Brokeback Mountain

Forum

Pages: 1 2 3
.....and what is your helmet covering?

Some have asked me why greenfyre wants to move the location of the chat? Any ideas??

Hint: There is no place to hide.

Another hint: We Americans have run out of patience with the virulent anti-American diatribes as evidenced in greenfyre's 'chats.'
There is an American expression that is pertinent here in that greenfyre was cruising right on until 'he ran into a mac truck.' I am his mac truck...........and he is on notice----figuratively speaking.

By your sarcasm, may I assume that there are other points that you'd like to make?

>>By lv2read   (Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006 04:18)



>> I'll restate:

I already stated clearly that Saddam was a homicidal maniac, and a criminal for what he did to Kuwait, to Iran, to the Kurds, and most particularly to the people of Iraq. I have been clear and consistent in condeming him as a monster.

I merely pointed out that he had been a monster for most of his reign and that for much of that time the US provided him with political and material support, including weapons. This is historical fact acknowledged by the US gov't. Apparently this fact upsets you, but then you should be upset at the government, not me. I just report it.

>> Some have asked me why greenfyre wants to move the location of the chat? Any ideas??
>> Hint: There is no place to hide.

Gawd that is lame. Are you telling me that there are friends of yours who think something is hidden when you provide them with the URL? How are they finding their way to gnovies? or maybe you have been printing these things off and reading aloud for them? So far you are the only one who has used flork to send things off the record; everything I have said has been public.

>> Another hint: We Americans have run out of patience with the virulent anti-American diatribes as evidenced in greenfyre's 'chats.'

1) If I have said anything that was not factual please quote it exactly as I wrote it and then provide a credible source giving the correct information;

2) You, L2R, are not "we Americans". As I look around the majority of the sites and sources criticising US policy are based in the US and run by US citizens, or are they not Americans if they criticise US policy?;

3) Many of us can tell the difference between the American people and the current US administration. Further, the majority of the American people are able to think for themselves and don't just parrot the administration's talking points;

4) please quote (cut and paste - no editing) anthing I said that qualifies as virulent, anti-american, or as a diatribe;

5) Here is some background reading you may find helpful: the Constitution of the United States of America (impressive document), The Declaration of Independance (one of my favourites, although you will probably feel it is a subversive, radical, dangerous diatribe. OK, actually you'd be right, it is, and a damn great one too!). Just about anything by Jefferson, Lincoln, Adams,Thoreau, Emerson ... the list just goes on and on.

6) How do you feel about the following virulent, anti-american diatribes?

"there never was a good war, or a bad peace." Benjamin Franklin

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living." General Omar Bradley

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." Smedley D. Butler, Major General, U.S. Marine Corps, Medal of Honor (twice), Army Distinguished Service Medal, Navy Distinguished Service Medal

and I can provide lots more if you are actually able to comment intelligably on these.

>> was cruising right on until 'he ran into a mac truck.' I am his mac truck...........and he is on notice----figuratively speaking.

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. You have not made a single defensible point, you change the subject when asked to justify things you have said, fail to answer relevant questions, show no sign that you have actually read anything here, just cut and paste the same irrelevant phrase from Limbaugh's site over and over, and yet you seem to think that you have somehow been convincing?

OK, you seem to have somehow convinced yourself that there is some kind of link between something I said somewhere and democracy in Iraq. God knows what, but it seems to be the case.

So, how about you quote whatever it is (cut and paste), cite the source, and then connect the dots between what I said and where you have gone with it. Just show the logical connection so we can all understand how you got there.

Right now the betting is that you won't even try because what you say isn't based on anything, it is just a knee jerk parroting of something from Fox News, but I feel I should at least give you the opportunity to try.

So come on L2R, give it go, see if you can actually justify just one thing you have said here, just one ... you can do it, don't be afraid.

See, I can do belittling sarcasm too, it contributes nothing and just pisses people off.

So how about we drop all the sarcasm and other BS and just be civil, respectful and polite, respond intelligently to points the other has made, be clear about our own points, and have a normal, adult conversation. That is my proposal.

>>By greenfyre   (Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 03:50)



Are you agreeing with me that American action of late have given birth to a free and Democratic Iraq.

You know what is said about profiles that contain many words, but......... I'll let you finish this. So, just answer this question----it is still on the board. Now I have another question for you that is much more difficult, but first let's get past this.

Yes or No....real simple....and the question is directed to YOU, do you applaud the political changes in Iraq? I will even withdraw the question about American involvement bringing it about. No grandstanding here, though. The question does not pertain to Chile, East Timor or to the Separatist Movement in Quebec.....only Iraq and its subsequent flight with freedom and Democracy. If you choose to obfuscate, you will be stirring the mac truck from its slumber.

>>By lv2read   (Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 05:27)



I'll restate: (sound familiar?)

