Deadbeater, the abyss set between you and us seems unlikely to be bridged: can't any of you get it through your heads how inherently, necessarily good and noble it is to destroy dictatorships and dictators, replacing them with democracies? Honestly. Anyone who can't see how much evil and oppression and poverty we can eliminate this way is missing quite a bit of his frontal lobes. When the last dictator is hanged on the entrails of the last national chief of secret police, how much misery will have fled the world? None here make answer, strangely enough.

The neocons are hardly evil: they want to propagate democracy (even if they're a bit more statist than I like, but in politics half a loaf, etc.) and as such must be regarded as friends of all mankind. Now there are a lot of ill-founded shitheads screaming at this, but that's because they're fascist sympathizers, deep down. I have no fascist sympathy whatsoever anywhere in my being, and for this nobility of mind I am dissed by troglodyte cryptofascists and quasibarbarians, who have the mad effrontry to imagine themselves virtuous. Damnation to the lot of them who are such, along with Hitler, Stalin, Mao the psychopath, and Pol Pot. They're keeping evil company and haven't the foggiest idea of the depth of their sins.

Dar, I will thank you to drop that silly idea: I said stymie and stymie is what I mean. Whatever you do, do not lie to me about what I say unless you particularly want me to skin you alive and sew your hide back on backwards with red baseball thread. Lying to me about what I said all because you have a foundationless opinion makes me very angry.

Our foes must be defeated. That is truly supporting the troops, rather than that feeble lipservice the Democratic Party gives the idea. That lot is visibly looking for a way to both lose the Iraq campaign and blame the Iraqis for it, and Christ it makes me tired.

The Left has lost its honored place, true enough.

Give me a specific case where the mistreatment of these prisoners has had the direct result of drawing the conflict in Afghanistan or Iraq to a positive conclusion. Then I might agree that the word is 'stymie'. However I will never agree that torture of a human being is worth 'stymieing'.

Ah. So we should torture the enemy so that we can protect our American freedom? Would that be the freedom to threaten to torture me? Or would that be my freedom of speech that you would like to curtail by threatening me?

I think you would benefit from an anger management class.

There's a lotta things I think UG would benefit from. Would he ever do them? No way.

Trust me on this one - it's not worth it. You've been here longer than me... but still, take my word for it, you'll feel a lot better for simply ignoring UG and letting his obvious contradictions and cognitive dissonance go by uncorrected. It's not worth the argument and the belittling he'll throw at you.
Just walk away. I've been proud of myself this last batch of UGism; I've hardly responded at all. Give it a try, dar.

Wow, you're in rare form today, UG. You completely crack my shit up!! :lol:

I understand your point, Ibram. And I agree that UG is unlikely to change his mind from anything he reads here. But sometimes you have to speak out.

The point is not to win. The point is to learn - to better grasp - a mindset behind people such as Cheney, Project for a New American Century, and others with a political agenda so strong as to pervert reality.

Those same UG attitudes were more overtly expressed on American streets during Nam. The expression "The whole world is watching" occurred because UG types had to cure Americans of their 'subversive political views' – with billyclubs.

Appreciate the opportunity to learn. UG is not an exception. He more bluntly expresses an attitude probably found in at least 20% of Americans today. Those others will not speak up when it is politically incorrect. But I suspect that 20% number does properly represent how many fully agree with UG's spirit.

The point is not to win. The point is to appreciate another perspective and the reasoning that justifies that opinion. UG is not the exception in America.

Ahem, haven't you recall that I favored getting Saddam out? However, Bush botched even that, pulling off the impossible: making Saddam a sympathetic guy, and turning Bush into an anarcho-fascist. That's right, I said it. Bush turned into an anarcho-fascist, by ruling over only the oil fields, and leaving the rest of the country to rot.

