NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?

Why do liberals... often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia

...What...

...The...

...Fuck...?

It's easier to say bad things about the US government, because it is legal to do so in the US.

Try being a protester in Saudi Arabia. Even if they give you a visa to enter the country, your ass will be in a sling if you open your mouth the wrong way there.

What the *fuck* is it with this crap lately? Who the hell is siding with them?

It's because liberals want to murder your babies and sell your house to Ethiopians

...What...

...The...

...Fuck...?

My thoughts exatly....

I mean... wow.

It's easier to say bad things about the US government, because it is legal to do so in the US.

Try being a protester in Saudi Arabia. Even if they give you a visa to enter the country, your ass will be in a sling if you open your mouth the wrong way there.

I mean Western liberals, though. Are they just unaware of how bad some of these regimes are?

your ass will be in a sling if you open your mouth the wrong way there.

I can see that happening if by "open your mouth the wrong way" you mean "start talking out of your arse"
;)

What the *fuck* is it with this crap lately? Who the hell is siding with them?

Obviously not many people here. We're the Internet, we know better.

I mean Western liberals, though. Are they just unaware of how bad some of these regimes are?

Actually, it's more like you having your head in your ass.

None of us support any regimes that are even similar to that of Saudi Arabia and Iran, much less the United States. Though supporting Saudi Arabia just for the economic benefit is hardly beyond good-old G.W. and his cronies.

What the *fuck* is it with this crap lately? Who the hell is siding with them?
We could start with the people on this forum who believe that Iran is merely pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, who also say that the US is irresponsibly accusing Iran of bad intent. That when we hear "Israel must be wiped off the map", he's only kidding, and that the mullahs would never allow that.

What the *fuck* is it with this crap lately? Who the hell is siding with them?

Sheehan, Moore, socialists, nazis, leftists...

That bitch Sheehan was up here in Canada telling us Canadians that our troops are shooting innocent citizens and being Bush's lapdog.

Liberals never freed anyone.

Sheehan, Moore, socialists, nazis, leftists...

That bitch Sheehan was up here in Canada telling us Canadians that our troops are shooting innocent citizens and being Bush's lapdog.

Liberals never freed anyone.

Not to rain on your parade, but that Sheehan character has serious mental issues...

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?

Easy answer: they don't.

What kind of 'liberals' are you talking about, anyway? Economic liberals side with the US, because it's an economically liberal country. Social liberals side with Europe, because... well, have you ever watched an episode of Eurotrash? And those of us who are both, well, we're anarchists and we don't really side with anybody. I don't recall anybody saying that they support fanatical, fascist, violent regimes, whether they're left or right -- however, I can see that you're following the Bush doctrine of 'with us or against us', so I'll leave you to your ramblings.

It's because liberals want to murder your babies and sell your house to Ethiopians
And liberals gain all their sustenance from the tears of infants.

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?... teh phux0rz?!

Show me one example of liberals siding with Iran or Saudi Arabia, or similar regimes. Seriously.

Not to rain on your parade, but that Sheehan character has serious mental issues...

So why does the left like her so much?

... teh phux0rz?!

This one actually made me snort. :D

It's because liberals want to murder your babies and sell your house to Ethiopians
But conservatives caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by altering the earth's rotation using a giant crystal in outer space! ;)

So why does the left like her so much?

Just what "left" are we talking about?

I know the Democrats seem to love her, and they're definitely not Leftists.

So why does the left like her so much?
Being liked and being highly visible are two different things.

We could start with the people on this forum who believe that Iran is merely pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, who also say that the US is irresponsibly accusing Iran of bad intent. That when we hear "Israel must be wiped off the map", he's only kidding, and that the mullahs would never allow that.

Well, let's have a reality check here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10980432&postcount=33)


If I had been President during 9-11, I would have taken that moment to nuke several nations and annihilate their populations.

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, without any warning.

... teh phux0rz?!

