At first I thought you were silly. Then laughable. Your posts read like a bad letter to the editor of the World Marxist Review. You talk about people being blind to their ideology but do you realize how far you've gone? DO YOU? Do you realize that you've gone from presenting what you must have originally felt was a more balanced view of the situation to actually joining MacBeth in advocating Saddam's RIGHT to own nuclear weapons? To advocating that we should not be interfering in his pursuit of those weapons despite HIS agreement that he wouldn't? Do you realize that even Ritter, who quit his job and is now on the Iraqi payroll, does not support that advocacy? And then you lay this on the US? Do you realize all Saddam has to do is STOP pursuing weapons of mass destruction? How do you explain TEN YEARS of obsfucation and denial of access by Saddam? For TEN YEARS he has blocked open access. WHY? Sanctions would have been lifted LONG AGO if the UN had that access. Your advocacy is dispicable. Mainly because you are a zealot. In your rhetoric and in your advocacy. Somehow you think you are the only one who cares for children dying, and in your impotent rage you are striking out at the same source you seem to blame for everything, the US. You are garbage. You are a half wit disguised as an intellectual and peacemaker.
Hayes, use your big boy words. You crack me up.. You can write extremist threads like let's go to war with Islam all day long. How would you like it if someone wrote a thread with the repulsive title of: "If we're not at war with Judaism,why aren't we?" Go to your local library. Even in London look at the magazine the Nation. or go to thenation.com. You'll see people with views like mine. The magazine has been around for a hundred years. I'm a liberal or democratic leftist. I don't agree with your conservative political viewpoints. I know it upsets you, but you'll get over it. For the reord, I think you are very smart guy, but you need to realize that not everyone shares your views.
Glynch- thanks for posting the testimony, but could you edit it down to just one iteration? You got two there, and it's huge. So, impressive little testimony by Ritter there. Weird character- he often seems like he's running for office. He never could though, he's too quirky and weird in interviews, talks real fast. Still, after reading that it just confirms to me that he hasn't changed his tune much. It's obvious that after spending many years in Iraq he is very much against the sanctions and against war. I think people aren't differentiating enough between waging a war to enforce UN inspections and waging a war for regime change. MadMax, Ritter is very much for military force to enforce compliance with UN resolutions- go back and read his '98 interview. He was angry that the US would not use military force or the threat thereof to get Iraq to comply so the inspectors could finish their damn jobs (sounds like they were close) and lift sanctions; instead the US wanted military force for regime change. Look guys, Bush's worst nightmare is that Saddam actually complies with inspections, destroys all WMD, complies with everything, and gets the sanctions lifted. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them want this f*cker dead and gone, deposed. It was probably Bush Sr.'s greatest regret that he didn't finish the job in the Gulf War, and Clinton's, uh, second biggest regret. Bush Jr. is set on getting this done. It's all about regime change. Period. Inspections and forcing the UN to force Iraq to comply with agreements are just tools towards that. The inspections don't matter. His limited ability to produce WMD don't matter (unless he can flush them to some extremists.) What matters is getting him deposed, dead, out of there so we can get a democracy going in there, get some more stability in the region, lift those sanctions and get that Iraqi oil pumping to the west. This is what Ritter is getting so livid about. He wants to see international law being followed to the letter, get the damn job done and get the sanctions lifted. He recognizes that Saddam is an evil b*stard but feels that it's more important to get him to comply with his agreements and get the sanctions lifted than go through the bloody process of deposing him, which is most directly profitable to the west. Those of you who are still wondering why he's 'flip-flopping' on whether Iraq does or does not have WMD: Original resolutions against Iraq are quantitative in terms of determining Iraq's disarmament obligation-that is one hundred percent. But the reality is that, from a qualitative standpoint, when you judge Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction capabilities today, they have none. In terms of long-range ballistic missiles, missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, Iraq no longer has these missiles. They have been disarmed. In terms of missile production facilities, which were associated with the production of long range missiles, these facilities have either been destroyed, dismantled, or prior to the American military action in 1998under strict monitoring by the weapons inspectors. The same holds true with chemical weapons. In 1991 Iraq had one of the