What a sweetie. UG, Dar didn't lie, he reinterpreted your words and posited a potential and, in the view of many, better and more apposite term for what you were describing. That isn't lying, it's engaging in debate.

tw, please, I read the cellar before bed, are you trying to give me night terrors? :P


I'm guessing not. Oh I hate that argument, it's logic is so twisted it makes a helter skelter look straight forward. We get that here too, amongst some of the right wingers (even the right wingers who've hijacked the left wing parties :P). A friend of mine (an ex MP) has spent her entire life campaigning for human rights; supported the dissident Iraqi trade unionists who sought asylum in my country; lobbied for greater support of those trade unionists and political radicals who were persecuted by Saddam; visited Halabja in support of the Kurds.

She was vehemently opposed to the war. Still, even now, with all that's happened and all the death and destruction which has rained down on that country, the right will accuse her of supporting Saddam. Usually it's a sideways swipe: "Not all of us were against the war ****, some of us are happy Saddam's gone". The two are not mutually exclusive no matter how much someone may try to argue that they are. One could be entirely against the war without being a supporter of Saddam. One could be wholly against Saddam and be active in the struggle, without being in favour of the invasion.

There's a word for that kind of logic...my mind's gone blank though and I can't think of it (tired, tough meeting tonight :P). I'd be very grateful if one of you excellent and eloquent debate hounds could tell me what word I'm looking for :P

Coulter.

hahahahah thanks Bruce.

False dichotomy?

Coulter works, though.

*shakes head* it's a single word. God, I hate that. I hate it when words escape dammit. I much prefer it when they're locked safely in my head where I can reach them at will....little bastards...

Bifurcation?

Heh! now this is some funny shit.

No, I don't recall, but if I missed that, I do apologize. In my defense, I don't believe it's ever come up in anything we've said to each other.

What? Bush did not make Saddam into an sympathetic figure -- because as you said, it's impossible. Sure, he has his fans in Tikrit, just as he always did, but does anyone give weight to that lot of fascist-symp creeps? This if anything is some unreality put out by the lunatic fringe on the America-must-lose left. As for "botched," Saddam is dead, dammit, which is not "botched" by any rational standard I've ever heard of. Nor is there any such thing as an "anarcho-fascist," as a bit of thought will tell you these terms are about as mutually exclusive as may be imagined. Try imagining somebody ordering you to, fascistically, nationalize major industries but to have no government -- over which he shall not-rule? It collapses of its own absurdity. What on Earth are you doing buying any of this?

Frankly, our effort around any of the oil fields isn't getting any coverage from anybody, either cable news or network. I would hesitate to believe we're doing anything in particular. Even the opposition in Iraq seems to think blowing up pipelines is passe'. And if you're only getting your knowledge of the Iraqi theater of operations through the likes of the New York Times and their fellow travelers, whose bias against George Bush is beyond all reason and so far as I can see without any merit, of course you're not going to be informed about Iraq at all.

An unbelief in the legitimacy of Republican Presidents such as the Times' editorial staff evinces is not worthy editorial policy, but a sort of disgusting spasm. Comes of having too many modern Democrats in journalism, no doubt -- JFK would have thought the current lot a bunch of idiots. No wonder circulation is declining and more conservatively inclined news outlets are growing and being increasingly trusted. They are the ones getting it right.

This is because frankly none of the opposing ideas put forth here have been good enough to persuade me to adopt them. I don't buy shoddy goods -- and speaking against destroying fascist autocracies is about as shoddy as it comes, am I right? Therefore, I speak out, to show you the enlightened, prodemocracy, prohuman way. Anti-fascist/anti-communist can hardly help but be pro-human, can it?

Funny how much goddam fighting I get from people whose sympathies should not lie with foreign fascists, yet too apparently do, and for the silliest of rationalizations. It was crap in the Sixties with the New Left's fascisto-communist sympathies and it's not improved forty years on. Superannuated, obsolete crap is crap cubed. You should be ashamed of your antidemocracy sympathies, you know. Well -- now you know. I observe that Leftism tends to prevent certain understandings.

I see what I said still stands: throughout this page, "none here make answer, strangely enough." Lots of scrabbling around the side-issues, which tells me I'm getting through to those who once were blinkered.