You could have said no. It was a question, not a proposition. May I ask what one does to become a moderator at ET? Or maybe, a job description would help me understand why you are required, what your function is, etc? I appreciate your insights into the thread thus far, and appologize in advance for any offense I may have promulgated but am disconcerted with your reply as my post must have been poorly written for you to have misinterpreted me so drastically. -RLB
or you may be threatened with banishment from ET. At first, it may seem like all that's going on is merely intense and often-heated debate with a few put-downs thrown in, but eventually dgab will blow his top and resort to profanity and threaten to have you banished. Be afraid....be VERY afraid.....
Don't be so sensitive and don't get so hung up on labels. My point was you have to convince one of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy before citing it as a precedent to lubricate the 9/11 conspiracy.
Thanks for the advice Hapaboy, but I'll take my chances: I did not cite the supposed Pearl Harbor conspiracy. I asked whether it was a point of agreement. This is what is required for rational dialogue... but you know that, so I apologize for stating the obvious. Seeing as the post of a mere question is often considered rude at ET, I then elaborated on where one's argument might go should they accept the idea of a self-serving government, in this case exemplified by the foreknowledge of, or instigation of an attack of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, I have no interest in convincing anyone of a Pearl harbor conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy, or any other. I am interested, however, in the thoughts and views of my esteemed ET colleagues considering these matters. Call me sadistic, but I suppose that all individuals have something of value to contribute unless they prove otherwise. Let us not dwell on this confusion, there are more pressing matters to which we can attend, so let me try again: What are your thoughts on the imperialistic policy of the USA? Are we, as members of the anglo-saxon race, by necessity burdened with the care of the world? Should we aim for a policy of nationalistic isiolationism? Will the liberation of Iraq result in more or less collective suffering, terrorism, etc.? Yours Truly, RLB p.s. your ease with words, particularly "lubrication" is quite entertaining - I wish I had such a gift of lese majesty
I'll have to get back to you on this one. I'm not anglo-saxon (well I am 1/4). But no, let all the groups with capability be burdened. More suffering in the short term. Less suffering and terrorism in the long term. You appear to have that gift my friend.
The evidence you asked for re US support for Saddam's regime during the 80s. "Youth group recruiting pamphlets". LMAO. That's a good one! I wonder, was that something that you once fell for? (You did say you were once, many years ago, a left wing radical). If it makes you feel better to think I'm getting my ideas from "crackpot" sources rather than from employing some basic critical thinking based on the facts then good for you. I really can't be bothered maintaining a discussion where I have to spend half the post refuting your mindless assertions about my character, so I'll leave it here. As I said to hapaboy, have fun with your comic book "goodies" and "baddies" worldview.
I suppose he means the evidence that confirms that Iraq was mainly a Soviet client, and secondarily a French and German one? That total US military and financial assistance to Iraq was around 1% of what the country received? I don't remember when I asked for this evidence. I thought - actually, I know - that I was the one who presented it. I thought - actually, I know - that I was also the one who argued, as clearly as I could, that evidence of past direct or indirect US support (even mere support for the peculiar international system that sustains the likes of Saddam) would only reinforce our moral responsibility to act. I read more than my share. I see no shame in it. I don't consider Mandel, Fanon, et al, or their more contemporary successors or adherents, all to be crackpots. I just think they were and are tragically wrong in important respects. To me, critical thinking includes a willingness to re-examine one's own presumptions and supposed "facts." To me, continually re-stating the same ideological positions - International Law above all, US foreign policy has been harmful or has been seen as such around the world - without substantively engaging counter-arguments and alternative perspectives does not demonstrate critical thinking. I can't be sure what statements of mine Alfonso interprets as having impugned his character. I'll admit, however, that I get angry when individuals repeatedly defame and wish ill upon my country and its citizens. I also get a little annoyed when painstaking attempts to discuss issues in detail are continually misconstrued in seemingly inexplicable ways. I recognize, however, that getting overly exercised about personal slights while discussing the fates of countless individuals worldwide, suggests severe immaturity - or maybe even a lack of character.
weird ... it was on the first page ... perhaps I hit "last" instead of "next", in any evident, my bad