Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

Contracycle: So what is it you want to know? How we were viciously attacked by Communist North Vietnam without provocation? Ya wanna hear how the North Vietnamese attacked first a destroyer, and then 2 days later some PT boats torpedoed a couple more innocent U.S. Boats? Is that what you fucking expect/want me to say? If that’s the case, then you have a tenuous grasp, at best, on the views we have in this Country when it comes to Vietnam. Maybe you should get some new, more up-to-date books to read on American Culture, your current propaganda bull shit manual might be getting a bit old.ABE
Gads...I almost feel like I've been put in the position of defending Tal (nothing personal Tal)...This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 01-20-2005 14:16 AM

quote:

---

... which are fictions of your imagining, depending as they do on the facts I cite not being facts.

---

No, you are rude. Ask anybody here, they will tell you that you are rude, even though you also have some interesting views sometimes.Do you think it is polite to call people "fuckwit", "Nazi", or "murderer"?So, have I ever told you that you couldn't say something, express a view?Post number, please.

quote:

---

Soon you'll be able to curl your lip over your eyebrows, then.

---

What is your goal?Do you want people to listen to you or not?

quote:

---

THEN DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN PEOPLE BLOW UP YOUR BUILDINGS.

---

Unresponsive and irrelevant to our discussion.If you simply respond with "shrug" when you are told that you are repelling people with your rudeness, then you have no business complaining that nobody pays you any attention.

quote:

---

Yep, I certainly get accused of that a lot. In fact, its one of the more common responses as soon as an American finds out I'm a commie.

---

But I didn't do that, did I?And it would be rude of someone to say that to you, wouldn't it, and also inaccurate, right?And you would be less inclined to give their opinions much weight because someone who would say that is clearly overreacting and portraying you as something you are not, right?

quote:

---

Cool. Go on and show the evidence for your claims then, and I'll decide whether you are advancing a genuine criticism or just trying to be offensive. On your marks, get set, GO....

---

You do understand that it is possible to present evidence supportive of one's claims AND ALSO be so rude in the process of presenting them that everyone tunes you out, don't you?Rrhain has succeeded in doing just that on this board, as have you.

quote:

---

Schraf, as I have pointed out before, I'm not the isolated one here.

---

Yes, you are, if your goal is to persuade the people on this board to your point of view.

quote:

---

I am a member of a political party thousands strong, and a movement many many millions strong.

---

That's nice. Nobody cares. You are rude and not worth conversing with because of it.

quote:

---

I have allies in every country on the planet. It is the US that is isolated, and the reason for this is its insistence in debating only with those who believe the same nonsense the US does, and demonizing anyone who doesn't.

---

I am not the US. I am me. FliesOnly is not the US. FliesOnly is FliesOnly.You are not conversing with some abstract idea formed in your head of the US, you are conversing with PEOPLE, here on this board.These PEOPLE you have been conversing with think you are rude and inflammitory and overdramatic, and sometimes misrepresent them yet insist you are right and they are wrong.What is your goal HERE, Contra? If your goal HERE, at EvC, is to alienate people and encourafe them to ignore you, you are doing a fine job.

quote:

---

World fears new Bush era...

---

No shit, so do I. I hate Bush and what he's done to my country and the world.I broke down and cried on election night, I was so heartsick and disappointed and ashamed.What's your point?

quote:

---

And I have plenty of discussions with other people on many fora in which I am NOT called an extremist, an exaggarator, or someone being deliberately rude.

---

That's nice. I don't care. You are rude here, and that is for all the world to see.

quote:

---

That only happens when confronted by Americans, in relation to their fictional self-image.

---

So, calling someone a Nazi or a fuckwit is considered polite in your social circle?

quote:

---

The first response is usually that I am an "anti-American" and it goes rapidly down hill.

---

The thing is, Contra, I AGREE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT AMERICA.Not all, but a lot.I really wish you would start talking to ME, not whoever else you have been debating with.You are rude, you are disrespectful, you make inflamatory statements uneccessarily. What is your goal HERE?

quote:

---

No, you most certainly do not: what you do is insist that anything that contradicts your apple pie imagery is deliberately offensive.

---

I am the last person in the world that any of the people who know me, or have been paying attention to anything I have written on the subject here on this board, would EVER think that I have an "apple pie" image of the US.Have you read what I have written about the Iraq war to Tal, or to Paisano?

quote:

---

When I tell you I think that the US is directly comparable to Nazi Germany you insist that I am venting my spleen RATHER THAN providing an analysis.