Tell all about the good works and sacrifices that Ame4rica has endured in bringing about constitutional government, free elections and democracy in Iraq. I'd like to hear/read a little enthusiastic pro-American rhetoric here.

We are waiting...and you know who YOU are.

Expectantly,
David of
Newport Beach (pride of Capitalism), California

>>By lv2read   (Thursday, 29 Jun 2006 22:03)



Don't make threats, it just escalates conflict and interferes with understanding and learning.

Now your choice of the word "obfuscate" is a fascinating one because it means "To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand". Simplistically this is thought to be when a simple situation is portrayed as complex in order to make it difficult to understand.

But, if you take a complex situation and portray it as simplistic, that is also obfuscating because such simplifications make the real situation difficult or impossible to perceive or understand.

So the goal is a real understanding of the situation, whether it is simple or complex. Excellent, I am glad we agree.

Apparently you would like a Yes or No answer to a question. Fine, I can do that.

Here is the question: "Am I willing to reduce complex geo-political and socio-economic issues to a single yes or no answer?"

Here is my answer: No, of course not, that would be silly. It would only obfuscate.

For one thing such an unqualified, contextless answer can then be twisted to suit the the agenda of another person. For example, I ask you the same question. If you say 'Yes' I say 'What? Over 2,500 US personnel and 40,000 Iraqis have been killed, and you approve'? Of course if you say "No" I can say 'What? you prefer that butcher Saddam stayed in power'? We're not talking whether you prefer vanilla or chocolate here, these are complex issues.

If the question is understood to be whether I think the removal of Saddam to be a good thing? on that level and without context, sure. But the actual situation is much more nuanced.

For example, the human cost has been pretty high, and it's getting higher all the time. Take the KIA #s and multiply by approx 8 or 9 to get rough WIA, never mind the number of folks who have PTSD (and if you don't think that is a significant and legitimet wound you don't know s$%^ about war or combat). For these I refer to everyone involved and affected, US, Iraqi, other.

Further, the sad truth is that in most social measures the Iraqi people are worse off than they were 4 yrs ago. Pick your criteria, access to food, clean water, health care, access to education. Let's not mention personal security.

On the other hand they do seem to have a had a fairly decent election. Good voter turnout, limited voter intimidation, etc. That is an impressive and laudable achievement.

Unfortunately the elected government does not seem to be in a position to govern. Another big problem is that no matter how legitimet the elected government is they may have become discredited by association with the US forces. No matter how benign it is, an occupying force will ultimately be seen as first and foremost an occupying force by the occupied

Further, it is not clear to me what democracy in Iraq should look like. There are many, many forms that democracy can take, and just what is a good one for Iraq is not a question I am competent to even speculate on. It is the Iraqi people who will have to decide that one.

I have no question that the American people mean well. It is has been my privilege to have been through some 35 of the states and met many, many people over the years. Overwhelmingly I found decent, well meaning folks trying to do the right thing. I can say pretty unequivocably that I have tremendous faith in the American people. I cannot say the same about the current government though

Unfortunately there is also this impulse to try for quick solutions. Where that's coming from I am not sure, but there is a real John Wayne kind of view that expects that all that need be done is ride in, shoot the bad guy, and then the grateful townfolk will cheer.

Except life ain't so easy or simplistic. The resistance in Iraq is a complex mish mash of nationalists, ethnic and political factions, opportunists, thugs and gangsters, and of course religous extremists. It's complex, but not insoluable. Probably the only groups that are completely impossible to work with are the gangsters and extremists, and evidence suggests that they are the smallest of the groups.

To succeed I suspect the US needs to divide and conquer, ie talk to each group seperately and see if there is room for accomodation. Instead the US seems to be pursuing a strategy of "Unite and fight", ie lump them all together as "anti-US" and try and take them all on.

In this regard it is very reminiscent of Vietnam where the US lumped all of the opposition together and called them Viet Cong, a label created by the Rand Corporation. Actually they were mostly Viet Minh (nationalist independance movement - very similar to that rabble who called themselves the Continental Congress), religous groups like the Buddhists, the Hao Hao and the Cao Dai, and various leftist groups. Each group had it's own goals and was united only in their opposition the the US backed Diem regime.

By treating them as a single opponent the US pretty much forced them to cooperate with one another, and so to some extent they did. A complex, nuanced situation was reduced to "with us or against us", "yes or no". In short order this turned a loose coalition of opponents into a broad alliance of resistance.

Iraq's geo-politics are equally nuanced and complex, and in my opinion the US administration completely discredits itself when it tries to reduce that to "people who hate freedom". That leaves me wondering whether they are so stupid as to believe that this complex and intricate situation is really that simple and crude, or whether they believe I/we are so stupid that we will believe it when they say so. Either way I am left with no faith in the administration.

That the American people are fundamentally good and trying to do right thing? yes, no question.

