire” is too generous - and critically acclaimed by who? Other, like-minded radicals? Hardly the objective, critical audience you need to get a hold of anything legitimate.
And don’t blame me because Chomsky’s media theory dissolves under even the most basic understanding of economics - blame him.
Nowhere did I claim such. Chomsky’s general theory doesn’t add up.
Buy and read whatever you like.
But Chomsky deserved to have his ox gored just like anyone else.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Yes, I’m stating historical events that suggest the U.S. isn’t much different than any other country and has no right moral authority.[/quote]
I never stated or implied that I have any moral authority (being an American citizen). You said this about me. I compared Saddam to others’ bloody actions. I do have every right to compare and contrast.
If you want to expand on that idea, by all means, go right ahead. But you cannot discount my observations - especially because of what country I live in!
Ask yourself - why are the other countries condemning Israel? What is their basis? I am not sure the US “ignores” what other countries think about Israel so much as the US disagrees with their anaylsis, assumptions, and conclusions. That is a big difference - but one you don’t
seem to understand.
[/quote]
And how do you know the U.S. is just in disagreement?
The U.S has made a habit of defending Israel, even when they (Israel) are in blatant violation of international law (UN Resolutions).
The rest of the world should do the opposite of what the U.S. tends to do within the international community: dismiss what the rest of the world says and do whatever you please.
That African nation is indeed wrong, but your cherry picking one example I gave, slavery, and ignoring the many others to make a point that doesn’t look at the big picture.
Go back and read some of my replies to Kroby. They do plenty for my claim. Hell, I didn’t even mention Vietnam or Central America.
My examples to Kroby were easily referenceable. Just because I didn’t put them in the proper American PC context doesn’t make my analysis flimsy. The U.S. government carried out these horrible events in rational and logical fashion. It doesn’t matter who did it first (France, Spain, or whoever).
You’re getting ridiculous. I never bragged about my degree. I simply pointed it out to you. Christ, anyone with a pulse can get a college degree
Any cursory knowledge of U.S. history will show that my examples easily speak for themselves. Sadly, those were just a few examples.
If the U.S. military wasn’t currently gutting Iraq and trying to get into a conflict with Iran, I might actually concede (at least some of) this moral superiority that you are arguing for.
Don’t call me a liar, you jerk-off. Is that what I half to resort to? Your childish name-calling and insults? I’d prefer just to discuss these topics, but you repeatedly resort to lame and unnecessary name calling.
I didn’t make anything up. I did say in the reply you quoted that I “assumed”. Big difference.
Because no one else documents their work (to my knowledge) as much as he does.
More of this propaganda garbage. You make this allegation while using the propaganda of the government-media to show that the Iraq war was legit.
He’s often referred to in the media by people who know nothing about him as a “Commie”, or “anti-American”.
Alan Derschowitz, in particular, loves to attack him personally.
Do you have an interview in mind where he is “easily dealt with”. I ask because I’ve never seen this happen.
More comic relief from Thunder! This is the same mainstream media who claims that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. The same mainstream media that claimed that OBL and Hussein were connected when in fact they hate each other. The same mainstream media that portrays the Israelis as the victims and Palestinians as the aggressors, when in fact, its the Israelis who dominate the Palestinians.
LOL! I role my eyes at the mainstream media.
If the MSM doesn’t give him airtime, he can’t expose their nonsense.
The MSM news shows are setup so no one can question their content. Instead of actually discussing issues we just get short little blurbs of jibberish that no one questions.
Its not a conspiracy. There been plenty written about what I just mentioned. I’m sure you just dismiss it as propaganda though.
Damn, you’re rattling off the one liners in this reply.
You began writing about political theories at age 10?
I’m not sure if they’re radicals. I didn’t google their biographies. It’s telling that you dismiss these reviewers as “radicals” though.
I think you should check out this interview. The most important interview Chomsky’s ever done.
And how do you know the U.S. is just in disagreement?[/quote]
Could it be our hyper-extensive civic audit and 24 hour discussion machine?
You mean the non-enforceable violations against Israel, that act as nothing more than “strong urging”?
It is a good thing Israel has American backing in the UN format - the UN has been nothing short of feckless apologism for some of the worst things the globe has to offer. Moreover, if the UN were “serious”, then by all means, raise the Resolution under a different Article and make it enforceable. But no such - the Resolutions are merely opportunities to sound off.
That doesn’t answer the question I asked: should the rest of the world strongly consider what the US thinks on a given subject?
How about that.
Slavery was the example you used. Further, I am well aware of the “big picture” and you still have no good explanation as to how, on balance, the US fails to have the moral capital to lead.
Incidents of bad acts aren’t enough on their face, not when measured against the lights of all the good the US has done plus understanding that bad acts are sometimes in pursuance of a greater good.