largest chemical weapons manufacturing establishments outside of the United States and Russia-that is the MUFANA STATE establishment. That establishment no longer exists today and all establishments that were capable of dual purpose activities, that is activities that could be modified for use in the production of chemical weapons, were subject to strict monitoring by weapons inspectors prior to December 1998. The same holds true for biology. The same holds true for nuclear. So when we talk about Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction threat, the answer is there is no weapons of mass destruction threat. ......... The point is today there are no weapons of mass destruction of any meaningful scale in Iraq and should United Nations weapons inspectors be brought back into Iraq and an effective program of monitoring put in place, monitoring which includes export-import control regimes as envisioned by the Security Council in Resolution 1051, Iraq will not be able to reconstitute these weapons. This is the reality. I don't think he's changed his tune. The original agreement was to destroy everything- if the missles were made with sheet metal and bolts, you destroy the factories that made those sheet metal and bolts, even if you could use in in building houses. If a pharmacy was capable of making WMD, you destroy it even though it makes helpful medicine. He's saying that in a qualitative view, Iraq has no true WMD threat. They've eliminated the majority of the weapons, and almost all production capability. Sure they've got something in there, but in Ritter's eyes nothing to justify war. Ritter is enraged because lifting sanctions have been only a couple of steps away for years and years. If only he could have finished his job, left a monitoring system in place, they could stop the suffering of innocents there. Instead US policy has been to press for regime change which is going to be pretty messy and bloody. Anyway, I don't want to come off as a champion for Ritter. But this whole traitor thing doesn't hold water. He expresses himself well. He makes a strong case. Personally, I don't totally agree. Yes, it's nasty and gross that the US ultimately wants regime change selfishly so that we'll have better relations to a major oil producer. But the fact is, the world would be a better place if Saddam would just die. Damn it, this is on his shoulders! It is up to him to comply, he lost the damn war, and the fact that he will let his people starve and die so that he can hold onto power is disgusting. Yes, the US may be acting selfishly, but even if they are, if justice is served, then dammit let it be so. I am not pro war, at all. I am dreading what I see as inevitable. Saddam is not going to allow the inspectors in and Bush is not going to back off from regime change. I'm praying that the us military crafts a damn good plan, has lots of help on the inside from rebel factions, and gets the job done quickly and cleanly with as little death possible.
"Advocating" and "obfuscation" are about the biggest I saw him use. Hardly MENSA level, there. If you are turned off by those, then Hayes ust really be incorrect about you wanting to write letters to World Marxist Review, lol.
I could be wrong here, rimbaud. I know I am committing a BBS sin here -- I really haven't read the thread and I'm going to comment on it anyway. As such, I am likely to be quite wrong. Please forgive. I think that glynch was reacting less to the actual use of big words and more to the patronizing tone. Many people on this board -- and especially this forum -- are guilty of talking down to one another, as though anyone who disagreed with them were idiots. When glynch says that many intelligent people share his views, he's right -- and that's what leads me to believe his complaint is less about big words and more about sanctimonious, smarty pants posting. Some examples of this bad behavior: HayesStreet, MadMax, TheFreak, you (rimbaud), and yes, my very own self, the vaunted, much respected, nigh universally ballyhooed Batman Jones. There are more, but these are the ones that come to mind. Here are some ones who usually rise above that sort of behavior: Jeff, Mrs. Jeff, Refman, FranchiseBlade and glynch (again, I haven't read most of this thread -- if I'm wrong here, again, please forgive). Heypartner fits into neither category. He is generally surly and almost always reactionary, but in his more heated posts, he somehow seems to avoid talking down to people -- even when he behaves badly elsewise. The patronization is unattractive and it demeans the level of debate that this board often achieves. It reeks of that syndrome which comes from being told too often as a child how clever and cute one was (One of Clinton's various flaws). I am ashamed for my part in it, and I hope that I sometimes brush up against the other category. It's hard to be sincerely righteous and treat people with deserved respect when discussing such passionately held beliefs. Everyone on this board handles it better than on any other board I've spent time reading. But a lot of us can do better. And now I am off to a silly, superhero themed birthday party. I'm going as Superfudge. Remember him? He was the superest. Bye.
