Brits: how much do you hate Americans

[imprint]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A Libertarian has to ask if replacing a dictator with a broadbased, representative government is better? Astounding. How does one account for this? Are you troubled at the turbulence of this watershed period in Iraq's history? I'm not, especially not when the pro-totalitarian insurgents aren't persuading the rest of Iraq to go back into the thrall of a dictatorship.

Urbane Guerrilla has it. this simple universal ideal is easy to follow: a government elected by the people is best FOR the people. to deny this to anyone in the world is a crime in itself and if we must be the ones to fix it, then we should be willing to take on the challenge. (we are, after all, one of the few powers in this world that has the ability to step up to the mission!) we would be so much better off if our country had manned up enough in the 90s to take care of so many of the world's problems. our problems today i assure you, would be almost nothing if the last "president" had done his job.

the sad part is that "pro-totalitarian insurgents" seems to have spread to "opinionated american leftists". i swear that there are more people in our country that want the dictatorship to return. it is disgusting. are you against this war? try LIVING in one of these countries we are working hard to free. you would change your mind in a heartbeat, i'm sure.

Hillary in office? best laught i've had allll day.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A Libertarian has to ask if replacing a dictator with a broadbased, representative government is better? Astounding. How does one account for this? Are you troubled at the turbulence of this watershed period in Iraq's history? I'm not, especially not when the pro-totalitarian insurgents aren't persuading the rest of Iraq to go back into the thrall of a dictatorship.

There is one country I'm concerned with, the United States of America. You stupidly argue for totalitarianism here, while deluding yourself into believing you hold the high moral ground because you want to kill Arabs. One day you idiots will wake up with another nut job Democrat in the White House and piss and moan about rule of law and I'll be there with you but I'll know you have no conscience.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by imprint

Urbane Guerrilla has it. this simple universal ideal is easy to follow: a government elected by the people is best FOR the people.

Sweet Lord, theres two of them now. Anyway, I don't recall the Iraqi people electing GWB as the person they wanted to start a 'crusade', invade their country, and kill 10,000 or more civilians in order to 'free' them.

Noone claimed the invasion was about freedom. The invasion was about non-existent WMD's, or possibly oil, or possibly military bases. Noone voted to free the Iraqi people by bombing them.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

There is one country I'm concerned with, the United States of America. You stupidly argue for totalitarianism here, while deluding yourself into believing you hold the high moral ground because you want to kill Arabs. One day you idiots will wake up with another nut job Democrat in the White House and piss and moan about rule of law and I'll be there with you but I'll know you have no conscience.

I weep for you, Griff. I really do. You're right, of course, but in a heroically tragic way. I'm so sorry. *shakes head*

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well hell, RichL, the last national election they had before we got there only had Saddam on the ballot. Removal of Saddam as a ballot choice seems not to have inspired any Ba'athist support.

Yeah, Griff's more selfish than I think a Libertarian ought to be -- that's the chief friction point we two have. It seems to me self-evident that a libertarian country is going to prosper better in an at least generally libertarian world, and just as self-evident that human liberty is not inherently the exclusive property of the United States. Call it a PNAC influence on my thinking if you wish, though PNAC basically just says a lot of the kind of things I've been thinking for some time. Griff, I think, is drinking too much of Radar's Kool-Aid.

Now for Griff's other point, what I argue for is winning the war, not totalitarianism at home. The two are not to be confused. I argue for the chainsawing of totalitarians who assail us, without the least reference to their ethnicity. That they are totalitarians is enough, for this libertarian heart.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you mean around in person, which is how I took it, then I would absolutely not debate with you face to face. Your overbearing, insulting, bullyish tone is only barely bearable in text form, and would be impossible to deal with in person.

So you're still scared of setting forth your weak ideas in opposition to my strong ones. Perhaps you'd manage a little more bravery if you adopted better ideas.

Possible sources for these, which I dip into from time to time: National Review, American Spectator, any of Ann Coulter's books though not necessarily her columns -- these are at least provocative if nothing else; Commentary, about anything relevant from Regnery Publishing House -- at least for seeing how the other half of America thinks; sundry other books such as J. Neil Schulman's Stopping Power, and Stephen P. Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed. Anything by Robert Heinlein, from his early juveniles to his late adult stuff. Possibly the Bible as well -- even the most secular person can sift some useful philosophy from these tales. You don't have to be superstitious to get it.

Since you can't much impeach my substance, you decide to object to my tone. Not unexpected, but if you want not to be overborne, the remedy is simple: don't write fatuity. That's really the only thing I expect or demand from anyone here. And don't complain if and when I call you on it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

So you're still scared of setting forth your weak ideas in opposition to my strong ones.

That's what I had been doing, until you started your "oooh, you're so scared" routine. But congratulations, you've worn me out through attrition. I'm not going to respond to every single time you post the exact same "strong" ideas. If you look back, I suspect you'll find I already have responded to them the last time you said the exact same thing.

[elSicomoro]

Well, you ARE a big pussy and all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Mother's, don't let your babies grow up to be UGs.

[monster]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Mother's, don't let your babies grow up to be UGs.

No chance of that ... I'm British!

[xoxoxoBruce]

What? There's no UGs in Briton?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What? There's no UGs in Briton?

Jingoismwas invented in England.

The term originated in Britain, introduced by Irish music-hall singer G. H. MacDermott at the London Pavilion during the diplomatic crisis of 1878, when Britain's Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli convinced the Tsar to retreat from Bulgaria, restoring it and Macedonia to Ottoman rule. The chorus of a song by MacDermott and G. W. Hunt commonly sung in pubs at the time gave birth to the term. The lyrics had the chorus: <dl><dd>We don't want to fight</dd><dd>But, by Jingo, if we do,</dd><dd>We've got the ships,</dd><dd>We've got the men,</dd><dd>We've got the money, too.

</dd></dl>

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What? There's no UGs in Briton?

The British National Front shares some similarities with Libertarians, but some of their agenda makes Libertarians--and Republicans--look incredibly good.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Rich, don't be too chary of jingoism -- the witless Left uses it as a swearword to apply to anyone to the right of Hillary at her most pseudohawkish (no, I don't trust her hawk cries -- she's posing) on the assumption that they can con anyone into believing that anybody patriotic must also be mindless. What gets the Left sandbagged frequently is their habit of assuming what ain't so -- and then they get left in the dust with their pants around their ankles, irrelevant and ineffectual again.

Not wanting to be irrelevant or ineffectual, I've adopted -- from, oh, about age eight -- a different kind of philosophy of life. Carrying on about "jingoism" says more about the speaker than the recipient. The dorks for whom all patriotism is blind or irrational -- these people have absolutely nothing to contribute, and should really move to the caves of Tora Bora in pursuit of the Secret of Life. They could use a life, let alone a secret.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The dorks for whom all patriotism is blind or irrational

You've got it wrong. It's not that all patriotism is blind or irrational. It's that blind or irrational patriotism is bad.