Show me one example of liberals siding with Iran or Saudi Arabia, or similar regimes. Seriously.

Kimchi and CC had good points.

This one actually made me snort. :DI'm on a school computer, so it doesn't seem especially wise for me to type obscenities out in real english. High schools and their "PG-13" attitudes. Sheesh.

... teh phux0rz?!

Show me one example of liberals siding with Iran or Saudi Arabia, or similar regimes. Seriously.

Start on this forum.

How many people on this forum defend Iran's President when he says that "Israel must be wiped off the map". They say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue, and harmless, and that nothing is wrong. They are defending him and his statements.

And along that line, I relate to you a quote:

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

I don't think I've ever heard a liberal defending Saudi Arabia, though I have heard many critisize President Bush for his ties to it...

How many people on this forum defend Iran's President when he says that "Israel must be wiped off the map". They say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue, and harmless, and that nothing is wrong. They are defending him and his statements.
Ok. How many? Show me examples. I consider myself a liberal and I know I don't.

Ok. How many? Show me examples. I consider myself a liberal and I know I don't.
Ask Tactical Grace. He's famous for defending Iran's nuclear program.

They are defending him and his statements.

No, we're calling him a wanker and a douchebag, while defending the majority of the Iranians who do not support him.

You conservative types and trying to gain the upper hand with these tactics is getting really old, hey.

Ask Tactical Grace. He's famous for defending Iran's nuclear program.
Irans nuclear program=/= 'yay! Lets wipe out teh j00's!!'

Have you turned into Cornlieu or something?

Ask Tactical Grace. He's famous for defending Iran's nuclear program.
Actually, TG was not defending it... he was dismissing it as they don't exactly have the capabilities to make weapons out of it, IIRC.

Difference much.

Irans nuclear program=/= wiping out Israel.

Have you turned into Cornlieu or something?

Nope. But you are doing a remarkable job of emulating Chamberlain.

I suppose we'll have "peace in our time" very soon...

No, we're calling him a wanker and a douchebag, while defending the majority of the Iranians who do not support him.
Exactly. Unlike you, Sierra, we don't believe we should nuke the entire country based on the words of one man.

Nope. But you are doing a remarkable job of emulating Chamberlain.

I suppose we'll have "peace in our time" very soon...

Aw jeez.

OK, lets go and kill all of the motherfuckers. Why not? It'd keep people like you happy - ah, which reminds me, perhaps you'd like to serve on the front line? Do your part for freedom, and all that.

Actually, TG was not defending it... he was dismissing it as they don't exactly have the capabilities to make weapons out of it, IIRC.

Difference much.

It was proven in US underground nuclear tests that you don't need weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

The enrichment doesn't have to be any higher than commercial reactor grade uranium.

Difference much?

Aw jeez.

OK, lets go and kill all of the motherfuckers. Why not? It'd keep people like you happy - ah, which reminds me, perhaps you'd like to serve on the front line?

Been there, done that. Former infantryman, 2/502nd Infantry Battalion (2nd Brigade) 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division.

Nope. But you are doing a remarkable job of emulating Chamberlain.

I suppose we'll have "peace in our time" very soon...

I may be Chamberlain, but you sir are turning into Stalin.

(Which is ironic given your 'dislike' of the 'Left')

It was proven in US underground nuclear tests that you don't need weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

The enrichment doesn't have to be any higher than commercial reactor grade uranium.

Difference much?

Anyone with a couple of dozen smoke detectors can make a dirty bomb, too. There are many oppressive nations out there that make use of this technology; it would be pertinent to invade them or at least force them to stop their usage so that the terrorists don't get their hands upon any.

I may be Chamberlain, but you sir are turning into Stalin.

(Which is ironic given your 'dislike' of the 'Left')
I think I'm turning out like Churchill. I can see it coming, and no one is going to listen until its too late.