Actually Batman, if you read through gylnch's posts, you find that he is the most guilty of indicting those who disagree with him. (E.g., if you don't agree with him here, you are 'for' killing children) It is obvious that he considers his views to be above both reproach and re-consideration since he believes that they are morally superior to all others, repurcusssions be d*mned. He also places people in neat little 'buckets'. (E.g., I don't know how many times I had to tell him that I cannot stand Sharon, but he continued to ignore me since that did not fit his 'profile' of me). You may say you feel a particular way, but he will simply ignore that and tell you what you really feel. Can you get more patronizing than that? Think what you want of gynch. I consider myself slightly right of center overall, but consider myself a moderate for the most part. I consider it imperative to listen to all views, but glynch is a patronizing fool who's approach will alienate many who would otherwise be willing to listen and learn (some) from him. Thats the reality.
Major, I'm with you that the Iraq war won't be the same as Afghanistan a year ago. If that's how my post came off, that isn't what I meant. You're giving me the impression that the Afghanistan war was easy because we let the Northern alliance do ground fighting. That was only 'easier' in a domestic politcs sense, because we weren't sacrificing a lot of our own boys in that war. Now, it's really quite incredible that we waged that war and deposed the government with so few casualties of our own. Take into account the how long it took, in the view of past wars, it's amazing. The fact is, if we did all the ground fighting with our own boys, it probably would have gone even quicker and more effectively. Many of the special ops guys said in interviews that the rebels were very undisciplined under fire, hard to work with. Not to mention someone in the rebel camp tipped Al Qaeda off to the Tora Bora thing. If you mean Afghanistan war was clean because we didn't have to get our own hands dirty in the ground war, I understand. But that's not what I mean. When I say it's clean I mean how quickly the opposition is annihilated. Wars are always better ended quickly, Iraq will be no exception. With that view, using our own guys would have been even 'cleaner'- we had the best of the best out there, raring to go. No, the Taliban is not dead. The rebuilding of Afghanistan is going slowly and is very fragile. But I think my point still stands- if we can call that a war, and it had a beginning and an end, then it was done damned quickly and cleanly, in view of what the analysts thought. I think you're also forgetting that there are significat anti-Saddam factions in Iraq just waiting for the word 'go'. How many is purely speculation- the opposition leaders in Iraq would have us believe that the whole nation would revolt if the US committed to deposing Saddam. The Iraqi govt would have us believe that they are nothing, meaningless. It's somewhere in between. You're right that the 24-hour bombing thing isn't going to work on a metropolis if you don't want high civilian casualties. Outside of that, however, having infrastructure is actualy disadvantageous. The use of special ops and intelligence to target high-accuracy bombs was so effective it could be the future of warfare, or at least a significant part of it. Afghanistan had a bunch of dudes with outdated arms that looked like all other civilians spread out over desert and mountain caves and the technique still works. Saddam has identifiable infrastructure and command posts, this will actually work against him. The Baghdad thing really does scare me. I agree with Hayes tho- even in a worst case scenario, we wait for civilians to flee and commit ground troops.