---

Well, yes, when you inject invective all over the place, I tend to think you are frothing at the mouth, call me crazy.

quote:

---

If you WANT analysis, start bloody paying attention when you get it.

---

Not if I have to wade through ranting and frothing at the mouth. [quote]Mandela you will recall spent 27 years in prison and had little opportunity to say anything. But certainly, at the Rivonia trial, he had no hesitation calling a spade a spade: [qs]PROSECUTION: And in your opinion is the possibility of this violence to which you refer therefore heightened - increased?
MANDELA: Oh, yes; we felt that the Government will not hesitate to massacre hundreds of Africans in order to intimidate them not to oppose its reactionary policy.[/quote]Right. In face to face meetings with white political fugures, did he scream "MURDERERS! YOU ALL SHOULD BE IMPRISONED! MUUURRDERERRRS!"Did he do that, Contra?

quote:

---

Exactly so. And yet the US position is that it IS immune - that is why it insists that any prosecution under the war crimes convention could only ever be brought for malicious political reasons. That in fact is the gulf between Europe and America - Europe has learned those lessons, and the US has not.

---

Right. I agree with that completely.See how nice that is?BTW, do you agree that the USSR and China also have invaded other countries to convert them to their societal structure?

quote:

---

Fair enough. How about a joust at the Tonkin incident then? A full ten points, you can't ask fairer than that.

---

Why don't you just tell me what happened, since I would just do a google search for it anyway.

quote:

---

I have in fact confronted this point before and will do so again - this is direct anti-intellectualism, the suppression of relevant data for politcally correct purposes

---

What is your goal?If it is to anger and alienate people, then keep doing what you are doing.If your goal is to persuade people, then there are more tactful, less provocative ways to get your ideas across.

quote:

---

And as long as you insist that realistic comparisons with historical precedents are unacceptably provocative, you are serving as an apologist for US imperialism and censoring the debate.

---

What is your goal here?It DOES suck that you cannot force people to listen to you, and instead have to refrain from being rude and present your arguments in a way that does not repel them.Welcome to society.

I would sugeest not feeding contra in this thread.He wants to steer the conversation away from his rudeness towards other posters to discussion of American military history.

Wow...I'll sift throught this mess a bit later and respond to schra, Flies, and holms a bit later. If I see anything worthy of a response to contra (meaning the argument will have merit)I'll respond to him/her too.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

And what do you think our intent was?lfen

To move them out of the way.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Schraf, and others posting on this thread,I'm going to offer a perspective that you may find useful or totally bogus but it's how I've been looking at the US now for decades and that it that there is a historical dynamic that is greater than all of us, the dynamic of empire. It happened to Greece, Rome, Britain and many more nations. I wish there was something we could do about it but really this thing goes through it's cycle. The US has so much wealth it may take a longer time going through the cycle but the process is inevitable.Right now the US is the imperial power in the world and that power is a very expensive addiction and the wealth fuels the abuses of power that we are seeing. But wielding that power is so expensive that empires in the end spend more maintaining their power unwisely, as Bush is doing, now than they take in and then exhaustion and financial breakdown sets in. Nothing all that terrible happens. Italy and Britain continue. But we are living on the descending side of the empire just past the peak as we emerged from WWII. It's an exciting and corrupting phase and appeals to those who lust for power but it's what is happening and will take it course.I recommend we be philosophical about it.lfen

And what happened when they (like the Undesirables in germany) did not want to move out of the way, or we could not find suitable places to stick them?I don't see how you miss that the only difference is that there was a lot more room in the US where we could push people fully out of the way, and Nazi Germany simply did not have that capacity.As it stands, the land we left the native americans with is all land we felt was not worth it for us to have. In every case where we discovered a need for the land (and that includes up through last century), native americans got shoved.The native americans were dehumanized from beginning to end (which is right now). We do not draw maps of the US with little holes in it here and there, do we? We do not discuss returning land to native americans do we? Or some form of reparations?Not only do collectors get to keep valuable native american items (which is unheard of when it comes to belongings of jews from WW2), we can raid and take items we feel are valuable to us. Yes, this still goes on.I am not onboard with contras view that we are exactly like Germany with respect to what is happening in the midEast today. It is more like the crusades.But our treatement of the native americans during the 1800's was the same, stopping short of pure genocide due to extra land resources and lack of industrial ones. We are excusing ourselves only in that no one was taking pictures of rail thin native americans dying of starvation and tortue, or stopping our advance across the land and so being in a position to force us to acknowledge what we did was wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

Unresponsive and irrelevant to our discussion.