Nope. But you are doing a remarkable job of emulating Chamberlain.

I suppose we'll have "peace in our time" very soon...
Of course, Winston. 'Cause Iran is twice your country's size, has an incredibly powerful military, a fanatically loyal populace, and intentions to cleanse the world of all Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and other inferior races.

It was proven in US underground nuclear tests that you don't need weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

The enrichment doesn't have to be any higher than commercial reactor grade uranium.
Ok. Still, what proof do you have that Iran is actually making nuclear bombs?

Besides, Israel, France, Russia, the UK, China, and dozens of other countries have nukes. I don't see you invading them for it.

Been there, done that. Former infantryman, 2/502nd Infantry Battalion (2nd Brigade) 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division.

All the more reason to go back, no? :p

Aw jeez.

OK, lets go and kill all of the motherfuckers. Why not? It'd keep people like you happy - ah, which reminds me, perhaps you'd like to serve on the front line? Do your part for freedom, and all that.

Why not? You guys gave peace a chance and this is what happened...

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/wtc/world-trade-center_full.jpg

Remember when we ignored hitler? It all started with seperating the jews..

*snip*

I think I'm turning out like Churchill. I can see it coming, and no one is going to listen until its too late.
You mean an arrogant, pompous, racist, pro-Fascist that was turfed out of power as soon as the war was over?

snip

I'd get rid of those pictures if I were you.

Its a DEAT'able offence.

All the more reason to go back, no? :p
Did that too.

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?

Your argument seems to be based on the following premises. Your argument is rather enthymematic, so I'm putting in what I think you're trying to argue. Feel free to change it.

Liberals criticize the US (True)

Liberals do not criticize dictatorships (False)

If you don't criticize someone you must support them (False)

Therefore

Liberals side with dictatorships. (False)


Your argument is deductively valid in that if all of your premises were true your conclusion would absolutely have to be true. However, it isn't sound because two of your premises are false. Especially the third one.

Another thing people often seem to do (I'm not saying you're doing this) is group liberals and those aforementioned states together and respond to criticism of of human rights abuses by the US by saying "Well, they don't have good human rights". This is what's called "tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque) and it's a logical fallacy. Or at least it would be if liberals and the aforementioned states could legitimately be grouped.

It's also one of my pet peeves because it makes absolutely no sense.

I'd get rid of those pictures if I were you.

Its a DEAT'able offence.

As much as i'd like to bite back with some of my own, yeah.

You mean an arrogant, pompous, racist, pro-Fascist that was turfed out of power as soon as the war was over?

You mean the man who saved the UK? If Chamberlain had remained in power, you would be speaking German and wearing a swastika right now.

You mean the man who saved the UK? If Chamberlain had remained in power, you would be speaking German and wearing a swastika right now.
(Ignoring the oversimplification of WW2)

Same fellow yes.

And doubtful really. I'm not from the UK.

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?
I consider myself a liberal and I'm against oppressive regimes like those you mentioned. Also remember, republicans seem to love the Saudis.

(Ignoring the oversimplification of WW2)
/sigh/

It's because liberals want to murder your babies and sell your house to Ethiopians
Bullshit! We want to GIVE your house to the Ethiopians. We're against profit, remember?

I consider myself a liberal and I'm against oppressive regimes like those you mentioned. Also remember, republicans seem to love the Saudis.
Ah, but you're an unusual liberal who also owns a pistol. Rather unusual, at least on an official level.

I'd get rid of those pictures if I were you.

Its a DEAT'able offence.

Someone can't handle reality.

/sigh/
Time and place, time and place.

Someone can't handle reality.
No. Its against forum rules. Visit from the mods be upon you if you do not remove said images.

As much as i'd like to bite back with some of my own, yeah.

Gosh, it took me a few deats to realize that posting virtually any picture that anyone finds offensive is a deatable offense.

