Why Saddam Hussein didn't deserve your vote

[cloudy]

Please, Sher, and I'm asking nicely, leave Raytheon out of things, okay?

I have plenty of personal reasons for asking that, and if I must, I'll post them for you.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think it says a lot about where we're now at as a nation when someone can be castigated for presenting facts.

---dr.M.

 

[cloudy]

I think it says a lot about where we're now at as a nation when someone can be castigated for presenting facts.

---dr.M.

If that was aimed at me, I wasn't castigating anyone!

If it wasn't, then I apoligize.

 

[shereads]

Please, Sher, and I'm asking nicely, leave Raytheon out of things, okay?

I have plenty of personal reasons for asking that, and if I must, I'll post them for you.

Okay, but Bechtel and Halliburton get double noogies.

 

[cloudy]

It's a deal.

 

[shereads]

The long post by Shereads..to begin this thread, says many things..but may have backfired somewhat, with the discovery of Sarin gas in Iraq within the past day or so.

Three things, wise one, before I head for the office:

I didn't write the post that begins this thread. I just pasted it in and offered the source.

If you read it, you're wondering if we helped make the Sarin gas. You might even wonder if we found it or planted it.

Very few would have the interest or the motivation, to dig into de-classified files in volumnous amounts, thus...the museful query, Shereads...who is funding your research? Are you on the Kerry payroll, or the Democrats election committee? Surely a purely anti-american stance would not engender the research necessary for such depth to be discovered...I suggest there is a 'ringer' in the forum.

You really are fun to have around. I confess! The entire Kerry campaign budget is now in my checking account, and you alone were smart enough to realize that the five minutes I spent Google-searching the words "Saddam Bush Reagan" was worth as much or more to the Democratic National Committee as Ahmad Chalabi has been worth as an informant for the Secretary of Defense. Lucky for you, you only had to help fund one of us.



Thanks for fighting tyranny. Where would we be without you and Dick Cheney.

 

[KarenAM]

It is accepted modus operandi in college, for term papers, to do research and use the thoughts of others to make your point.

I was only asking for a little original thought, you know, reason, rationality...not hyperbole...

Shereads and others do not need my permission to have any opinion they want...I only query the motives and wonder why most who post here are so anti-american.

amicus

You know, amicus, I think it would be interesting to debate with you, or even just have a discussion. You sound like an interesting guy, with a lot of valuable life experience that you have the tools to share with us. But instead the pattern I see in your posts (perhaps others do not) is one in which you make grand statements that are not always understandable (at least not to me), make no effort to make them understandable, and follow this up with insults.

So, since you have chosen to coin the rather pregnant term "anti-american", I'm going to ask you to please explain, in simple terms that even one so ignorant as I can understand, just what you mean by that term, and how you arrived at that conclusion, with concrete examples that refer to the specific actions of the posters you feel are "anti-american" and why they are "anti-american", preferably without using insults and/or a patronizing tone to do it.

That way I and others will be able to determine whether we agree with you or not.

Thanks!

 

[shereads]

So, since you have chosen to coin the rather pregnant term "anti-american", I'm going to ask you to please explain, in simple terms that even one so ignorant as I can understand, just what you mean by that term, and how you arrived at that conclusion, with concrete examples that refer to the specific actions of the posters you feel are "anti-american" and why they are "anti-american", preferably without using insults and/or a patronizing tone to do it.

That way I and others will be able to determine whether we agree with you or not.

Thanks!

You're no fun at all, Karen. There's been so little comic relief, what with the beginning of armageddon and all, and now you're wanting amicus to dispute facts with facts? What a buzz-kill that will be.



I wanted to see how much deeper he'd get into this discussion without admitting that he hadn't read the post that started the thread. And with all the work I put into it - the months of research, the lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Do you think it's easy to produce a "long post" that "says many things" ?

That was priceless, Amicus. Lazy, but priceless.



Using the scan-and-reject method of studying the other side of an issue is less stressful than actually confronting the Unknown, but you can't fool the master. I used to write book reports like that when I was a kid. I'd scan the first and last chapters and one in the middle, and whip up some verbiage that basically said, "the author of this book said many things." I got away with it, too. Teachers didn't want to decipher my flowery prose so they'd just write, "Great job!" at the top. Then they'd move on to the shorter, less inspired reports by kids who had actually read the material. (They generally got "B's.")



Sometimes I wonder if I might have benefited from reading the books...

Nah.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If that was aimed at me, I wasn't castigating anyone!

If it wasn't, then I apoligize.

No, Cloudy. You;re off the hook.

It was when Amicus said,

Many have neither the time nor interest to peruse the historiologically correct history of events in the middle east, following world war two. Even before....a study of oil exploration and discovery in that area.

that it seemd to me he was saying, "Don't bother me with the facts." Either that or he was doubting her motivation for presenting the facts, as if only people with a subversive political agenda would stoop to digging out history. As if there's something odious about facts, and something suspicious about people who use them.

---dr.M.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I hate Spam.
They serve it in the army.
Thus I could not serve in the army.
I hate sand in my Spam.

 

[shereads]

I hate Spam.
They serve it in the army.
Thus I could not serve in the army.
I hate sand in my Spam.

I've asked this question a couple of times since I started posting at the Authors' Hangout, and nobody seems to know:

Is Spam really Spiced Ham? Or did Clinton lie about that, too?



That's why I came here to Lit. My undercover mission to bring some of you over to the Dark Side by falsifying documents about America's relationship with Saddam Hussein and working with a brilliant, highly paid team of hackers to replace the real documents with mine on any website that might pop up when I Googled the name, "Bush," thereby persuading influential pornographers to overlook Kerry's mysteriously changing hair-height and vote a straight Democratic ticket in November '04, was always secondary to the Spam question.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I like a woman of priority and principle.