---

Absolutely central to the discussion, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

If you simply respond with "shrug" when you are told that you are repelling people with your rudeness, then you have no business complaining that nobody pays you any attention.

---

Fine. And if you refuse to debate with people becuase it is more comforting to accuse them of rudeness, then you are going to have to live, or otherwise, with people taking matters into their own hands.

quote:

---

And you would be less inclined to give their opinions much weight because someone who would say that is clearly overreacting and portraying you as something you are not, right?

---

Don't be absurd. They are not responsible for the propaganda they are fed, in most part.

quote:

---

You do understand that it is possible to present evidence supportive of one's claims AND ALSO be so rude in the process of presenting them that everyone tunes you out, don't you?

---

Yes I do. I call it "hearing no evil".

quote:

---

That's nice. Nobody cares. You are rude and not worth conversing with because of it.

---

Then we shall have to make you care, won't we?

quote:

---

These PEOPLE you have been conversing with think you are rude and inflammitory and overdramatic, and sometimes misrepresent them yet insist you are right and they are wrong.

---

Well maybe those PEOPLE should practice what they preach and cease tarring opinions they don't like as deliberately insulting. If you show respect for my arguments you will get respect in return. As long as you insist I abandon my position as a pre-requisite to discussing it, then I will give as good as I get.

quote:

---

No shit, so do I. I hate Bush and what he's done to my country and the world. I broke down and cried on election night, I was so heartsick and disappointed and ashamed. What's your point?

---

That it is most certainly NOT I who is alone in the wilderness; it is the US, and one of the reasons for this is the inability to take responsibility for or even recognise the increasingly Fascist character of your state. Which is precisely the very thing you are propagating here by insisting that criticisms be ruled out even before they are discussed. [quote] Have you read what I have written about the Iraq war to Tal, or to Paisano?[/qupte]Yes I have. Thats exactly why your knee-jerk rejection of analysis the increasingly Fascist nature of the US as deliberately provocative appears to emanate from propaganda.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you WANT analysis, start bloody paying attention when you get it.

---

Not if I have to wade through ranting and frothing at the mouth.

---

See? When offered what you say you want you turn it down.n To compare the USA to Nazi Germany is not frothing at the mouth - it is a genuine and legitimate position.

quote:

---

Right. In face to face meetings with white political fugures, did he scream "MURDERERS! YOU ALL SHOULD BE IMPRISONED! MUUURRDERERRRS!" Did he do that, Contra?

---

Umm, what face to face meetings with white political figures? Mandela was involved in negotiations long after his imprisonement had rendered him largely harmless. Secondly, directly telling a judge that "police actions" constitute the purposeful massacre of native africans for political gain seems directly equivalent to me, yes.

quote:

---

He wants to steer the conversation away from his rudeness towards other posters to discussion of American military history.

---

And since when was *I* the topic of the thread?This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-21-2005 07:39 AM

quote:

---

To move them out of the way.

---

Then you are in urgent need of yet another history lesson. To move them out of the way of what and who and by what right? They were moved so their land could be stolen, and in the hopes that they would die in the deserts. Which many of them did.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-21-2005 07:42 AM

quote:

---

I am not onboard with contras view that we are exactly like Germany with respect to what is happening in the midEast today. It is more like the crusades.