I consider myself a liberal and I'm against oppressive regimes like those you mentioned. Also remember, republicans seem to love the Saudis.
No, they just ignore their human rights abuses because they want Saudi oil.

Someone can't handle reality.
Someone is using 2nd grade debating tactics here.

Someone can't handle reality.
Go talk to Max Barry then. He makes the rules.

Gosh, it took me a few deats to realize that posting virtually any picture that anyone finds offensive is a deatable offense.

I've received a warning for it too, and don't think it only applies to your side of politics, because it doesn't. I got in trouble for pictures of children in sweatshops.

I've received a warning for it too, and don't think it only applies to your side of politics, because it doesn't. I got in trouble for pictures of children in sweatshops.
Yah, it has little to do with politics.

I've noticed that there are a few "debating tactics" here that involve deating your opponent, or luring your opponent into deating themselves through an offence.

Yah, it has little to do with politics.

I've noticed that there are a few "debating tactics" here that involve deating your opponent, or luring your opponent into deating themselves through an offence.
Which is childish, no matter whom it comes from.

Hm. I don't think i've ever reported anyone on here.

Yah, it has little to do with politics.

I've noticed that there are a few "debating tactics" here that involve deating your opponent, or luring your opponent into deating themselves through an offence.
Not in this case, you'll agree?

Not in this case, you'll agree?
Frankly, I don't care what kinds of pictures get posted.

Frankly, I don't care what kinds of pictures get posted.

I don't really care either, as long as it's not extremely gross or scary.

I don't really care either, as long as it's not extremely gross or scary.
Nothing is too gross or scary. But, there are Terms of Service here.

Frankly, I don't care what kinds of pictures get posted.

Neither do I normally, and so long as the people who run this site say they're cool then fine. But rules are there for a reason.

Nothing is too gross or scary. But, there are Terms of Service here.

Of course you'd say that, you're ex-Army. My dad was in 'Nam, and I've seen him pull hot pans out of the oven barehanded. >_>

I can see that happening if by "open your mouth the wrong way" you mean "start talking out of your arse"
;)
Yeah...

You know that you probably also shouldn't get arrested or anythig for talking out your arse, either, right?

Wait wait wait wait...

Just because liberals think we SHOULDNT attack these other countries (mainly because theres as little as a reason to as having an asshole on your elbow) doesnt mean they side with them.

Wait wait wait wait...

Just because liberals think we SHOULDNT attack these other countries (mainly because theres as little as a reason to as having an asshole on your elbow) doesnt mean they side with them.

The problem is that if they turn out to be wrong (as Chamberlain did) they have to spend the rest of their lives defending their appeasement.

The problem is that if they turn out to be wrong (as Chamberlain did) they have to spend the rest of their lives defending their appeasement.

You use Chamberlain as an example of that gone wrong. Fair enough.

I use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of it when it went right.

Thankfully we're all still here because people who espoused the same as you are now, weren't listened to.

Wait wait wait wait...

Just because liberals think we SHOULDNT attack these other countries (mainly because theres as little as a reason to as having an asshole on your elbow) doesnt mean they side with them.

No, we shouldn't wait wait wait.
Either you are all psyched up about having a go at the bad guys - or you don't qualify as a good guy.
Of course, that might make you a neutral - but then again, offending or misplacing neutrals is kinda immaterial.

The problem is that if they turn out to be wrong (as Chamberlain did) they have to spend the rest of their lives defending their appeasement.
And so does the other side; look at Vietnam.

The problem is that if they turn out to be wrong (as Chamberlain did) they have to spend the rest of their lives defending their appeasement.

But theres no right or wrong here, theres not enough conclusive evidence to say that theres a reason to wage war. As we saw in Iraq, theres was 0 reason to go there.

Oh and I dont think liberals side with Saudi Arabia. I personally think siding with them is absurd. But again, no reason to wage war.

