A Few Thoughts on Iraq

joeyjojo wrote:

while at the same time spewing things like 'wellstone is dead...get over it'

They actually say that in Minnesota? I'd think the Republicans there would be too busy trying to fix their budget problems than worry about that.

And where did someone mention Native Americans?

""Inane" = constructive criticism? "

in·ane
adj. in·an·er, in·an·est

One that lacks sense or substance.

Take it as an insult. Take it as constructive criticism. Or take it for what it was: an observation of the comment you made in response to another.

"They actually say that in Minnesota?"

Oh, we have bumperstickers that say that!

"And where did someone mention Native Americans? "

That was me. I was trying to bring some perspective to the whole 'evil countries vs. holier than thou' countries. People forget that we have blood on our hands too in this country.

IMHO, of course. ;o)

joeyjojo wrote:

Music Man, the native american argument always meets that response...'It's the past...it's irrelevant...why dwell on it...'?

I big problem with US citizens is our total lack of understanding of our own history. Hell, the history of the continent for that matter. It clouds our ability to see the big picture for what it is. We tend to lack perspective. Both in terms of historical context and worldly contexxt. The US is not some amazing shining example of a great country that is untouchable by the rest of the planet's nations. We forget that. We tend to get overly patriotic. We turn nationalistic. And then think we're holier than though. And then we do stupid things. ;o)

The saving grace is that we're quick to forget the stupid things and go on as nothing happened.

I understand where you are coming from. The abuse of Native Americans you speak of is truthful...it is fact. However, there are two types of fact...relevant fact and irrelevant fact. A good debater or moderator can immediately identify irrelevant points another is making to promote his ideas. I won't get into this whole nationalistic mess, because I think it is indefinite and critical at the same time. I fully understand the Native American issue, and I have a basic knowledge of United States history. That is not the issue. The fact is that the current administration has done nothing that is even remotely touches this issue. The whole debate is about the current administration, right? We cannot change or influence what has happened in the past (the very distant past, mind you). This debate is concerning what we can and will do to mold the future. It is acknowledged that what happened 300 years ago was wrong. That does not make it hypocritical of us as Americans to acknowledge such wrongdoings in other countries and criticize them. Major reasoning to this is because not a single American alive today has had anything to do with what happened then, and most acknowledge it as wrong, and thus we do our best to prevent it wherever it rears its ugly head.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Joey - suppose you are talking about Jingles. He made one semi-decent point in this whole topic and I responded to it.

I do not regret taunting Jingles. Jingles was not shy about hurling insults (and not just at me).

"You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question."

Should I respond with an insult in kind?

What insults?

Just because I said this is going to be a... "LONG, LONG, LONG, FUCKIN THREAD." I wasn't insulting Sara Jane, Bullwinkle or anyone on this board.

Bullwinkle on the other hand did more by responding with insults when he called me "wisdomless", and then he questions my mental ability.

Talk about being wise for God's sake.

This is where Sarah Jane responds to Jingles' insults that set the tone for later responses to this topic and the "Bush for President" topic:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

Prepare for a long long long fuckin' thread.

Anyone who thinks that Bush is doing right choices when it comes to terrorism should read the '9/11 Comission Report' or Richard Clarke's 'Against All Enemies'. Which I need to mention that Richard Clarke is not a liberal or a democrat trying to bring Bush down for political purposes, but by exposing true facts without taking sides on the political spectrum.

After that, tell me if you still believe that Bush is our brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic commander in chief.

And you think that Clinton was doing a better job?

I agree that Bush was not doing all he could prior to 9/11: had he gotten off his ass and done what he is doing now in Iraq and had taken the Taliban out of power, there is a good chance 9/11 would have not happened.

HOWEVER, you seem to find no problem lambasting Bush's decisions both then and now - you sarcastically talk about Bush not being "brave, encouraging, determined, and patriotic", well what the fuck would you prefer him to do? Do YOU have any brillant suggestions for him? If not, stop spouting rhetoric, get your head out of your ass and think about something for once in your life.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread.

Was I offending anyone?

How can I be offended by wisdomless youth that is still wet behind the ears. When you hit thirty maybe you will wise up and become Republican.

*blinks a few times*

So all liberals, Democrats, and people who don't agree with you are just too young and stupid to know better, is that right?

You go on about how Dan and Sarajane set the tone for this thread - take a look at yourself sometime. It's clear that you respect the opinions of the other people on this board about as much as I respect the musical contributions 1910 Fruitgum Company.

Somehow Sara and I manage to have regular conversations without ending up at each other's throats over this. Even though politically, we agree on just about squat. Perhaps its because we don't feel the need to act like Bill O'Reilly half the time. Don't go around sticking your nose up in the air just because you were born earlier.

Well, obviously a person is only as good as his or her age. ;-)

I apologize for implying that most young people are wisdomless and stupid.

"The fact is that the current administration has done nothing that is even remotely touches this issue. The whole debate is about the current administration, right?"

I think you're reading too far into my comment. It's a rebuttal against the mindless excuse for invading Iraq...that Saddam was evil. It implies that we're a angel of a country that was justified in invading a devil of a company.

It's about toning down the arrogant nationalism that the far right relies on to justify its status as the bully of the planet.

But I agree, there are plenty of more contemporary example of blood on our hands than the Native American Genocide. Probably wasn't the best example to use.

"That does not make it hypocritical of us as Americans to acknowledge such wrongdoings in other countries and criticize them."

Not at all. I agree. I'm just saying it's so very wrong to over-simplify such serious issues as the invasion of a nation down to a black-and-white 'we're the greatest nation in the world' vs. 'saddam is evil and hates freedom'.

Which is pretty much exactly what Bush did in his debate last night.

" I apologize for implying that most young people are wisdomless and stupid. "

Now apologize for insinuating that the only 'smart' people over 30 are republican.

;o)

(Just giving you grief...;o)

joeyjojo wrote:

I'm just saying it's so very wrong to over-simplify such serious issues as the invasion of a nation down to a black-and-white 'we're the greatest nation in the world' vs. 'saddam is evil and hates freedom'.

Which is pretty much exactly what Bush did in his debate last night.

Yep... Kerry definitely kicked ass. Bush looked more nervous than a nun in a porn flick.