[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duncan: "This passion is also leading you (and Barabara, and others here) to support a man (George W. Bush) who is clearly a 'lesser of two evils' choice, simply because of his position w.r.t. Iraq & Al Qa'eda."

I can't say that I HATE Saddam or bin Laden, as you suggest. I have more a feeling of revulsion -- as one would feel at seeing a cockroach slithering across the floor. Nor is my opposition to Saddam and bin Laden the sole reason for my support of George W. Bush; it is a significant reason, but his positions on such issues as privatizing Social Security and Medicare and lowering taxes are also extremely relevant to my support. It is not passion that determines who I support and who I do not; I hope it is my intellectual positions that creates the passions I do indeed feel.

Barbara




Post 21

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


George: "The irony is that Linz and I share nearly the IDENTICAL positions on the War on Terror, as well as many other issues."

I belong to the same club.

Barbara



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara - my apologies if I have insulted you, or Lindsay for that matter.

What I don't get is that there isn't a single thing going for G.W. that *isn't* going for Badnarik (Badnarik would also privatise Social Security & Medicare, as well as slash taxes), and Badnarik would go further, e.g. he would minimalise Government to defense, justice & foreign policy, whereas G.W. most assuredly would not, and has been doing quite the opposite of late.

So, my original assertion still stands - Bush's policy on the war against Iraq (& 'terror' in general, although it would be better labelled for what it is, a war against Islamic & other anti-American fundamentalism) *must* outweight all the other things in favour of Badnarik over Bush in order for either you or Lindsay to support him. Lindsay has already said as much here on SOLO.

These things outweighed include reducing the size of Government, secularising Government, privatising all but legitimate Government services, deregulating marriage, education, healthcare, broadcasting ...

To quote Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Are you sure that you & Lindsay aren't doing exactly that?



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz wrote:
Well then, fuck off. If you're sickened by my standing by western civilisation, on my own site, where I am not beholden in any way to snivelling hand-wringing appeasing creeps like you, then I am sickened by you. So go.


"As an advocate of reason, egoism, and capitalism, I seek to reach the men of intellect - wherever such may still be found"

- Ayn Rand


Objectivism has nothing to gain and everything to lose by objectivists hurling insults at objectivists. "Men of intellect" will certainly not be "reached" by this kind of discourse.

The irony is, I actually side with Mr. Perigo and Ms. Branden in defending the war in Iraq.

Ms. Branden, I commend you for maintaining cool civility even in the most fiery flamefests, and for your defense of Chris and Matthew despite their difference in your opinion on the subject of Iraq.

Mr. Perigo, this is your site, yes; but Matthew is his own person. He has done enough for objectivism to feel safe that his dignity should not be trespassed so callously, especially over a matter of dispute where both are third parties (neither you nor Matthew are responsible for Bush's decisions or Bin Laden's or Saddam's). I most certainly hope this is simply another one of your "tired and emotional" or "FreeRad labor pains" posts. Sleep over it and rectify your mistake, as you have done so in the past. I trust that your reason will still prevail when your passion has cooled.

Orion, men of reason, when wronged, seek justice, not pleasure. There is nothing in objectivist ethics where you will find a defense for your "ethical sadism". Your elaborate and perverse fantasies belie your claim that your stand is "reluctant". How can reluctance be taken with so much relish?

(Apologies to George for inadvertently repeating his phrase... "The irony is...", I started writing my reply with Mr. Moore [Post 16], being last. not realizing the torrent of responses that followed. I'm too tired now to edit a turn of phrase.)



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Duncan "Barbara - my apologies if I have insulted you."

You didn't insult me, Duncan.

You say: "What I don't get is that there isn't a single thing going for G.W. that *isn't* going for Badnarik."

Except that Badnarik couldn't possibly get elected -- and in view of some of his ideas, that's a good thing. And even if he were elected, have you forgotten that Congress still exists, and would make impossible the reforms he wants? Bush recognizes what is possible in today's America and what is not -- and limiting government to defense, courts, and the police, is most certainly not.