No, we shouldn't wait wait wait.
Either you are all psyched up about having a go at the bad guys - or you don't qualify as a good guy.
Of course, that might make you a neutral - but then again, offending or misplacing neutrals is kinda immaterial.

THERE IS A GREY AREA YOU KNOW. Besides, am I really going to let a guy like George Bush dictate who is bad and who is good?

But theres no right or wrong here, theres not enough conclusive evidence to say that theres a reason to wage war. As we saw in Iraq, theres was 0 reason to go there.

Oh and I dont think liberals side with Saudi Arabia. I personally think siding with them is absurd. But again, no reason to wage war.

From Wikipedia's section on Chamberlain:
As with many in Europe who had witnessed the horrors of the First World War and its aftermath, Chamberlain was committed to peace at almost any price. Across the political spectrum in the major Western democracies, there was a sense that war could, and should, be avoided by concession, negotiation and compromise. The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive. Chamberlain, as even his political detractors admitted, was an honourable man, raised in the old school of European politics. It was his misfortune, and Britain's, that the imperial rules and aristocratic norms in which he believed were, indeed, anachronistic.

Concession, negotiation, and compromise were of no value in dealing with Nazi Germany, and it looks like they are of no value in dealing with Iran, North Korea, or similar nations.

SNIP


THERE IS A GREY AREA YOU KNOW. Besides, am I really going to let a guy like George Bush dictate who is bad and who is good?


I hope you do better than Shrub, and try to follow the dictates of your own conscience.

But the bottomline is: your lot never actually does barge off and go out to give battle.

It ain't just a grey area, EVERYTHING always turns out grey through the liberal spectacles these days!

Concession, negotiation, and compromise were of no value in dealing with Nazi Germany, and it looks like they are of no value in dealing with Iran, North Korea, or similar nations.
Cuban Missile Crisis?

You know, not dying in a nuclear war?

I think concession, negotiation and compromise worked there.

But the bottomline is: your lot never actually does barge off and go out to give battle.!

Spanish Civil War.

:p

Concession, negotiation, and compromise were of no value in dealing with Nazi Germany, and it looks like they are of no value in dealing with Iran, North Korea, or similar nations.No, but they did buy the time necessary to help the British win the Battle of Britain.

Spanish Civil War.

:p

Some 60 years ago.
So, unless you are your own grandpa...

Cuban Missile Crisis?

You know, not dying in a nuclear war?

I think concession, negotiation and compromise worked there.

That was not concession, negotiation, or compromise.

The US threatened the USSR with total nuclear war, and the USSR backed down.

I hope you do better than Shrub, and try to follow the dictates of your own conscience.

But the bottomline is: your lot never actually does barge off and go out to give battle.

It ain't just a grey area, EVERYTHING always turns out grey through the liberal spectacles these days!

So youre telling me I either have to be adamant about attacking someone that my jerkoff of a president says is bad, or else I am one of the bad guys myself? Get a clue.


That was not concession, negotiation, or compromise.

The US threatened the USSR with total nuclear war, and the USSR backed down.

It may not have been, but it wasnt all out war.

Some 60 years ago.
So, unless you are your own grandpa...

You said "never", I responded with a perfectly valid example where many thousands of leftists from around the world travelled to a country they had no personal stake in to fight fascism. Since we were arguing about Nazi Germany, it's rather pertinent to raise this example.

That was not concession, negotiation, or compromise.

The US threatened the USSR with total nuclear war, and the USSR backed down.

The removal of US missiles in Turkey is conveniently overlooked, here.

It may not have been, but it wasnt all out war.

If Khruschev had not been convinced that Kennedy really meant to blow up the whole world, it would have been all out war.

That was not concession, negotiation, or compromise.

The US threatened the USSR with total nuclear war, and the USSR backed down.

Wow. Your lack of knowledge about your own history surprises me.

It really does.

No compromise- Promise not to invade Cuba.
No concession- removal of Jupiter missiles form Turkey
No negotiation- letters between Kennedy and Khrushchev, RFK and Dobrynin, back door diplomatics between Bolshakov and Rusk.