That the US Administration is? no, I do not think so, or at least not solely. I believe there is much more economic political hegemony being pursued, as well as some personal agendas, and that this is corrupting the basic decency of the American people.

That the current strategy is the right one? No, for the reasons given.

That the people of Iraq are benefiting? I throw up my hands. It's way too early to tell. If Iraq stabalizes and the people are able to get on with pursuing lives of health and dignity in peace and security, then maybe it will have been worth it. If it descends further into civil war and chaos, then maybe Saddam was better, at least for the majority.

And if you are one of the casualties or one of their relatives, then it probably doesn't matter which, and perhaps nothing will ever justify it. The people of Iraq will have to be the ones who decide.

Complicated enough? not by half. Who said the only two options for us were "Do nothing" or "Invade"? There's that old duality again, everything or nothing, yes or no. Shoot the bad guy or avoid the town.

It was never that simple. There were other options that might have been pursued, all moot now. Now we have to deal with what is, but can we stop pretending that it's just one or the other? and in the mean time stop supporting butchers and mad men no matter how cooperative they are with Halibuton.

>>By greenfyre   (Friday, 30 Jun 2006 00:35)



Immensely enjoyed reading your revisionist history...trouble is that it just doesn't cut it. I'll answer the blatantly foolish points and will leave the remainder to others.

Obfuscate....as in the concept of a free and Democratic Iraq?? No. no a thousand times no. Iraq is free, is democratic and has a constitution which is high on individual rights.

Obfuscate....as in the dead and wounded in action necessary to achieve that objective?? Yes, yes one thousand times yes. And we will not leave until the work is done!!! We'd prefer zeero casualties, but how realistic is that?

Obfuscate...as in dividing and conquering when it was the USA that INSISTED on participation of all groups. Are you getting your information tom the Communist Workers' Daily or something like it??

Obfuscate...as in Iraqi people being worse off and having a duller future now than a couple of years ago. I would not have believed that you could have shocked me like this....the Iraqi people are no longer enslaved....where have you been? In the immediate few years after the US Civil War, blacks were decidedly worse off--but they proceeded to thrive. Can't you cut the Iraqi people a little slack here?

Special Note: Words may be harsh, painful and unforgiving. I have not intended to 'vaporize' you, to embarrass you or to infer anything personal. If I have come across in that manner, I sincerely apologize. I truly enjoy this exchange!!

>>By lv2read   (Friday, 30 Jun 2006 04:15)



>> your revisionist history..

Please quote anything I have said that is factually inaccurate and cite a credible source refuting it.

>> dead and wounded in action necessary to achieve that objective?? Yes, yes one thousand times yes.

1) We won't know the final cost or the final result for a long time, so assessing it's value is premature;
2) I would prefer the opinion of the grunts and civilians in Iraq;

>> We'd prefer zeero casualties, but how realistic is that?

If you choose to invade? very unrealistic. Other options might have been less costly in terms of human suffering.

>> INSISTED on participation of all groups.

By which you mean the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds, the big 3 ethno-religious factions.

>> Are you getting your information tom the Communist Workers' Daily or something like it??

Oh you know .. such Marxist-Leninist pillars as the US State Dept http://www.state.gov/ NOSPACE documents/organization/67857.pdf#page=11 , and that bastion of Maoism the Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ NOSPACE international/oilproduction.html . Time Magazine has been doing annual updates on the anniversary of the invasion, but then Time always was just a front for Castro. And this ones a pretty good one to get a sense of the security situation http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/ ...

>> Iraqi people being worse off and having a duller future now than a couple of years ago. ... shocked me like this....

You would be less shocked if you read what I actually say. I said the standard of living has declined and was rather explicit that the future is up in the air. Here's a much more shocking analysis for you http://www.counterpunch.com/blum06222006.html . If you have actual data that counters some or all of it I would be interested, but only actual data ... cited references, facts, figures and dates, not unsubstantiated opinions.

>> In the immediate few years after the US Civil War, blacks were decidedly worse off--

Very true for many in the South, and the War itself was brutally costly, particularly to the South. Ending the horror of slavery was a moral imperative, but would the US not have been better off if another way could have been found? an end to slavary that did not leave a million dead and a devastated economy in te South.

Speaking of the US Civil War dead, 90% of the poor crackers who died or were wounded for the CSA were not slave owners and never would be, they were just poor schmucks who got pulled into dying and killing for a war that they could not benefit from no matter how it ended. The best they could hope for was to return to their cabin and meagre acreage and try to put their lives back together. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

>> but they proceeded to thrive.

Far better free than slaves, but "thrive" is saying a bit much. Blacks were subjected to severe repression for the next century and it was only the Civil Rights movement that started to get things really moving. I remember talking to a man who noted that the local black population had only been allowed to vote in 1967, and this was in 'Liberty County' Fl - I loved the irony.