It is not, as you suggest, "temporary safety" that I'm after, although a bit of that would be very pleasant. It's the destruction of terrorism. And it is not "essential liberty" that I'm prepared to give up; it's the utopian wish that we can do better than George W. Bush in America 2004.

Barbara



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barabara,

Are we talking about the same George W. Bush here?

> Bush recognizes what is possible in today's America and
> what is not -- and limiting government to defense, courts,
> and the police, is most certainly not.

Bush has, in office, expanded the role of Federal Government - he hasn't reduced it at all, even in the ways acceptable to mainstream America. He has increased Government funding at a greater rate than did the Clinton administration, even allowing for expenditure related to the War on Terror:
According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.

- Cato Institute
He has socialised *more* of medicine through the Medicare reforms:
The Medicare law will provide about 40 million seniors with a prescription drug card beginning this year that could net savings of 15 percent to 25 percent. Beginning in 2006, seniors will be able to enroll in a Medicare drug plan or join a private health insurance plan offering drug coverage.

But the law's afterglow faded fast once lawmakers learned it could cost at least $100 billion more than the $395 billion over 10 years that the White House claimed. That revelation in late January riled budget hawks who had said they wouldn't vote for a measure that cost more than $400 billion.
- Detriot Free Press
He has illegally suspended habeus corpus:
Schumer and Ashcroft may believe that due process protections don't apply to people accused (but not convicted) of aiding America's enemies, but the Constitution doesn't agree. Under Article 1, Section 9, the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only by an act of Congress, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

- Free Market Network
He has attempted to shoehorn Christian law into the Constitution (my emphasis below):
For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.

- The Whitehouse
Bush is not a friend of Liberty - he is, at best, a better choice than John Kerry as a presidential candidate.

Rest assured, there is no mainstream candidate who will act to increase, rather than reduce, your freedoms. Bush's record as President has clearly shown he is happy to increase the size, scope, and cost of Government, as well as interfere with the private lives of American citizens, regardless of the legality of any of his actions. Kerry has stated, in advance of the election, that he'll do worse.

Why, oh why, do people here keep lauding Bush? The man is evil, out and out evil - the only thing going for him is that his enemies (Al Qa'eda, Hussein, the Taleban) happen to be ours, for the time being.





Post 26

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'll tell you why Bush appeals to people.

He understands a moral absolute when he sees one. That is also why he's so hated.

Everything else you've pointed out? Mere details.




Post 27

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 4:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Recognition of moral absolutes is only of value if the ethics by which you operate are sound, and if you apply those moral absolutes to your own life.

Bush operates by a flawed ethical system based around Christian fundamentalism, and he fails to apply those ethics consistently.

Can you provide me of a moral absolute Bush has recognised which is both ethically correct and which he applies to his own actions with something even *approaching* consistency?



Post 28

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, as a matter of fact I can.

On 11 September 2001 a group of life-hating scum murdered 3000 people. Bush knew enough about right and wrong to know that was wrong. Kerry, and those of his ilk, do not.

The worst you could say about Bush is that he hasn't necessarily made the best strategic options since, although I think not. But actually his response has not only been totally consistent, but totally ethical as well.

(It's a huge mistake incidentally, to think that people can only act morally if they have taken on the whole canon of Objectivism. The basic knowledge of right from wrong is a lot simpler than that).



Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 6:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually Tim, I don't think Kerry & those of his ilk have failed to recognise their actions as wrong, some of them in fact endorse them as moral. For starters, nothing ranks as high in altruist circles as *actual* self-immolation. I think you're being too kind to them.

In the case of 9/11, Bush correctly identified the excrement in human form responsible as wrong. It's sad, but in this day and age, that was a rare and corageous position for a politician to take.

His immediate reaction to the act of war comitted by Afghanistan, in openly harbouring Al Qa'eda, was correct - but it was an illegal war, as he didn't seek a Congressional mandate, just like he didn't for the war in Iraq.