~lucky

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I've asked this question a couple of times since I started posting at the Authors' Hangout, and nobody seems to know:

Is Spam really Spiced Ham? Or did Clinton lie about that, too?



That's why I came here to Lit. My undercover mission to bring some of you over to the Dark Side by falsifying documents about America's relationship with Saddam Hussein and working with a brilliant, highly paid team of hackers to replace the real documents with mine on any website that might pop up when I Googled the name, "Bush," thereby persuading influential pornographers to overlook Kerry's mysteriously changing hair-height and vote a straight Democratic ticket in November '04, was always secondary to the Spam question.

Yes, Spam is spiced ham, it is the No#1 meat in Hawaii. You have been discoverd and I will bring you to your knees, quivering in the glory of Beef Jerky!!!!!

 

[KarenAM]

You're no fun at all, Karen.

I know. It's all part of my evil plan to make everybody wear pink tutus on Sundays.

 

[shereads]

I like a woman of priority and principle.

~lucky

One out of two isn't bad, is it?

 

[shereads]

I know. It's all part of my evil plan to make everybody wear pink tutus on Sundays.

Only on Sundays?

You're a Moderate Tututarian, then.

 

[Xelebes]

It is accepted modus operandi in college, for term papers, to do research and use the thoughts of others to make your point.

I was only asking for a little original thought, you know, reason, rationality...not hyperbole...

Shereads and others do not need my permission to have any opinion they want...I only query the motives and wonder why most who post here are so anti-american.

amicus

Uh... Anti-American? No, try anti-imperialist, anti-oligarchy, anti-whatever but I bet she is proud to be an American in her mind. What is wrong with holding opposing opinions and then doing some research to back it up?

[This post's point has most likely been said before but hey, I thought I'd reiterate some of the thoughts going around with words of my mind.]

 

[Xelebes]

Yes, Spam is spiced ham, it is the No#1 meat in Hawaii. You have been discoverd and I will bring you to your knees, quivering in the glory of Beef Jerky!!!!!

Beef Jerky roxers my boxers.

 

[shereads]

Uh... Anti-American? No, try anti-imperialist, anti-oligarchy, anti-whatever but I bet she is proud to be an American in her mind. What is wrong with holding opposing opinions and then doing some research to back it up?

[This post's point has most likely been said before but hey, I thought I'd reiterate some of the thoughts going around with words of my mind.]

Thank you, Xel. "Proud" wouldn't describe me lately, but at times I have been proud to be an American, yes. And i'm definitel anti-oligacrha what you said.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

And i'm definitel anti-oligacrha what you said.

Don't you mean 'anti-oligokra'?

~lucky

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

 

[Xelebes]

Don't you mean 'anti-oligokra'?

~lucky

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Or anti-oligochre.

 

[gauchecritic]

So which of you Yankees was it that said something like: "It is the duty of a patriot to oppose the government."?

Gauche

 

[shereads]

So which of you Yankees was it that said something like: "It is the duty of a patriot to oppose the government."?

Gauche

I'm pretty sure that was Amicus.

 

[amicus]

What a delight it is to engage in wordplay without foreplay with such an astute gallery of players.

I have not kept track of the names thrown my way, but they include, 'ideologue' 'ignorant' drum beater..and now I am relegated to the category of, 'comic relief'...ah well...amicus muses, 'making an audience laugh is not as easy as you may think...'

A couple things..I withdraw the use of the phrase, 'anti-american', yes it is a buzz word, but I did not intend it as such. There must be a phrase that adequately describes a sense of value observed as 'common ground' for the people of this nation, I will search for another word.

Colly brought up a very important concept, historiography, that has not been really understood. I add to that word, another one, 'historicity' which is defined as: 'historical authenticity'..

It is common practice in scholarly endeavors, to quote out of context to support ones position. It is not an admirable trait, a little fraud is involved by using the 'name' of a respected person to support one's viewpoint.

It is less admirable to 'manipulate' the content of a quote so that it supports one's viewpoint.

Colly, I for one am not certain we can ever really find total truth in the historical documents we research. I spent a year on the Constitution of the United States...tracing the background and history of the writing and the writers and the philosophical and economical legends from which they drew their inspiration.

I found that research drew me deeper into the motivations of the men who had the thoughts and wrote them down. Of course, that leads one into biographical and autobiographical research and of course you know the pitfalls there.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled."

The second paragraph begins: "We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Now this is a small example of Historiography and Historicity in which a document is not corrupted or even used to support a viewpoint. In this case...just those first eight words are worthy of extended debate.

There are those who will question what the word, "We" means and the word, "Hold" and certainly many question that 'Truth' can ever be perceived by the human mind, or even that 'truth' exists independent of the mind of man, i.e. in reality....and I have already run up against those who think, 'self evident' is not a tenable statement...that nothing can be viewed as axiomatic, or, 'self evident'

"We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Personally, I do not support what America has become, very little of what it stands for and I surely do not defend any part blindly. I am quite prepared to list those values I support and defend, but not by quoting others aside from basic documents...

With a good number of pages on two threads being devoted to a discussion of war. It might be apropo to define the nature of conflict..in real terms..instead of emotionally charged personal opinions...passion has a place for sure....but....

amicus

 

[shereads]

So which of you Yankees was it that said something like: "It is the duty of a patriot to oppose the government."?

Ahem.

pauses, awaits reaction

Ahem!

"Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain."

Maybe this was the Brits' doing, and Reagan/Bush were just trying to be supportive.

Maybe the Iraq war is Tony Blair's idea, and Bush II just didn't want him to feel friendless.

The pattern is becoming clear. You Brits have a lot to answer for.