Batman, Your post is of course correct; were there some way to be emotionally detached from the argument (I used to think myself capable of this) we could all rise to the level set forth by eg, Cohen (who exemplifies someone I can disagree with, and respect him all along). In the meantime, we fail. It's pretty tragic actually. Were we all face to face, we'd all actually like one another. There's some sort of arrogance that emerges out of the bbs format. We all actually do disagree with people in a face-to-face format, and conduct lifelong relationships with people we disagree with. But, for some reason, when it is time to share opinions in this medium, many of us feel it necessary to abase our rival. Shame on us. Shame on me. Oh yeah, the reason why Jeff, Refman, FranchiseBlade and glynch are nice is because all of their opinions are absurd. They compensate for their collective naivety with smiles and what not. It's loosely comparable to the favors you get from frumpy girls.
"Use your big boy words" What you say to a small child when he gets speehless with rage and just starts screaming without making sense. I do really think that some of you get so mad at me, and if I recall dimsie, because our views differ from what you generally are exposed to. The vast majority of my attacks or gibes are aimed at conservatives or right-wingers in general. I try not to get personal unless attacked personally first, though I don't always succeed. Of course, neither do some of you. What I find strange ,and let's be honest amusing, is that many of you get so enraged if I call you a conservative or a right-winger. I don't get offended at all if you call me a liberal or a left-winger. In fact I'm proud to be one. I don't like to be called a communist, since, since I am a democrat with a small "d" and do realize that my herished freedom of speech would land me in jail in such a country. Cohen has a point about my posts not being as effective as they might be because of negative opinions toward me by many of the conservatives. Unfortunately it is a little too late to change that. Cohen is right that once a long time ago, much to my embarassment, I made a mistake and accused him of supporting Sharon. Aside from that one time I have never done that. Because I dispute him on many issues related to Israel and the Middle East I guess he still thinks I don't know he is not a Sharon supporter. Perhaps he can detail how he differs from Sharon on such issues as dealing with suicide bombers, the recent destrution of the Palestinian Authority infrastructure, obeying UN resolutions for returning the occupied territories and what to do about Sadam Hussein. etc. Good night cluthcity.
'Without making sense?' Was my post confusing? I thought is was pretty clear. Maybe you should re-read it. You have let your ideological leanings take you too far. You have done what you scorn and accuse others of doing. And I give a very specific example of that re: Saddam has a right to nukes. More of the arrogance Cohen speaks of. As if YOU somehow can take in all perspectives and then come out with the correct one. What a jerk. Similar to claiming we're 'duped' by people with 'inhumane geopolitical goals,' or that if we are interested in the 'truth' we can read your post. THE TRUTH for crying out loud. You don't allow for other perspectives when you say 'oh, here is the truth if you want to see it.' I get MAD at you and dimsie because you act as if you have cornered the market on the truth, and that you have done so because you somehow are 'exposed' to it. I am a world traveler. I read quite a bit. I have done a LOT of public policy work on a wide variety of topics both domestic and foreign. I have a degree in Philosophy and one in Political Science. I own my own business with offices in London and NY. I am a first generation American. Both of my parents have advanced degrees. My father speaks 11 languages and was born in the former Soviet Union. I grew up an Army brat, so the I have an in-depth understanding of what is at stake with military conflict. I do not think Central America means Kansas (yes that is DHH). I do not disagree with you because I am underexposed to ideas. I disagree with you because I believe you are wrong. Maybe some of us don't actually fit neatly into a box, nor do we want to. The fact that you like to be labelled, and/or revel in it in no way justifies your assumption that someone is X. And you are being disingenous anyway since you say things like "prowar neocon intellectuals who are trying to advance inhumane geopolitical goals," and you think someone is supposed to say 'YES! I am a prowar neocon advancing inhumane geopolitical goals.' The fact that you like to be called a 'leftist' on ALL issues merely shows how ideologically bound you are in comparison to others. Talk about the pot and the kettle. You views are not in line with what the middle thinks, pal. So I'm no more 'extremist' than you. And why is that title repulsive? If you have an argument then make it. I didn't say 'hey bubba, let's go shoot some of them thar Mosaleums.' Sigh. Not sharing my viewpoint is not what upsets me. Your claim to access to the 'truth' in comparison to our blind ideology upsets me. And you need to realize that those who oppose you have passion about their beliefs as well. You say "I'm not a communist" but you constantly advocate positions taken by the former USSR and other communist regimes. To me personally that is an affront as my father escaped from the former USSR. And I do mean ESCAPED. He spent three years in a refugee camp in West Germany. So I have in depth understanding of what it is like in the US and what it is like in a system like that, and what it is like to be a refugee. It burns my ass up when you and MacBeth defend Stalin and his ilk. You can certainly take that position, but don't tell me YOU know the truth and I'm someone not well read enough to recognize it. Achebe and others, yes we should all be able to exchange our views, and maybe not get hot. Usually I try to restrain myself since zingers are not well received. But sometimes you've got to standup and be counted and call a spade a spade without the niceties of normal discourse. Rimbaud, I was thinking about you actually when I posted last night. I was going to say I didn't know where he got de gaulle to say some of those things, but being flippant was not the mood. Batman, 'ballyhooed' is a great word. I though I was the only one who used it anymore.