Things have gotten better for sure, but even so there is still considerable racism and the consequences of racism - ask any resident of 9th Ward New Orleans.

On something of a tangent, I found it fascinating when two years ago there was the lynching of the 4 security/mercenary personnel in Fallujah. In a discussion on a forum at the time it became clear that most Americans had conveniently forgotten that they had something like 5000 lynchings in the US, that this carried on right into the 1060s, that the whole community including women and children would often attend, and that you could even buy postcards of lynchings in local stores, again up to the 1960s. IOW some of the participants in those lynchings are still very much alive and part of US society. ANyway, I digress ...

>> Special Note:

This is not a contest that one or the other can win. I am telling you what I think and why. I appreciate you telling me what you think, but I would like it even more if you provided actual facts, figures, dates, arguments that proceed logically and data to substantiate your opinions and beliefs.

When all you give is assertions and opinions I will not be motivated to change my views. Why should I? It is not enough to have a belief, you have to back it up with something factual and actual if you wish to influence other people views.

>>By greenfyre   (Saturday, 1 Jul 2006 00:02)



You're making things too hard on yourself---I'm asking you the time; not asking how to assemble a watch. I'm not asking you how the Communist Daily Worker feels about a free, constitutional and participatory democracy as in evidence in Iraq....I'm asking you. The lynchings you referred to were basically a thing of the past after the 1950's, and the 9th Ward in New Orleans is a polarized community, but I fail to see how that information does anything but obfuscate......just answer the question. I know that the US is terrible and that capitalism is the scourge of the earth, and that the Iranian leader is just experiencing a mid-life crisis and we should let him work it out, but....but...I don't see how any of this is germane to the question, I'm impressed with citations, statistics, graphs and the like, but I am soliciting your opinion only, and be reminded that--however misguided--there is no right or wrong for an opinion..

The question is STILL on the table. Do I need to rephrase or repeat it?? I think not. The floor is yours. We're waiting................

>>By lv2read   (Saturday, 1 Jul 2006 18:24)



What has this got to do with Brokeback Mountain?

>>By Sarcophilus   (Sunday, 2 Jul 2006 08:15)



Why is your comment made after my post? It couldn't be that you disagree with my position, could it?

Put your opinion out here for all to see. don't stand on the sidelines and take potshots.

>>By lv2read   (Sunday, 2 Jul 2006 08:28)



As tempting as it is, I will post no further replies to greenfyre at this location. Have enjoyed the opportunity to use this board to counter virulent anti-American rhetoric. This is not the place and the greenfyres of this world, although relatively few in number, are never short of venom tp aim at the USA and USA interests. Their self-righteousness is nauseating to me.

>>By lv2read   (Sunday, 2 Jul 2006 10:09)



L2R

greenfyre has replied to every one of your questions eloquently with rationalism and with truth,

you have just twisted words to suit your own opinions, you come across as a scared man, hanging onto your governments coat tails, and a man more than willing to perpetuate the lies and perpetuate the slaughter thats going on in Iraq, both to your fellow countrymen and the Iraqi nationals, you are willing to waste the flower of american youth without risking your own skin


you are truly a very very sad human being, mate!!

>>By BushisaManiac   (Tuesday, 4 Jul 2006 23:32)



I agree with the last post:

You label someone - simply because they fail to agree with your irrational jingoism - as anti-American?

Who appointed you judge and jury of all things American?

What gives you the right to speak for all those Americans who saw Brokeback Mountain (as well as a significant global audience) and appreciated the story for what it intended.

I admire Greenfyre for his forebearance with the transparent bullying tactics you deployed in a pathetic attempt to pull off the discussion board equivalent of shouting someone down.

If I thought you truly represented Americans I would despair for its - and the world's - future. Fortunately I know that a significant number of your countrymen have woken up the the incompetence of its current Government and the tragic consequences that have ensued for the rest of the world.

It is you that come across as self righteous and it is your self-serving doublespeak that I find nauseating.

I can see that the sublety of Greenfyre's posts elude you, so lets try and put this in words you might understand...

Stop relying on Fox news and the rest of the News Corporation diatribe that you have been fooled into thinking is the truth and find out what the rest of the world thinks of the disaster that the Bush Administration euphemistically call the War Against Terrorism.

If that's too hard try listening at least someone unconnected with the current administration.

You'll find that the general global consensus (i.e. anyone outside the whitehouse) views the misadventure of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster.

By the way: it is possible to get counselling for your obvious homophobia.

>>By Sarcophilus   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 15:21)



Attn BIAM and Sarcophilus (hereinafter referred to as the Twins),
If I could help you I would, but their is no remedy for your anti-American bigotry--is this clear enough? It appears to be terminal, so sorry.