---

Possibly, yes. However, as is inevitably the case as soon as the Nazi comparator is raised, all ability to analyse the historic record flies out the window. I never claimed that the USA was "like" Nazi Germany in mid-1944, busily executing its own citizens en mass. The Nazi phenomon does not begin at Auschwitz and end at Birkenau.The specific comparator I would draw, were I not continually interrupted by accusations of duplicity, is with very early Nazi germany, in which the National Socialist movement has not yet been discredited, still has genuine admirirers both inside and outside, even had imitators in the community of nations of which it was a part.The issue of Native Americans is in fact entirely separate. The ideology that brought about this near-genocide were certainly both inhumane and racist, but they did not contain the same persecution complex, the same sense of betrayal from within. They are much more like the stock massacres inherent to any colonial project from ancient Egypt onward. The Nazi case is different because the Jews were and had been integrated functional citizens sharing the same language and culture, in large part. A better equivalent in Americas history would be the racially determined internment of Japanes Americans during WW2, although this is not exactly the same either.Nazi ideology was characterised by race-based manifest destiny; it was this manifest destiny that the Jews threatened by daring to marry in to the "aryan race", thus diluting its special characterisitics. And surely these characteristics were special, considering that Germany had existed until recently as an dynastic empire for 1000 years, the longest in European history. This ideology despised the Slavs just as much, if not more so, than the Jews, the German Drang Nach Osten having triggered significant and sustained fighting in the east throught the medieval period.Holmes is absolutely correct to identify the final solution adopted by the Nazis has an adaptation to circumstance. They simply did not set with a genocidal agenda - they ARRIVED at a genocidal agenda as a product of their ideology and circumstances, the pressures of the war.
And given the frequency with other colonial powers - Britain, Spain, France, the US - had committed massacres against native populations, it probably didn't seem like that big a deal; as Hitler asked, who speaks today of the Armenian genocide?I don't see any particular reason to think that the NSDAP would have gone on to commit genocide against the Jews if there had not been a war going on. OK yes, the war is certainly of their own making and thus they do bear responsibility in all respects, but it remains the case THAT FASCISM IS NOT CHARCTERISED BY GENOCIDE. Fascism may RESULT in genocide, but is not characterised BY genocide. It is this sort of subtlety that becomes impossible to examine as long as the Nazis exist only as hyperbolised evildoers on TV.The problem with the Nazi movement was its sense of divine right. Hitler argued that glorious achievements of whites, dominating the world as they did, impied a special character of the "white race" which was undermined by democracy and multiculturalism; specifically, in regards democracy, he argued that it rendered all inherent value of the person subordinate to their mere number. Quite obviously, this grows out of the doctrine inherent to capitalism, and common in the anglo-saxon world, of the cult of individualism, the heroised "entrepreneur" without whose individual genius nothing would be achieved. And based on this "manifest" power, the Aryan race had a duty to a) resist its own destruction at the hands of "lesser" races, and b) rescue fellow Aryans from such depredations, leading to the invasion of Sudetenland to proetct Germans from Slavic persecution (which persecution, given the Drang Nach Osten mentioned above, itself had deep historical roots).Also because of this alleged "inherent" quality of the aryans, some domestic explanation had to be found as to why Germany had been crippled by the postWWI settlement, and under the ideology outlined above the obvious candidates were communists and democrats, who challenged the cult of individualism, and jews and sundry aliens like gypsies and slavs, who diluted the racial purity of the Aryans. Needless to say, the fact that the League of Nations opposed Germany's claimed right to intervent unilaterally in Czechoslovakia, indicated only that it was part of the anti-Aryan conspiracy - so Germany withdraw unilaterally.Hopefully this discussion will show the basis fgor my claim: the similarities are not a large historic body count but the doctrine of supremacy, of "our values" being universal and in urgent need of export on others, of the alleged hostitility the United Nations, of the easy reflex to collective blame exhiobited by recent Francophobia, of the clear contempt in which international cbodies are held, of the disrespect for treaty obligations or indeed any accomodation with anyone ander any circumstances that limit the US's freedom to act as it chooses any where and any how. Oh yes, and of course the massively disproportionate military spending and exaltation of military ideals.But this analysis does not go unchallenged, even as it becomes more widespread. For example,. George Monbiot recently felt the need to take it on and argue that instead the form of absolutism we see solidifying in the US is actually a form of Puritanism. As he writes:

quote:

---

Puritanism of the rich

​

Bush's ideology has its roots in 17th century preaching that the world exists to be conquered

​

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 9, 2004
The Guardian

​

If Bush wins," the US writer Barbara Probst Solomon claimed just before the election, "fascism is possible in the United States." Blind faith in a leader, she said, a conservative working class and the use of fear as a political weapon provide the necessary preconditions.

​

She's wrong. So is Richard Sennett, who described Bush's security state as "soft fascism" in the Guardian last month. So is the endless traffic on the internet.

​

In The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton persuasively describes it as "... a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity". It is hard to read Republican politics in these terms. Fascism recruited the elite, but it did not come from the elite. It relied on hysterical popular excitement: something which no one could accuse George Bush of provoking.