Hayes, you know about a week ago I got tired of some posters with a pretty conservative line on the issues we have been discussing, who keep calling me a "brick" or a mindless ideologue or whatever. At that time I almost gave you as an example of a person with a consistently conservative approach to the same issues, who generally refrained from excessively personal attacks. "Calling a spade a spade". I guess your aren't arrogant or think you have the truth. Let's both agree that we are passionate about the issues, somewhat arrogant and believe we largely have the right answers or the "truth". I can appreciate your anti-communism. I consider myself to be a leftwing anti-communist as in left wing social democrat. I'm against Sadam or anyone including the US having nuclear weapons. Fighting increasingly bloody wars against anyone we don't like who tries to build these weapons, in part due to countries like the US, and Israel threatening others with nukes to get their way, is in my mind a dangerous losers's game. You know. Screw it. I think I'll let some of you guys agree with yourselves for awhile.
I wish someone would call me a conservative. Or a communist. That would be fun. Hayes - you are a tool. glynch - why do you act as if those "on the other side" from you have never heard your arguments before? Do you really think that they are that unique? Do you really think that Hayes doesn't know about The Nation? I do think that your tendency towards speaking as if you have some kind of access to universal truths that conservatives don't have (if they did, after all, they would agree with you). There is nothing wrong with thinking that you are right, but acting as if it is supported by some kind of metaphysical existence is a little kookie. Did you know that conservative new organizatins (all media) twist the "truth" to fit their agendas? Did you know that liberal ones - such as The Nation - do that as well? I like The Nation, by the way, for some of its cultural/academic writings... Anyway, open your eyes, man. Do not enslave yourself to the dogma to the extent that you cannot think for yourself. If you let go, then you might understand better. I don't mean this as rude, so don't take it that way. You might be inclined to feel that way because no one has ever said such things to you, but try to be open about it.
Ironic (ironical), isn't it. This seems to be what liberals-- well, liberals, and me-- hate so much about Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz and the like. That attitude-- the sigh, roll your eyes, you'll be smart enough to understand it someday when you're as learned as I am-- is the whole reason I started listening to NPR. It has an ideological slant opposite of mine, no question. But if I had to listen to one more person call KLBJ-590AM in Austin to say, "The problem with (xxxxxx) is that the big-government liberals want America to fail so they can inductify communism into our schools", I would have been forced to jerk my car into oncoming traffic and kill myself. And yes, I have been as guilty of this as anyone in the past. I would like to think it has been a while since I've adopted that posture. It's definitely something I work on.