To summarize:
Homosexuality is normal.
There are no terrorists in this world except Americans.
And the bombing of the World Trade Towers in New York City is a figment of my imagination. And if in fact it really happened, it was probably done by a Texan.
And the insurgents are normal, mainstream Iraqis that merely cannot overcome a harmless child like interest in bombs and guns. Just leave them alone---they'll outgrow it.

Yeah........................

The ostrich syndrome flourishes!!!

Open your eyes, take a deep breath, and reality is bound to confront you sooner or later. Trust me on this.

To the Twins, Sarcophilus and BIAM:
What have you got against the free and Democratic Iraq that has emerged?

Special Note:

By the way, are their any other close minded anti-American out there. Come on in....I'm waiting for you. But, please, advance better arguments than the Twins!!!

Where were the Twins when the Iraqis' voted, and ratified their Constitution, amd demonstrated self-determination? Is this made up by Fox and CNN?b Wake up...open your eyes.

Where have you been?

Doesn't the Communist Daily Worker carry that news?? Does the Communist Daily Worker tell you that homosexuality is normal? That the insurgents are peach loving? That the Hamas love Israelo?? That 9/11 never happened?? That Sadam and the Baath Party was in the Iraqis' best interest?? That Iraq was ENTITLED to invade Kuwait??

What is your problem?? You want to have a serious discussion? OK, then get serious on the issues.

Are the Twins into name calling---read their most recent post. Only people on the defensive do that. All you Twins end up doing is to garner support for the positions I espouse. Thank you.

>>By lv2read   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 20:26)



I'm not anti american you sad old fella, I'm anti bush and the dim bigots who hang on to his every word.

Iraq isn't a free democracy its a US initiated bloodbath

what the hell have the Iraqis got to do with 9/11?

I fought in the gulf war when iraq invaded Kuwait, and served in the British army for 17 years. I served against IRA terrorism and took a bomb fragment in my back, when the US did nothing against the same IRA terrorism, when the IRA terrorists were feted in Boston and new York, when US citizens gave money and arms to Irish terrorists, when the US government consistently refused to send irish terrorists being harboured by US citizens, back to the UK to stand trial.

isnt it funny how you pick and choose the terrorist flavour that suits you, the irish..oh they are quaint little fellas...but the bad bad muslims....oooooh they are real nasty

I served in the forces during the cold war when the soviet brand of communism was the 'evil' of the world.

well now its the US brand of democracy as preached by Dubya that is the evil of the world, expansionism is expansionism when the 'liberated' citizens dont want to be liberated

I also know that when the vietnam war was on, when the US tried to stem that particular brand of communist expansion, you dodged the draft and ran,

so you my friend are despicable, you can stand by and watch your youth bleed in foreign climes, and sit smugly in safety, yet when it was your turn all them years ago you wet your pants and ran, like the coward you are

>>By BushisaManiac   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 21:55)



for all you folks that are on this board to talk about brokeback mountain, i am sorry that i feel compelled to answer this coward back, and not discuss the film, but i havent seen it anyway so i have little to offer

>>By BushisaManiac   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 21:59)



Dear YAAM (see legend below),
What were you saying recently about Just Jon?? It didn't have anything to do with infantile namecalling did it?? Are you making a virtue out of something you (seemingly) despised?? I think that you've got your mug on ome side of the fence and your wump on the other.

Now.......who's a coward??

Recommended change in handle.
FROM: BushisaManiac (BIAM)
TO: Youareamaniac YAAM)

>>By lv2read   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 23:13)



what are you rambling on about.??...........I served my country and have no shame in having done so, .......... you are the coward, if you despise communists so much why didnt you go to Nam, why did you wimp out,

and why are you so willing for your young countrymen to be blasted to pieces ?

>>By BushisaManiac   (Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 23:22)



I could ask the Maniac what his comments have to do with Brokeback Mountain, but I won't. I could ask him if he is a loser as Reighman(sp??) accuses, but I won't. I could ask him to acknowledge Iraq's experiment with Democracy, but I won't. The only people that he impresses are the virulent anti-American bigots---who flock to this site as a moth is attractted to a light at night.

Now why do the Twins contest Democracy, free elections, pluralism and the like?? Your guess is as good as mine, but we don't know for sure.

Is there a reason that BIAM doesn't state the name of the country that he is from. Is it possible that his country has supported the War on Terrorism? Interesting.

Step up to the plate. Applaud America's impact in Iraq. Do the right thing. You need not fear the recent changes in Iraq. They are good. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Credit for that statememt goes to an American President that many Europeans despised---even more than present day anti-American groups. His name, Franklin Delano Roosevelt---and he intervened in European affairs rather heavy handedly much as President Bush is providing leadership now.

>>By lv2read   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 00:06)



If you read my post above you will see that i served in the British Army so i come from........Britain, suprise suprise, my government supports the war, the british people definitely do not...