​

But this is not to say that the Bush project is unprecedented. It is, in fact, a repetition of quite another ideology. If we don't understand it, we have no hope of confronting it.

​

Puritanism is perhaps the least understood of any political movement in European history. In popular mythology it is reduced to a joyless cult of self-denial, obsessed by stripping churches and banning entertainment: a perception which removes it as far as possible from the conspicuous consumption of Republican America. But Puritanism was the product of an economic transformation.

---

Now as it happens, I disagree with Monbiot; I think Bush certainly can be accused of whipping up hysteria, and there have been documentaries recently arguing that very case. But nevertheless I am willing to entertain the possibility; there are certain other arguments that support religious absolutism rather than Fascism. Either way this is a state that has consciously abandoned any recognition of non-citizens as human, and I would suggest that even that will be overcome: as we see in the person of Tal, if his superiors tell him that some New York liberals are traitors to the state and need to be shot, he will do it without asking any questions.You could support my case, or Monbiots, or any other. What you cannot tell me is that my argument is inherently ridiculous. This debate is happening and the only people who are not a part of it are those plugging their ears.

Not that I am without fault, but I must revoice the criticism you have been hearing lately. You have moments of lucid commentary which are really quite interesting, then you will launch into invectives that seem inexplicable and unnecessary, as if you are suffering Tourrete's(sp?) syndrome. You also really do say things that are so outside the scope of reality it is hard to believe what you are saying.I thought this reply to my post was interesting and mainly lucid. It may have played much better if you had detailed this explanation before simply stating the US is like Nazi Germany.It appears you and I are using different criteria and so coming to different conclusions as to such a comparison. I think it is interesting that you are looking at the existence of a persecution angle. I might note that it was felt that the savages were persecuting colonists and then settlers, and so threatening the security and vitality of our nation... but it may not rise to the same fervor that was in Nazi propaganda against jews and other undesirables.What you outlined creates an interesting link between Bush and Hitler in the shared problems/psyche/political melodrama of the megalomaniac. I don't think puritanism requires religious absolutism. The thread on moral judgements showed quite clearly that moral absolutism can be held by atheists and ironically enough even self-professed subjectivists. I agree with that clip by Monbiot, though do agree that Bush has had a hand in whipping up puritanical fervor (even if it existed before him). See this is the problem. You do not stick to arguments. You simply started out with calling someone a name. If you had a detailed reason, there was no real way for anyone to know.What you might keep in mind is that in addition to some people plugging their ears, some proponents have their megaphones on a bit too loud and speak a little too fast and emotional for anyone to understand what is being said.Though of course I understand there are plenty of divides between your position and mine on other issues.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

What planet do you live on?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

Absolutely central to the discussion, I'm afraid.

---

Nope. The discussion we are having is how your rudeness causes people to ignore you. The fact that the US "complained" when our buildings get blown up has nothing to do with your rudeness to the PEOPLE here on this board.

quote:

---

Fine. And if you refuse to debate with people becuase it is more comforting to accuse them of rudeness,

---

I'd like to debate with you, contra, but you stop debating when you tell people they are "fuckwits", "nazi's", and "murderers". At that point you are insulting and fighting with people. That is NOT debate in any sense of the word. It's flaming.

quote:

---

then you are going to have to live, or otherwise, with people taking matters into their own hands.

---

No, I don't, contra, that's the point you continually avoid looking at.On this debate board, I don't have to pay any attention to you if I don't want to. It is NOT because of discomfort with your views, it is because of your rudeness and strident invective.

quote:

---

Don't be absurd. They are not responsible for the propaganda they are fed, in most part.

---

They are not responsible for having good manners? They are not responsible for knowing the rules of good, productive debate?We suspend people here at EvC for continually making personal attacks, remember?You didn't answer my question, either. It would be rude of someone to call you a baby-killing communist hater of freedom and justice, wouldn't it?

quote:

---

Yes I do. I call it "hearing no evil".

---

Oh, so you actually have such a poor grasp of the English language and such poor mastery of tact and diplomacy that you are simply unable to deliver your ideas in a way that does not insult people?I don't buy that for a second. You like being provocative and insulting. You get off on pissing people off. You don't care at all if people are convinced that you are right, you just like feeling your righteous indignation.

quote:

---

Then we shall have to make you care, won't we?