Rimbaud: this is a really condescending post on your part. You mean not just conservatives have biases. Wow! Insight! How about yourself? Unfortunately we have seen condescension as a hallmark of many of your posts on a great many issues. Good to see that you have decided to join the attack the messenger, not the message school of arguing. I hope your bandwaggoning makes you popular. This type of political skill often goes a long way. I cited the Nation somewhat sarcastically as a common publication, available in virtually the smallest library, after being accused of having ,as you do, "kookie"or exceedingly rare views. You know at times I have play acted arrogant, bated by using expressions like "right wingers" and used words like the "truth" tongue in cheek and have employed sarcasm in many of my posts. I would have though a finely attuned, playful, philosophically detached (give me the latest buzz word) mind like yours might have realized this. Last post of this kind for a while. I am going to try to be less sarcastic, but I'm not sure you will all of a sudden be happy wih my posts. Have at it guys. You can take free shots without a response!!
glynch, Let me see if I can help you understand the difference. Two sides disagree, both think they are right, both are passionate. Great. Now one side says 'since you don't agree with me, you obviously are in favor of children being murdered. I am obviously more empathetic than you, I am morally superior to you, I am better than you.' Both sides are very concerned about children, but may disagree with which opinion results in the fewest deaths in the long run, yet one side says 'I'm personally better'. That's how you come across.
Yes, that was the point. I guess you missed the fact that I was doing the same to you that I was criticizing you for doing to others? No clue as to what you are saying. My post had nothing to do with politics...it was just an exercise to help you "see." Bandwagoning? Quick - what are my political views? Do you even know? Way off, my friend...you don't get it. Lol, your belittling words hurt. Your play acting is no match for my critique. What does that even mean...do you think I know? It just sounded good and pompous. I don't know any buzzwords...I thought only you democrats used them. I use what is called "jargon" that little people don't understand. See, it is an elitist tactic to ensure that the "outsiders" can never come in. Mean, isn't it? Then when people hear things such as "the gulf war did not take place" or read something that says there is no meaning while being written in a way that makes no sense...they just get confused and come to the wrong conclusions. Waste of time, don't you think? No fair - mean "anti-rimmy" responses are what I live for! I will give you a head start - a laundry list of negatives: rimmy is: 1. annoyingly arrongant 2. insecure - the arrogance is just a facade to cover for the fact that he is genuinely insecure/needing attention/shallow. Truth is that he is unhappy with himself but projects it onto others. 3. elitist 4. not funny, but thinks he is 5. talks down to EVERYBODY 6. only knows what people tell him - and only knows it superficially? 7. posts old term papers that other people wrote in order to make himself sound smarter 9. can't count 10. has social anxiety disorder 12. is good looking (that is an insult, right?) 13. wants to be liked by heypartner 14. is the most hated poster on the bbs 15. never finishes what he starts 16.
<blockquote>Originally posted by Achebe Batman, Your post is of course correct; </blockquote>sheesh Achebe. BJ wasn't talking to you. I don't see your name anywhere in that post. Jealous again that you are forgotten it seems, so you toss in some rips just to be noticed. At least you don't resort to using mad and grumpy emoticons, but you still are pathetically dismal and devoid of meaning....in an ASCII art kinda way. .!.. ..!. and Batman Jones. You can only write that post *once* per BBS career. You write it again, and you get tagged as a hopelessly addict of ripping people who r.e.a.l.l.y. feels bad about it after your morning coffee, like a surly old Pollyanna after raising a family only to have her husband leave her for a 21yr old slut who gives great blowjobs--and if you can't imagine that, then picture Martha Stewart with a hangover. Unless you are a Pollyannic-superhero, just put your head down and break through the barrier of worrying about sensitivities of posters who are wrong (and *worse* trying to be a superman mediator on behalf of those who got their feelings hurt by words)--instead of apologizing, just make them laugh another day, in another topic.
The thing I hate most about all of this is that if Bush does go ahead with invading Iraq, he is going to have to drop out of the UN. If that happends, I wouldn't be suprised if the UN starts to gather forces to stop the US. The UN was created to keep peace, and to help keep super powers, like Hitler, from taking power. If they see that Bush is doing this for his own reasons and not for those of the world, I have no idea what might come of this. I just hope that Bush doesn't do anything too stupid... again.