I dont despise democracy, but once again Iraq isn't a free democracy its a US initiated bloodbath

and i will ask again...

what the hell have the Iraqis got to do with 9/11?

if you despise communists so much why didnt you go to Nam ?

and why are you so willing for your young countrymen to be blasted to pieces ?

and from another US president also named Roosevelt..

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt

>>By BushisaManiac   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 00:18)



you are decidedly quiet L2R

do you want me to repeat the questions............... like you have so many times on this board?

>>By BushisaManiac   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 01:24)



Well L2R, you got some gall (I guess the Brits would say cheek) to call BiaM and Sarco to task for being off topic after you just spent the last 2 pages ranting how this was the place to talk US foreign policy even though I made every attempt to either get back on topic or move to a more acceptable place. Your shameless hypocrisy is staggering.

Equally, your "summary" of the points made by BiaM and Sarco is as dishonest, fradulant, and disingenous as you were with me. Do you seriously think anyone who can read cannot see that your misrepresentations are transparent lies?

Any thinking person can only conclude that you give no logical or relevant answer because you have none. Your blatent distortions hurt your point of view by not only exposing your lack of foundation, but also showing you are willing to tell any lie to try to "win". Next you will be claiming Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking of revisionist history: FDR wanted America into WWII, as did most of the European countries, excepting the fascist ones (I assume that is who you meant when you spoke of Europeans who hated FDR).

It's true the Fascists hated him, and among the Industrialists in the US he was referred to as "Rosenfelt". Many of those American industrialists had helped finance the Nazis through the 20s and 30s and even in 1941 still saw Nazis Germany as the great hope against socialism.

FDR is still admired and held up as a role model among progressives not only for his socialist "New Deal", but also as a role model of what a so-called 'disabled person' can acheive.

However, if you are curious you can google Roosevelt and Rosenfelt together and find any number of sites that still hate FDR, and surprise surprise, most of them are US based. Note also that some of them not only accuse FDR of being a jew (oh horror), but also a homosexual (there, managed to tie in gay issues after all, whew).

And there you go again with your "anti-American" schtick, even though I and others have repeatedly stated our reverence for many Americans, although Lord knows what Jefferson or Walt Witman would make of the current lot.

Use the internet and discover what the rest of us already know, that most of the most virulent Bush hating web sites are based in the USA and run by American citizens. You could start with itmfa.com, that's a fun one.

And many of the most virulently critical of the current US policy are US Vets http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ or families of Vets http://www.gsfp.org/. In fact just google "Veterans for Peace" and have a look at how many chapters there are: Nam vets, Korean War, WWII, Gulf War. And all US citizens who served their country then, and are still serving it now.

And let me use this opportunity to say how totally disgusted I am by the way you and Reighnman talk about Cindy Sheehan over on the McNab thread. A mother who lost her child because her government lied to them speaks out against that administration (NOT against the military, or the US, or it's people) and some phoney patriots just dismiss her.

It's enough to make one sick. You don't have to agree with them (yes, there's a whole bunch of Gold Star families who are part of the organization), but at least respect them and their sacrifice and loss. They made the ultimate sacrifice for your country; by all means disagree with them, but do it with sorrow and respect for those who served and gave more than anyone here did.

And it's in that context that I think BiaM's question is a fair one (normaly I would not). Did you serve in Nam? or anywhere? Got any kids in Iraq? You are so dismissive of the Gold Star families and the critics - are you doing as someone who has been there? who has a loved one at risk?

Or were you too white and too well off to wind up humping trail in the Highlands? Too white to be crawling in tunnels in the Beak? Too wealthy to be pulling Ops in the Delta? As I said, normally not a fair question as every person has a right to their opinion, but you keep calling for other peoples credentials before they have a right to theirs, so how about you present yours and answer BiaM's question?

You have been repeatedly asked to keep this discussion respectful and dignified. Instead you repeatedly resort to mockery, snide sarcasm, and arrogant histrionics.

If the treatment of you has started to be less respectful as well then all I can say is " for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7)(that's from a book called "the Bible", you should try reading it someday, it's got lots of good advice about being loving, honest, repectful, nonjudgemental, not killing, loving your enemy, etc).

Seriously L2R, you will do a lot more for your point of view if you discuss the issues honestly and respectfully, and for pitys sake say something actually based on a fact that you can reference. You may think people don't notice, but they do.

>>By greenfyre   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 06:23)



Where to start...where to start. How anout the model for Democracy in Iraq......surprise American Democracy. And where is America's model.....surprise surprise BIAM's country. And what is the blueptint for British De,pcracy.....how far back do we need to go to know we've got a very good model?? Democracy works for England and the United States and is an unbeatable system. Now Fidel Castro will say that there is no Democracy in America, and so will Libya's Kaddafy (sp??)--you may argue those points but I won't waste my time.