---

You still don't get it, do you?You CAN'T make me care. You cannot MAKE anyone care, contra. You can only convince through rational argument, not ranting and rude invective and threats.It DOES suck that you cannot force people to listen to you when you are rude and abrasive, doesn't it?Welcome to society.

quote:

---

Well maybe those PEOPLE should practice what they preach and cease tarring opinions they don't like as deliberately insulting.

---

When you call someone a "fuckwit", a "murderer", or a "Nazi", do you think you were intending to be polite, or insulting? What way are people likely to take those words, regardless of how you meant them?Again, it is not you actual opinions I and others object to. It's the rudeness with which you deliver them.Remember, I have repeatedly told you that I AGREE with much of what you say about the US.

quote:

---

If you show respect for my arguments you will get respect in return.

---

Nope, sorry, it doesn't work that way here:From the EvC Forum Rules: I do have respect for many of your arguments, contra. I just stop reading your posts when you start calling people "fuckwit", "murderer", and "nazi" and saying that the entire US should be destroyed.

quote:

---

As long as you insist I abandon my position as a pre-requisite to discussing it, then I will give as good as I get.

---

If your "position" requires that you call people "fuckwit", "Nazi", and "murderer", then I will simply ignore you.What is your goal here?To insult people so they ignore you? Do you feel good about that? Does it make you think you've accomplished anything?

quote:

---

That it is most certainly NOT I who is alone in the wilderness; it is the US, and one of the reasons for this is the inability to take responsibility for or even recognise the increasingly Fascist character of your state. Which is precisely the very thing you are propagating here by insisting that criticisms be ruled out even before they are discussed.

---

I do want to discuss the criticisms. You do not have to call people "fuckwit", Nazi", or "murderer" to get your ideas across.If you do choose to use those highly provocative words, then you will not get a discussion, it's just a fact.Welcome to society.

quote:

---

Yes I have. Thats exactly why your knee-jerk rejection of analysis

---

Not analysis. Rudeness. You can provide analysis without calling people names.

quote:

---

the increasingly Fascist nature of the US as deliberately provocative appears to emanate from propaganda.

---

Rudeness, contra. It's your rudeness, not your analysis. You can call the US Facist all you want. You could even say that the US and Germany in the 1930's have a lot in common. But it is well known that invoking Hitler or Nazis in a discussion is provocative and will get people riled up. So will calling people "murderers".Is your goal here, on this board, to have as few people read your posts as possible?

quote:

---

If you WANT analysis, start bloody paying attention when you get it.

---

quote:

---

See? When offered what you say you want you turn it down.

---

No, you didn't offer what I said I wanted. I said I wanted analysis that was not littered with insult and invective.

quote:

---

To compare the USA to Nazi Germany is not frothing at the mouth - it is a genuine and legitimate position.

---

That may well be, but what I have been saying all this time is that IF you CHOOSE to tactlessly and selfrighteously march around saying things like that no matter if they are 100% accurate, nobody will listen to you.There are much more subtle, effective ways to get your ideas across, contra, that keep people engaged with you. Don't you want to have more than just a sledgehammer in your tool kit? Sometimes a jewler's screwdriver is more effective.

quote:

---

Umm, what face to face meetings with white political figures? Mandela was involved in negotiations long after his imprisonement had rendered him largely harmless.

---

Like this meeting with DeKlerk. Did Mandela scream in DeKlerk's face that he was a MURDERER!!!

quote:

---

Secondly, directly telling a judge that "police actions" constitute the purposeful massacre of native africans for political gain seems directly equivalent to me, yes.

---

No, it is hardly equivalent.Mandela didn't use anger or strident language, did he? He was calm and gave factual testimony. He didn't say "Yes, they MURDERED us and it would be better for the world if they were WIPED off the face of the Earth!!!"See the difference?Mandella was unjustly imprisoned for a very long time, yet when he was released, he did not call anyone a "fuckwit".What's your excuse?I notice that you did not point me to a post where I have ever told you that you could not say something.Anyway, I think my effort to point out the consequences of your rude behavior has just about been exhausted. I am afraid that you are probably getting too much payoff from needlessly pissing people off and somehow think that this means that your position is stronger.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-21-2005 10:01 AMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-21-2005 10:03 AMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-21-2005 10:08 AM