Recently, he's been accepting envoys from Gadaffi, and he's not done anything about Iran, Syria, or North Korea (the latter of which is armed with nukes, a provocative but ultimately useful decision to make).

He's given recognition to the terrorist leadership that is the P.L.O. / Hamas, and continues to fight the 'war on drugs' that is in fact funding the very terrorists the 'war on terror' is supposed to be exterminating, while imprisoning millions of innocent Americans.

Yes, his recognition of the evil of Al Qa'eda and their ilk places him head and shoulders above Kerry as a Presidential Candidate.

*But* he doesn't deal consistently with despots & terrorism, and he didn't make war against Afghanistan or Iraq legally, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and he didn't suspend habeas corpus legally either.

All of his actions to date, including the invasion of Afghanistan by virtue of how he accomplished it, have *worsened* the American position w.r.t terrorism, and harmed the freedom enjoyed by American citizens.

Have you read 1984? Are you familiar with the slogan "War Is Peace"? Do you not see that the "War On Terror" is just Bush's higher-stakes replacement for the "War On Drugs"?

> (It's a huge mistake incidentally, to think that people
> can only act morally if they have taken on the whole canon
> of Objectivism. The basic knowledge of right from wrong
> is a lot simpler than that).

Absolutely, Tim. On that, we are in complete agreement.

In addition to allowing me to correct a number of moral errors of my own, Objectivism has provided me with the tools to understand and appreciate many of my 'gut feeling' assessments of right & wrong that are in fact perfectly correct, and were so for years.
(Edited by Duncan Bayne on 11/01, 7:19pm)




Post 30

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tim Sturm,

Are you seriously suggesting that John Kerry doesn't think the atrocities of September 11 were wrong? I'd like to know how you can justify that claim. It sounds more like a strawman attack on Kerry which, quike frankly, is what a lot of the attacks on Kerry sound like. Kerry is not an anti-American, he's not a "Saddamite", he's not about to give in to terrorists, he's not the end of Western civilisation. Yet from some Bush supporters, you'd think this election is a case of Bush vs. Osama Bin Laden. No, it's Bush vs. Kerry - both of whom are as vehemently against Bin Laden and terrorism as each other. Disagree with Kerry as much as and as passionately as you like, but quit this view that Kerry is some kind of friend of the terrorists. It's absurd. Don't you have better arguments than that?




Post 31

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cameron,

Kerry is a socialist who opposes the right to keep and bear arms, and was politically active against America during the Vietnam War, under Communist guidance.

How can you argue he is anything but anti-American?




Post 32

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far is the MH/Lindsay argument here, I think it should be noted that those closest to you are the most capable of upsetting you.  Obviously both parties are pissed because it's close and personal.  But they should both remember that it's because they share so much common ground that these problems seem so big.

MH is pissed because he doesn't like being called a Saddamite.  Well, the word is coined to be offensive.  But there is an underlying meaning to it, which Lindsay has explained over and over starting with his Saddam's Succours.  I take it to mean those who oppose the invasion of Iraq, not because they have a better alternative, but because they don't think it's morally right.  He lists those people who argue America isn't perfectly free, so we have no right.  And those people who argue that since we once supported Iraq, we somehow are as guilty as they are, and can't object to anything they do.  And those people who argue that we should have trusted Saddam when he said he didn't have any weapons.  And on and on.  I don't see these as examples of people who would have preferred a different strategy.  I see it as people who opposed this war entirely, and wouldn't even if it were the only option.  It's not about suggesting a better alternative, unless that alternative is inaction.  These are people who think that toppling Saddam was not a value at all, instead of those who think that other things are more valuable.