Isn't it amazing how 'reasonable' someone appears when you are in agreement with their position? Isn't it just surprising how BIAM, Sarco and you find my arguments lacking, or nonexistent as you would say?? We are all grownups here and, if you please I prefer sarcasm to namecalling. I see vulnerability in much of what you say and I am hoping that y o u reexamine your views. Change will have to be self imposed....self realized. Step back.....examine your words.....and it will come to you why I so enthusiastically chide your ideas. It isn't personal....I won't allow it to be. You are terribly misinformed. I respect Tony Blair immensely as I respected Margaret Thatcher. All I ask is that you respect my President, his leadership which you follow....and so on.

I would be wasting my words if I explained tro you that the vast majority of Veterans, and probably 99.99% of Gold Star Mothers support the President. Surely you don't believe that the Hollywood movie maker Michael Moore speaks for a significant number of Americans? If you believe that, there is probqbly nothing that I could say to change your mind,

Cindy Sheehan is NOT typical of soccer Moms in America---and she has said some very foolish things. We morn for every life that has been cut short not only in this war, but all. However, we reserve the right to call her to task---that is the British part of our heritage.

To have a more productive discussion---yet far less exciting---why don't we attempt to find areas where we agree? Why don't you honestly and respectfully assist me in this endeavor? People will notice.

>>By lv2read   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 07:32)



How about we start by agreeing that a discussion largely about US foreign policy does not belong in a thread about the movie Brokeback Mountain. I offered a space, please suggest another if it is unacceptable for whatever reason.

>>By greenfyre   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 13:46)



Iv2read

Could you please provide another example of a successful democracy that is occupied by of hundreds of thousands of foreign troops? Even then it is teetering on the brink of civil war.

What kind of freedom do you think you would enjoy when most of your country's infrastructure has collapsed and you are too frightened to step outside your door for fear of getting your head shot off?

I was truly amazed by the voter turnout in the Iraqi elections but am dismayed that they have failed to form an effective government months after the results were announced. Given the exodus of anyone with the means to (that means doctors, lawyers, academics and scientists, businessmen, etc) how are they going to pull themselves out of this mess?

I am glad to see the fall of that insane despot Saddam Hussein but I think abandonment of the rule of law, the loss of our civil liberties and rights, and the escalation of violence in an already troubled region is a high price to pay for all that: especially as the great neocon experiment appears doomed to failure at this point.

Have you noticed the Federal deficit lately? And what has all that money achieved? What have all those deaths achieved? Given that the insurgents are blowing things up faster than they can be built (Haliburton is not noteworthy for its efficiency!) don't you think it might be time to ask whether there mightn't be a better way of doing this? Bush's only response is to promise that there will be more of the same [4 July speech]

The Coalition of the Willing is now faced with Hobsons choice: even the zealots can see that the current endeavour is unlikely to be resolved before their resources are exhausted but pulling out now would lead to an even bigger bloodbath. If you stop swallowing hook line and sinker the lies of Rice and Rumsfeld you might be capable of seeing that things are NOT getting better.

The bitter irony of all this is that those behind 9/11 Madrid and the London bombings - al Quaeda and the Taliban - are resurgent in Afghanistan and the Coaltion lacks the resources to deal with it. Osama Bin Laden is alive and well and has never had as many supporters as he does now: could you please explain how that adds to global security and advances the War on Terror?

It's as if history is repeating: the footage we see every night is becoming more and more like that in the latter stages of Vietnam.

Since when has opposition to an elected official and his motley crew of officials constituted anti-Americanism?
I'd hazard that you were one of those eager to see impeachment of Clinton only a few years ago. Or do you think that Nixon should have stayed in power? Are the 71% of Americans that think that the Iraq experiment was a mistake anti-American too? [I'm not sure of the source: I think it was the Washington Post but it might have been the New York Times: I'll attempt to find the source and post ASAP in an attempt to avoid the trap of unsubstantiated claims that you've fallen into]

Or do you think there is only one form of Americanism? Sounds like facism to me...

Bushmaniac: you owe it to yourself to see Brokeback Mountain. I'd be interested to see what you think of it (and whether you are as offended as Iv2read appears to have been)

>>By Sarcophilus   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 14:44)



Correction:
The most recent poll I could find on Google states that 68% of Americans disapprove of the way the Bush administration is conducting the Iraq war (source New York Times/CBS News poll conducted 4-8 May 2006) : www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.

>>By Sarcophilus   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 15:13)



A high percentage of our people are impatient with the slow progress in Iraq. The disapproval speaks more to frustration than it does to the issue of right or wrong, I believe.