Of course not.

Wow. Your lack of knowledge about your own history surprises me.

It really does.

No compromise- Promise not to invade Cuba.
No concession- removal of Jupiter missiles form Turkey
No negotiation- letters between Kennedy and Khrushchev, RFK and Dobrynin, back door diplomatics between Bolshakov and Rusk.

Of course not.

All of which came after Khruschev responded to a direct ultimatum and threat of nuclear war.

All of which came after Khruschev responded to a direct ultimatum and threat of nuclear war.

Kimchi, please.

I beggin you, stop.

I'm in the middle of my (long) thesis.

About this exact topic. I've read FRUS, listening to the Whitehouse tapes, read insider documents from Cuba, the Kremlin and ExComm. Stop.

I don't want to pwn you like this. It would take too long.

All of which came after Khruschev responded to a direct ultimatum and threat of nuclear war.

I dont remember that happening.

You said "never", I responded with a perfectly valid example where many thousands of leftists from around the world travelled to a country they had no personal stake in to fight fascism. Since we were arguing about Nazi Germany, it's rather pertinent to raise this example.

I don't question the example. It is excellent.
I'd rather had that your generation would follow the example of your grandparents.

I don't question the example. It is excellent.
I'd rather had that your generation would follow the example of your grandparents.
They won't, I assure you.

Wimping out is the hallmark of today's Left. Ever since the fall of the USSR, they've been relegated to the political scrapheap, and only spout their rhetoric at parties and socials.

I don't question the example. It is excellent.
I'd rather had that your generation would follow the example of your grandparents.

I promise you, if there ever comes a time when the International Brigades are created anew, if a similar political movement to what occured in Spain arises somewhere, when I have a chance to put my life where my mouth is for the sake of what I believe in, i'll take it.

Think of that what you will.

I promise you, if there ever comes a time when the International Brigades are created anew, when I have a chance to put my life where my mouth is for the sake of what I believe in, i'll take it.

Think of that what you will.

I think I'll do the charitable thing - and assume you will do as you say.

That was not concession, negotiation, or compromise.

The US threatened the USSR with total nuclear war, and the USSR backed down.McNamara told a different story, but I guess you know better than the guy who was SecDef at the time. :rolleyes:

I think I'll do the charitable thing - and assume you will do as you say.
I would. I don't see it coming anytime soon, however.

McNamara told a different story, but I guess you know better than the guy who was SecDef at the time. :rolleyes:
McNamara lied about Vietnam. What more do you want?

I would. I don't see it coming anytime soon, however.

*nods*
But one must say that the however make it sound like a promise to pay on the Greek Kalends.

McNamara lied about Vietnam. What more do you want?

Rumsfeld anyone....

"They're in Tikrit. North, South, East, West and in the general area."

"We know where they are"

*nods*
But one must say that the however make it sound like a promise to pay on the Greek Kalends.

Unfamiliar with that term, what do you mean?

Start on this forum.

How many people on this forum defend Iran's President when he says that "Israel must be wiped off the map". They say that the Iranian President is merely a demagogue, and harmless, and that nothing is wrong. They are defending him and his statements.

And along that line, I relate to you a quote:


For the record I think Israel is more than capable of making Iran cry like a little bitch. So if they really wanna fuck with 'em, go for it.

Well, let's have a reality check here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10980432&postcount=33)

So Deep Kimchi is an Iranian? :D

Rumsfeld anyone....

"They're in Tikrit. North, South, East, West and in the general area."

"We know where they are"

Psy, I have no doubt you're working on your thesis. But I've read too many books on the subject since then, and unless there's some revisionism going on (as there always will be), that's the official line - direct threat of nuclear war.

Unfamiliar with that term, what do you mean?