And like all classifications, there are sub-classes as well.  As Lindsay mentioned in his own posts, there are the "pacifist" Saddamites, who argue that war is always evil.  There are the "anti-American" or "Anarcho-" Saddamites, who hate America so much, they oppose every action and jump for joy at every disaster. I would add the "Anti-Republican" Saddamites, who hate Bush, and would rather see America burn and our soldiers die than to have him for another 4 years.  There are the "Don't piss off the madmen" Saddamites, who are more concerned with upsetting people trying to kill us than doing anything about it.  There are the "Appeaser" Saddamites, who think everyone wants peace, so if we just give them stuff, they'll be our friends.  There are the "We can't win!" Saddamites, who are so afraid of the terrorists that they believe surrender is our only chance of survival.  There are the "It's all our fault anyway" Saddamites, who don't care about whether we live or die because the terrorists are doing the right thing and we caused it anway and so we have no moral right to do anything.  And there are the "No taxation" Saddamites, who argue that the US can't defend itself or it's people as long as they are doing it with tax money.  You can also call that one the "Moral Equivocation" Saddamites since they think that the violations of our freedom at home are morally equivalent to everyone other country's, or maybe the "Refuse to live in a non-ideal world" Saddamites.  And that's just a short list!

Obviously not all Saddamites are created equal.  Some of them are real scumbags.  And Lindsay uses some good imagery to describe them.  If every Saddamite insists on being lumped in with all of the others, they're going to find a lot of insults thrown their way.  And if they don't want to be identified as Saddamites, they can try argue against the classification.  But saying "it's insulting" misses the point.  It's supposed to be! 

MH doesn't believe the term properly describes him.  After all, at one point he mentioned that assassination was something he'd be willing to consider.  Doesn't that mean, as he says, that he's just arguing against the best way to win the war on terrorism?  Possibly, but I'm not convinced and I know others aren't either.  He's never made a serious effort to argue for that reason, even stating why it would be better or worse.  When he argues against the war, which he still does despite his "but it's a moot point" disclaimer, he doesn't argue that we should have done something else.  He argues that we shouldn't have done that.

Does that make him a great betrayer of civilization?  Context obviously matters.  You can be wrong on some issues, and not be evil through and through.  Even if the issue is important, you may be mistakenly on the wrong side.  Lindsay said "When Osama's dirty bomb blows you to shreds, try to find one last moment in which you have time to say, 'This is not what I meant.'".  Obviously Lindsay thinks MH and some of the others are making horrible mistakes, but just mistakes.  Whereas some of the more virulent Saddamites are not.  They're driven by hatred of the good, and revel at seeing innocent people die as long as they can pin it on their enemy, America.

For those who don't like Lindsay using strong words, I humbly disagree.  The motto of the FreeRad is "Politics, economics, and life as if freedom mattered".  If you think it matters, you should state it boldly and clearly.  Compromising in order to not hurt feelings just conveys that you think the feelings are more important than the assessment.  I think Lindsay strongly believes that those he labels Saddamites are pursuing a path that would lead to real disaster, and he treats them accordingly.  If he cared more about being polite and not hurting feelings, how seriously could you take his belief that these people are betraying civilization?  When he uses terms like "Nico-Nazis" to describe those people bent on banning cigarettes, he's doing the same thing.  The fact that some people who agree with us on many issues happen to fall in the wrong camp this time doesn't mean we should be quiet about it.  If a religious person was a libertarian, we wouldn't hide the fact that religion is bad so as not to offend him.  If someone claiming to be an Objectivist argued that drugs should be illegal, children have a right to have parents, and euthanasia should be illegal, and that dictatorship is the proper form of government, we wouldn't go along with it.

We don't want to state things timidly so nobody notices we're judging them negatively, or that we think these things at an intellectual level, but don't really believe any of it.  If you like that, there are other Objectivist organizations that accept the reason/passion dichotomy.




Post 33

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I note in all your classifications you've left out the one that I (and possibly Chris, if I understand his argument correctly) fall into: those who wholeheartedly support the war against anti-American terrorists, who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and who would love to see Iraq become a secular constitutional democracy - but who *don't* agree that the invasion of Iraq was in the defence of the U.S.A.





Post 34

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion, men of reason, when wronged, seek justice, not pleasure. There is nothing in objectivist ethics where you will find a defense for your "ethical sadism". Your elaborate and perverse fantasies belie your claim that your stand is "reluctant". How can reluctance be taken with so much relish?
Persons of reason, when wronged, do seek justice.  And integral to the concept of justice is balance. 