Regardong the War on Terror, the American people believe that the Republican Party (as opposed to the Democratic Party) is best qualified to make the decisions. I can't recite which poll but I can tell you that the Republicans (as long as I can remember) have been perceived as the strongest party in the areas of foreign policy and defence. The thought of Al Gore being President during the 9/11 attack sends shivers down my spine. And Clinton...yes he was popular with Hollywood and Europeans, but his popularity waned at home. Many of us believe that he wouldn't have recognized the truth if it had slapped him in the face. However he is in good company in that Ronald Reagan won two terms also.

You say Osama bin Laden is alive and well?? Is that what you think?? I don't know myself. I do think, however, I'd stay hidden if I was him.

Let me see you have brought up the Federal deficit, Clinton, impeachment, Rice and Rumsfield, the issue of successful democracies, and on and on. Don't you think we ought to narrow the discussion mate? May I make a suggestion? Why don't we select an issue that we agree on? Can you think outside the box?? Just how serious are you??

>>By lv2read   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 18:04)



firstly,

Sarco I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain because its isn't my kind of film, regardless of the sexuality of the characters I believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, it's a love story where the characters are pilloried because of the prejudice against their sexuality,

I'm sorry but that would be no more interesting to me than a love film where, say, the characters are a black slave and a white landowner's daughter set in the 'good old days' pre american civil war, where the prejudice is against their dissimilar colours... not the bag I'm into, love stories I'm afraid. And certainly the fact that they are gay doesnt bother me one way or the other...never really been into cowboy films either ;-)

secondly,

thank you greenfyre for seeing the context in which my question to L2R was put, for normally I wouldnt question a mans reasons for avoiding war, whether its fear, or whether he just finds the entire concept of war abhorent.

Yes 23 years ago when I first joined the Forces I would have said the guy was yellow, regardless of the reasons, but i have i hope matured somewhat since then! what is totally abhorent to me though is someone whom avoids war but later on in life when he is safe from call-up he is willing to support the slaughter of others.

I must have missed where you suggested another forum for this discussion, where do you suggest we go because it is indeed a tad unfair for the fans of Brokeback Mountain to have to put up with this political argument, just name the place and i hope L2R has the gonads to accept a different venue.

Thirdly

L2R, i really couldnt care less whether the USA gained its model of democracy from the UK or not, and i couldn't care less where the UK gots ist model of democracy...but heres a thing for you, in the UK you can vote for the commmunist party an extreme left wing party, the monster raving looney party an extremely ridiculous party , and the british national party an extreme right wing party, as well as the more conventinal political parties..you see we can vote for whomever meets the requirements to stand for election, if we wish....we can even vote for the political wing of a terrorist party namely Sinn fein..if they are standing for election in the area where we live.

Now can any Iraqi stand for election, say for example the Mullah of fallujah who has stirred that particular town against the US occupation of his country, can any Iraqi whatsover stand for election? I think not!! i think that the only ones who could stand for election are those whom the US government has backed,

so for those 55~60% of Iraqis who you said have voted, have they had a true and fair election....no, so is the Iraqi government a democratic government? no its a democratic government according to whom the US administration says can be in that government....mmmm thats called a puppet government methinks

your comments re Cindy sheehan,and i quote you direct.... "We morn for every life that has been cut short" ... how easy those words trip from your tongue, how false you really sound in light of previous words you have said, did you shed a wee practiced tear when you typed that onto your computer screen?

and i repeat my questions

what have the Iraqis got to do with 9/11?

if you despise communists so much why didnt you go to Nam ?

and why are you so willing for your young countrymen to be blasted to pieces ?

>>By BushisaManiac   (Thursday, 6 Jul 2006 22:34)



Dear Maniac,
You and I both desppise communism.....right?? You and I and our governments support the War on Terror.....right?? You and I respect America's initiative in Iraq....right?? A little bit of freedom and a little bit of Democracy is better than none at all....right??

And you mentioned Sinn Fein and being on the ballot, did you? And if that organization attempted to blow up #10 Downing Street and 'took credit' for it, I sincerely doubt that any of them would be on the ballot.

I am awaiting an answer to my challenge. To wit, why don't we try to find a point that we agree upon and then go from there. While the formastion of this sentence is not the King's English, you should be able to understand it.

WHY are you concerned about being off topic on this board?? On the McNabb discussion there are in excess of 200 pages wherein comments are off topic. We are on page 2...hello??

Just to help you a bit here. Are you aware that Cindy Sheehan has rubbed many Americans the wrong way?? The Darling of the anti-war movement is detestyed by many, and by many that once respected her. She has been directly quoted as saying very foolish things. She also deserted her four young children to participate in an unending protest. There are scores of women that those are misplaced values.

Once again we Americans appreciate your (country's) support. We know that we can count on Britain. Thanks again.

>>By lv2read   (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 00:25)



I didn't like it...there wasn't any real chemistry between them. There was just something missing.

>>By Eli_Molko   (Friday, 7 Jul 2006 01:28)



Pages: 1 2 3
The discussion board is currently closed.