And of course, the really tough part of foreign policy that gets repeated over and over: the choice is not between something good and bad, but something bad and something worse. You don’t seem to get that unfortunate reality as it relates to some of the nasty choices the US has made, but that is more your problem than mine.
Clearly.
And anyone with a cursory knowledge will understand context, which you gloss over. Your examples don’t speak for themselves because they do not facially take away the US’ right to moral superiority, because the right to lead doesn’t belong to the perfect, it belongs to the better nation.
All you have provided is “imperfection” - that is a meaningless standard. Who is the better nation, and why?
Rattling off a list of “bad acts” doesn’t answer the above question.
What is childish about saying your claim that I dismiss international media out of hand has no basis in fact based on anything I have ever written?
That is a factual statement.
You are a sensitive thing, aren’t you?
Then you really should read more.
This is asinine. Where do you make this crap up?
When have I referenced the “propaganda of the government-media” to support the Iraq? I have referenced the NIE, UN Resolutions, Congressional resolutions, Saddams’ history of breaching resolutions and ceasefires, and my own arguments.
Try the “rage against the machine” conspiracy ad hominem on someone else. After a couple of posts, you dissolve into weird unfounded claims based on “mass media brainwashing”, etc. Can’t you argue the merits?
[quote]He’s often referred to in the media by people who know nothing about him as a “Commie”, or “anti-American”.
Alan Derschowitz, in particular, loves to attack him personally.[/quote]
Alan Dershowitz is not “the media” - he is a professor who is an opponent of Chomsky.
And Chomsky is anti-American. Your radical superhero doesn’t think we should “celebrate” 1492 - he thinks we should “pay attention to it” in the same way we pay attention to the rise of Hitler.
You tried Alan Dershowitz?
And read anything from the Wikipedia page under criticism - good place to start.
This is hilarious. OBL has stated straightaway that his contempt for our values gives rise to his animosity to us. Those are his words.
Let me guess, though - you think it is because we oppress them, or we make them poor? You are one of their useful dupes - they play you and your ilk like a tune.
Garbage - why type in such bad faith?
And where did the straight media claim this?
Arab nations nakedly attacked Israel in 1947-8. Then Arab nations encouraged Palestinians to leave in exodus, only to deny them citizenship in the Arab countries. The Palestinian crisis was manufactured as a proxy to hate and try to destroy Israel.
You demonstrate nothing but the talking points of the radical - you have made up your mind regardless of the facts.
LOL! And trust me, I “roll” my eyes at you.
Chomsky can’t expose the mainstream media’s nonsense because he has it all wrong.
The mainstream media is full of problems - unfortunately, you and your ilk aren’t qualified to make a legitimate criticism.
Chomsky doesn’t get invited onto TV because what he says isn’t news - save for a ridiculously small band of easily persuaded and impressionable wannabes who don’t think very well. Know anyone like that, do you?
Just because lots has been written doesn’t make any of it legitimate. Volume means nothing - look at Chomsky’s footnotes.
Erm, no - he and I both share contempt for his very, very dim followers.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
No they don’t - you mean to tell me that because the US once had slavery it has no moral authority to shake its finger at a backwater African nation that allows the trade of sex slaves? All because, at some point in history, we, too, had slaves?
That African nation is indeed wrong, but your cherry picking one example I gave, slavery, and ignoring the many others to make a point that doesn’t look at the big picture.
And no, I am not “playing dumb” to the events you brought - you densely act as though they speak for themselves, when they surely don’t. Your bringing up the events of slavery and Indian treatment don’t answer a question anyone is asking - the mere presence of those events in American history do nothing for your claim.
Go back and read some of my replies to Kroby. They do plenty for my claim. Hell, I didn’t even mention Vietnam or Central America.
My examples to Kroby were easily referenceable. Just because I didn’t put them in the proper American PC context doesn’t make my analysis flimsy. The U.S. government carried out these horrible events in rational and logical fashion. It doesn’t matter who did it first (France, Spain, or whoever).
[/quote]
Let me say, once upon a time in our collective past, Colonialism was the norm. Slavery was the norm. It was determined to not be immoral, by the majority of peoples (through government) inhabiting this Earth. It was business as usual.
I’m not saying it was right. It just was. To come and say it was bad NOW is an easy exercise, but it doesn’t allow you to use out of context information as an argument for the HERE AND NOW. Do you understand this?
I do not excuse the past. The human morals today have evolved. You want to judge those baser morals by today’s standards, and that is no way to debate current issues.
Take Cambodia, Viet Nam and Korea. Those are good examples. Current examples that we may enact our current standard of moral values upon. That’s comparing apples to apples - unlike 200 years ago: comparing apples to oranges.
Hell, 300 years ago, it was good to kill indians. Morally right to do, to save your skin. Yet you are judging those people with today’s standards and then transposing their faults and immorality onto today’s generation? This is eye opening. Yes, by all means, condemn the child for the father’s actions. Bravo. You’ve just pulled humanity back more than a thousand years.