You see, when some arrogant, oblivious SOB decides capriciously that he/she's going to snuff out a wholly undeserving life, then that is a serious thing... You may not appreciate that, because you perceive Objectivism as some sort of Vulcan path to green-blooded emotionlessness or something.

Let me acquaint you with a realization:  When a person kills another person, the second person gets no second chances at anything anymore.  If they longed to make amends for grievous scars they gave others, they no longer can.  They can no longer hear the laughter of children, feel the cool breeze while watching a sunset.  They can no longer feel tears on their face or feel a soft hand on their face while a warm voice whispers, "I love you".

You see, all these things and more can never again be felt.  Poof.  Gone forever. 

And so, when demonic chimpanzees like our "good friends" in the Middle East think it's "oh so cool" to not only choose to live their whole lives as a fucking fantasy, but to also play a "neat little game" where they blow up "the enemy"... what beyond galls me is not just that they have not taken the time to give a runny shit about the actual value of what they've destroyed, but that people like you don't, either.
 
You may not know -- or much care -- but it's a serious thing.  The most serious thing. 

And that is why, when these corrupt jackals commit these actions, the only right and true thing to do, is to shove the white-hot, burning poker of human empathy directly up their anuses.

Yes, this is the only way for them to empathize with what their victims went through.  And I'm sure that the pursuit of empathy is a warm and fuzzy concept that you won't argue, is perhaps the most important of human endeavors?

So, when we blow these savages up into burning, shrieking chunks, think of it this way:  We're helping them grow as people... to evolve, mature, and become enlightened... in the only way that they have left open for themselves.  No other experience will possibly teach them that empathy at that point than burning, horrific death.

I trust I've made my point.




Post 35

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And in all fairness, if Islam would just get rid of the verses in the Koran and elsewhere that call for laying in wait and chopping off body parts and all the other points of unwarranted relish, I would have no objections to Islam's existence.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"We don't want to state things timidly so nobody notices we're judging them negatively, or that we think these things at an intellectual level, but don't really believe any of it.  If you like that, there are other Objectivist organizations that accept the reason/passion dichotomy."
Joseph: I value solohq.com because it is a place where people frequently exhibit a sense of life. Contributors such as Linz, Barbara, Jennifer, and yourself write with both eloquence and passion.

I also value civility. I find that this allows people to exchange ideas - passionately - without obscuring their message behind a veil of invective.

I see no dichotomy between civility/eloquence and passion. I save my invectives for people who are willfully beyond hope (corrupt, in other words) - those who truly deserve to be sanctioned. I think that there are precious few such people participating on this site - or who even exist in the world, for that matter.

Treating people who are mistaken (but not corrupt) with abuse is *not passion* - it is just plain rude.




Post 37

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 12:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Joe, nobody is suggesting that Linz or you or anyone else should state things timidly. What I am calling for is justice.

Barbara



Post 38

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 12:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Barbara Branden on 11/02, 12:43am)




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 2:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara: "I have been working, rather sporadically, on an article about the grotesque level of moral outrage in Objectivists and libertarians. Although it is not yet finished, I'm going to submit some of the completed sections as an article for Solohq. I hope Linz will publish it."

Of course I'll bloody publish it ... if I ever *get* the bloody thing!!

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now look. I was wrong to call MH a little creep, etc., but I most assuredly was *not* wrong to take violent exception to the presumptuous, insolent post of his that provoked my outburst. So I withdraw, & apologise for, that part of the *letter* of my reaction that was unjust; but I make no apology at all for the *spirit* of my response. I took the trouble, Matt, to explain how I could reconcile my eulogy to Chris with my use of the term "Saddamite" to include people such as he & you & millions of others who speak out against the protection of America (and western civilisation) via the liberation of Iraq, even as it proceeds. I also observed that I'm not actually obligated to justify myself on my own turf (which, in any event, as Joe observes, I've already done, time & time again). You replied that you were "sickened" by my response & implied that I was obliged to satisfy *your* demands regardless of whose turf it was. That reply, I submit, is what was truly unjust here.