Erm, there was no such thing as the Greek Kalends ( there were Roman Kalends ), so a promise to pay on the Greek Kalends meant that a debt wasn't likely to be paid ever.

I was sort of trying to hide the aside behind an almost inscrutable reference.

McNamara lied about Vietnam. What more do you want?
He lied about individual aspects of Vietnam to Congress and the public. Does that necessarily invalidate everything he said? If it does, then nothing that's ever come out of your mouth counts for anything either, I guess.

He lied about individual aspects of Vietnam to Congress and the public. Does that necessarily invalidate everything he said? If it does, then nothing that's ever come out of your mouth counts for anything either, I guess.
What I thought was classic politics was that for years, I heard liberals blame Vietnam on Nixon - who didn't even get us into it.

Not a word about McNamara...

Erm, there was no such thing as the Greek Kalends ( there were Roman Kalends ), so a promise to pay on the Greek Kalends meant that a debt wasn't likely to be paid ever.
I see. I'm sure even you would agree that it really isn't likely in the near future, however. :p

EDIT - perhaps I can make a thread on the topic tomorrow, for now, i'm going to bed.

The OP is using only 90% of the ignorance out of the total ignorance factor that this could have displayed, and it's not 100% because I pity him, and therefore don't feel like calling him 100% ignorant, because I'm a softhearted baby-eating liberal commie pinko bastard.

I see. I'm sure even you would agree that it really isn't likely in the near future, however. :p

EDIT - perhaps I can make a thread on the topic tomorrow, for now, i'm going to bed.

*nods*

Seeyathen, cobber!

Psy, I have no doubt you're working on your thesis. But I've read too many books on the subject since then, and unless there's some revisionism going on (as there always will be), that's the official line - direct threat of nuclear war.

Well, I have read books too. (too many)

But I'm using source material. Tape recordings of the ExComm meetings. Oval office tape recordings. Transcripts of meetings between Rusk, McNamara, Nitze, Bundy, Gen. Maxwell.

Khrushchev memoirs (12 fucking volumes of them :mad: ), Kremlin/White House exchanges, Presidential papers, memoirs from Bolshakov and so forth.

Trust me on this. There is no revisonism when dealing with primary materials.

Well, I have read books too. (too many)

But I'm using source material. Tape recordings of the ExComm meetings. Oval office tape recordings. Transcripts of meetings between Rusk, McNamara, Nitze, Bundy, Gen. Maxwell.

Khrushchev memoirs (12 fucking volumes of them :mad: ), Kremlin/White House exchanges, Presidential papers, memoirs from Bolshakov and so forth.

Trust me on this. There is no revisonism when dealing with primary materials.


I guess you'll want to talk to some B-52 pilots I know who flew to the edge of Soviet airspace and hung out there waiting for the final order.

They won't, I assure you.

Wimping out is the hallmark of today's Left. Ever since the fall of the USSR, they've been relegated to the political scrapheap, and only spout their rhetoric at parties and socials.

DK, you are, on a daily basis, reaching new levels of a$$h0l3, it amazes me that your sphincter hasn't enveloped your entire body yet.

What about all the "right-wing" presidents and leaders who armed some of the very same countries that your claiming "leftists" support? Or was it OKIYAR?

SNIP

Trust me on this. There is no revisonism when dealing with primary materials.


2 words:
Yeah,
Right.

Revisionism always occurs - if only because language changes, and therefore, what is said never matches what is heard.

DK, you are, on a daily basis, reaching new levels of a$$h0l3, it amazes me that your sphincter hasn't enveloped your entire body yet.

What about all the "right-wing" presidents and leaders who armed some of the very same countries that your claiming "leftists" support? Or was it OKIYAR?

Did we arm Iran with their current supply of weaponry?

No, I think all the stuff we gave to the Shah has long since worn out.

Did we arm Iraq with T-72 Soviet tanks, South African artillery pieces, or Chinese manufactured AKM rifles? Does the US manufacture RPG-7 rocket launchers?

hmm?

