Originally posted by Leif
Look we're going to have to disagree...
That's fair. I like this response much more than I like your most recent post in which you said
This Web page is obviously for the Deluded Dreamers.
Opinionated is fine. Heck, I'd like to think that I'm something of an institution around here exactly because I'm so headstrong. I do suggest
however that you will find it easier to win friends and influence people (and not get warnings and or banned) if you avoid insulting other members;
what you've essentially done in the quote above is insult ATS as a whole. This is unfair, because although you may not agree with everyone, it is
plain to see in many of the threads around here that ATS has quite a few fine scholars and gentlemen/ladies who do not deserve the label you have
branded upon this entire site.
The War does cost incalculable amounts I know. I'm suggesting that Oil sales are allready indirectly funding this War.
It is fine if we have to disagree on this matter, but I would like to ask you one last time to examine the math I have done using figures from
reliable sources, which demonstrates that not enough money is being gained through oil sales for America to profit by the war.
My contention really is a narrow one and I wish you would consider this; I am not claiming that the war in Iraq is all on the level. What I assert is
that the American people are not the source of the wrongdoing here, because there isn't enough money in it for us to be the culprits. The wrongdoers
here must be those who
- 1. Aren't paying for the war.
- 2. Are reaping benefits from it anyway.
- 3. Don't have the interests of America in mind.
This, in short, means certain multi-national corporations and select government officials who serve them either due to bribery or blackmail.
In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that you can't entirely blame decent American citizens for the corruption.
The guilt of America is limited to apathy that has made us unable to run our government in a more perfect manner. Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone for that offense.
Bush is not a Hitler type? Why's he only after people in the Middle East then?
Using Nazis as icons of evil against which every wrong must be measured may not be the most effective argument to present. I'm not even going to get
into the technicalities of where Bush is similar or dissimilar to Hitler because I know these discussions enver go anywhere. I will simply point out
that the Nazis incinerated people alive; that's a tough act to follow in terms of grotesque evil. Virtually any comparisson to the Nazis will fall
flat as a rhetorical strategy except with those who already agree with you, simply because the standard against which you are comparing is so
If you feel an analogy is in order, compare specific events rather than broader concepts. For example, comparing the war in Iraq to the Italian
Fascist invasion of Ethiopia might fgo over better (though I make no claims as to the validity of that analogy).
I would like to believe that the USA is the place it used to be.
Um, the USA never was "the place it used to be", at least not in recent memory. The Democratic Utopia was dead (to my mind) as of the Whiskey
Rebellion and America as the international Mr. Niceguy never existed if you ask an Indian, and if it did exist, died during the Banana Wars.
We only founded the UN to divide up the world among ourselves and our allies and assure our supremacy over all challengers. The fall of the ROC and
the start of the Cold War with the USSR didn't ruin the UN, it simply highlighted the offensively ambitious nature thereof by creating a power
struggle among those who were supposed to rule the world together.
The end of the cold war brought about an American attempt to reinstitute the UN not for any noble reasons but as a guardian of our supremacy, and we
pitched it out the window again when it turned out that Russia and China still had some backbone left in them on certain issues.
The good old days never happened. The American people have been slowly but surely wearing out one ruling conspiracy only to be enslaved by another for
over 200 years. Again, not exactly our fault- just the nature of the world.
They did this even in Ukraine, fundingthe Orange Revolution and Victor Yushenko's rise to power over the pro Russian candidate.
Actually that was a good thing. Yes, we funded some professional "guerilla campaigners" from the former Yugoslavia. It takes a lot of money and a
lot of know-how to win an election against a crooked government. At the end of the day though, the votes were there. All the money in the world
wouldn't have made a difference unless A we resorted to violence or B the vote of the people was on our side.
You people are more informed than me in the facts, and I thank you for your information. However, I honestly think you can't see the wood for
Knowing less does not give you clarity of vision on the matter. You started with a conclusion. This was a mistake. Take the facts- look them up. The
internet is very powerful- in 2 hours of skilled googling a person can become VERY well acquainted with most subjects. Form a conclusion from the
facts. If you can start from scratch, and get to your conclusion just on the facts without making leaps, that's fine. If not, perhaps you should be
open to the possibility that there is another answer. I'm wrong sometimes. It happens. It sucks, but it happens. Better to blush a bit and then fix
it, than to become angry and then storm away from the discussion saying "you're all dilluded" and "goodbye forever". What happens when you've
stormed away from everyone? Move up to the mountains and be a hermit?
Chill. There's no animousity here... at least not from me. Disagreement is no biggie; it's just an intelligent discourse on current events: good