There's much more to this than "I said, you said." People criticise me for exploding. Actually, on many occasions I have bitten my tongue at what increasingly came to look like bad faith on the part of the Saddamites. Going right back to Logan Feys, they repeatedly accused me of not advancing any actual arguments on the matter of Iraq. In truth, as Joe's post eloquently reminds us, I have iterated & reiterated certain arguments over & over, from Day One, in *three* instalments of "Saddam's Succours" & in posts on various threads here. *None* of those arguments has been refuted. Let me just repeat the crucial ones:

1) Sight unseen, a free country has the right - but not the duty - to liberate a slave-pen. The Saddamites' blatantly dishonest retort to that was, in effect, that I was - or ought to be - arguing that America had the *duty* to liberate *every* slave pen. That pissed me off.

2) Saddam was not entitled to the benefit of a single doubt for a single minute. Regardless of what we now know about the extent to which he had redeveloped his weapons programmes, his own behaviour appeared to confirm what analysts believed: that he *had* redeveloped them to a menacing degree. *Not* that Iraq could necessarily, itself, unleash WMD on America, but would give WMD to terrorists who *would* unleash them. The Saddamites had no answer to this, but refused to budge nonetheless. That pissed me off.

3) This war is not a discrete event, whose outcome doesn't matter much, one way or the other. This war *is* apocalyptic. It is a struggle to the death between western civilisation - warts & all - & an unspeakably vicious ideology avowedly, unashamedly, explicitly intent on *destroying* western civilisation. This ideology and its practitioners do not sport mere warts - they are cosmic cancers. (The most appalling inversion committed by the Saddamites occurs when they dismiss the "apocalyptic" view of this war even as they tout the self-evidently preposterous view that the re-election of George Bush *would* be apocalyptic. Sheesh!) This war *could* have been played out elsewhere. If the Saddamites had their way it would be played out in America. As it happens, because Bush, with absolute justification, chose to go into Iraq, it's being played out *there*. Al Qaeda has gone there in droves, just as it was always going to swamp any other crucible of this cosmic conflict. Now, you'll excuse me, I'm sure, if in championing the cause of western civilisation I occasionally overlook diplomatic niceties or decline to participate in polite academic parlour games. No, Saddamites? The only issue that matters here is whether or not I'm polite? Well, yes, that too pisses me off.

4) America must not be paralysed by its own past mistakes. The fact & nature of those mistakes does not lessen the urgency or mitigate the peril of the current situation. The Saddamites acknowledged the "insightful" (ugh! Wanker-speak for "bleedingly obvious") nature of this observation - but blithely carried on saying America once backed Iraq & therefore was not entitled to topple Saddam *now*. That pissed me off.

5) America must not be paralysed by the fact that it is not at this point a perfect libertarian society. See above, & ditto. Had the Saddamites been around in the late 1930s, they would have been saying Britain had no right to declare war on Germany because it, Britain, wasn't fully libertarian. Their horrible whiney voices would have reached a crescendo in 1940 when Churchill took over from that revolting appeaser Chamberlain (a pre-Saddam Saddamite) because Churchill believed in God. And these Saddamites claim to be context-keepers!! *That* pisses me off!

So the Saddamites have been pissing me off constantly from the moment they began their appeasement. *Most* of the time I have kept quiet, in the interests of free & open discussion. Occasionally I have exploded - & then the issue has become ... not appeasement, not Saddamism, not the filth that is Islam, not the mass torture/murder that Osama/Saddam want to install in place of everything we hold dear ... none of those things ... the issue is: Linz hurt someone's feelings. For fuck's sake!!!!!!!!

Oh golly gee. I guess I shouldn't have said "fuck." Well, Saddamites, to paraphrase what I said last night - when Osama's dirty bomb rips you apart, I hope there's a moment when you can look me in the eye & say, "Waaaaaaa. You said 'fuck.'"

Linz









Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.