I guess you'll want to talk to some B-52 pilots I know who flew to the edge of Soviet airspace and hung out there waiting for the final order.

Precautionary ;)

Not to say Maxwell wasn't adverse to taking things into his own hands (see Checkpoint Charlie incident)

Soviets did their bit too mind. The name of that sub off of CUba escapes me- but they were a hair's trigger away from launching.

Not to mention the Rocket Battalions stationed on Cuba had individual authorisation to launch if they felt threathened. (Idiotic I know)

Anywho, back to work. ;)

DK, you are, on a daily basis, reaching new levels of a$$h0l3, it amazes me that your sphincter hasn't enveloped your entire body yet.

What about all the "right-wing" presidents and leaders who armed some of the very same countries that your claiming "leftists" support? Or was it OKIYAR?


Generally speaking, Justice is meant to say that one gets judged by ones own actions.

However: in certain political quarters, there is a deeply ingrained belief that
'a murdered should be allowed to go free, if one can insinuate that another man who was perhaps a murder as well, managed to beat the rap.'

2 words:
Yeah,
Right.

Revisionism always occurs - if only because language changes, and therefore, what is said never matches what is heard.

Do you even know what primary sources are? :rolleyes:

How can tape recordings from the Oval Office or ExComm meetings be skewed without some words magically disappearing?

Check out the Miller Centre or whitehousetapes.org

Do you even know what primary sources are? :rolleyes:

How can tape recordings from the Oval Office or ExComm meetings be skewed without some words magically disappearing?

Check out the Miller Centre or whitehousetapes.org

I know what primary sources are.

Try reading any official transcript of a conference from the 1940-era.

By now, reinterpretation is necessary, since the words as they were said no longer match what we hear ( since the semantic content of words change over time ).

What I thought was classic politics was that for years, I heard liberals blame Vietnam on Nixon - who didn't even get us into it.

Not a word about McNamara...Then you didn't actually listen to any liberals. McNamara is a reviled name among liberals because he helped divide the Democratic party over the war. Just the fact that you would act as though liberals didn't acknowledge McNamara's and LBJ's part in the war and blamed it all on Nixon shows how fundamentally dishonest of a person you are.

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Why does one assume that opposition to US foreign policy necessarily connotes support of states/regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Study of national security, foreign policy, and international relations will demonstrate that these issues are NOT either/or decisions.


(If anything, my own study suggests that those who take an "it's either us or them" attitude are the problem, not the solution.)

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?

Haha, it is kind of funny to read the thread and realize what the discussion has evolved into from this.

As a liberal person myself, I certainly don't support fanatical ultra-right regimes. I don't know of any who do. Extremism and fanaticism, in any form, be it left or right, is a ridiculous thing to support.

The question that seems to become clear from reading this thread is: Why do some liberals and conservatives feel the need to polarize against one another?

I mean, while endless discussion and debate accomplishes little, there are valid points to be seen on both sides when reasonable people discuss things. While I am generally very liberal, there are several matters on which I adopt a conservative stance. There's a balance to be struck!

Why do liberals, who champion human rights, liberty, freedom and peace, often side with violent, fanatical ultra-right regimes and factions such as iran and saudi arabia, rather than, say, the US Govt., which is probably closest to "fairly conservative"?

Is it just because those ultra-right extremists "aren't in their backyard"?

Wow. Ann Coulter plays NationStates!

Wow. Ann Coulter plays NationStates!Nah, actually I think that's a reincarnation of Kievan-Prussia.

Nah, actually I think that's a reincarnation of Kievan-Prussia.

That's true the vitriolic hatred is missing. ;)

CanadaCity given a 3-day forum ban for posting an image of human bodies. We do not permit graphic images of human bodies on this site.

This thread locked for trolling. It's not an "honest question", it's a loaded question with only one lame, predictable, increasingly tedious discussion possible.