Brim-
It's 3 am, this'll have to be my last one for tonight. I /am/ having fun with you though. I'll pop on tomorrow as soon as I'm able.
Point 1) In context, with Saddam poised to invade, the completely novel suggestion that the matter was an inter-arab conlict could only be understood as a signal that we would not interfere.
I'd need to see more of the immediate context to judge.
Point 2) The answer is already contained above. S.H. was already an enemy when Clinto took office. Note also that Clinton did not attempt to destroy Saddam, he merely kept up the sanctions, and occassionally launched surgical strikes
Actually, no. He made "regime change" our stated national policy. He may not have used all-out invasion, but our stated goal was to eliminate Saddam's regime. Why? If this was all just a fit of pique? And why maintain the sanctions at all? We have lots of enemies, we don't sanction all of them.
Point 3) Didn't say he was crazy. And if it bothers you that I propose no counter-theory, then so be it. This does not mean that your theory is validated.
It doesn't bother me, it cheers me. Because it goes a long way toward demonstrating that you are essentially a one-string guitar here at Christian Forums. You contribute little but picayune criticism of other people's stances, while providing no alternative vision.
Point 4) The distinctyion between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes has never been anything but a smokescreen.
I think, following your example, that this is where I begin hopping and asking for you to support this assertion. Isn't it?
If you actually think our opposition to those is based on their paradigms of government, I have a bridge to sell you.
Again, do you have any basis for believing this other than really, really wanting to?
Point 6) Conclusionary remarks are a start anyway.
I've outlined some of the shifts taking place in the region, and the vision that many conservatives have for change. You provided what again, as an alternative means of change? Oh... nothing.
Point 9) OK, so I can't spell; you can't cite a source, and I can't spell. I'll take my defect here over yours any day of the week.
Here's the heading that preceded my quote in #51:
"I've decided to quote from American Prospect, which while from an EXTREMELY biased view, still takes seriously the fact that a shift has occured:"
It's an interesting form of playgerizm that references the website. Usually when someone uses such a term it's in a case where an individual is using material and not citing the source. I clearly stated that it was from American Prospect, and therefore feel vindicated from the charge of plaijurism.
"First time you admitted it."
You- Riiiiight: Another misdirection, my point relates to a history backing peopl like the Shaw of Iran, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, etc."
Me- "None of which have been supported in over a decade. Two of which we actively pushed out of power and the "Shaw" was undermined by tremendous pressure from Carter's State Department. Which is the time period in which the shift has taken place. Which, you'll note, is also stated in the Prospect article I cited."
Unless the standard of proof is that I need to have written it out in crayon, then yes, I HAVE already "admitted" it.
As to counte-examples in the middle east, you yourself have admitted in your own source that none of the couintries you claim are moving towards democracy actually arehave substantive democratic institutions at present.
Please clean up your syntax and diction here. I have honestly no clue what you're trying to say. What shall I make of arehave?
No, I think I'll content myself with pointing out the dishonesty of your basic approach. You've poisoned the well, now don't act surprised that I refuse to drink from it.,
Translation-- you're taking your toys and going home. Well, not REALLY home. You're going to sit on the sidewalk and complain about how I play with mine.
I imagine it's a great lot easier than actually defending a position of your own...
It's 3 am, this'll have to be my last one for tonight. I /am/ having fun with you though. I'll pop on tomorrow as soon as I'm able.
Point 1) In context, with Saddam poised to invade, the completely novel suggestion that the matter was an inter-arab conlict could only be understood as a signal that we would not interfere.
I'd need to see more of the immediate context to judge.
Point 2) The answer is already contained above. S.H. was already an enemy when Clinto took office. Note also that Clinton did not attempt to destroy Saddam, he merely kept up the sanctions, and occassionally launched surgical strikes
Actually, no. He made "regime change" our stated national policy. He may not have used all-out invasion, but our stated goal was to eliminate Saddam's regime. Why? If this was all just a fit of pique? And why maintain the sanctions at all? We have lots of enemies, we don't sanction all of them.
Point 3) Didn't say he was crazy. And if it bothers you that I propose no counter-theory, then so be it. This does not mean that your theory is validated.
It doesn't bother me, it cheers me. Because it goes a long way toward demonstrating that you are essentially a one-string guitar here at Christian Forums. You contribute little but picayune criticism of other people's stances, while providing no alternative vision.
Point 4) The distinctyion between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes has never been anything but a smokescreen.
I think, following your example, that this is where I begin hopping and asking for you to support this assertion. Isn't it?
If you actually think our opposition to those is based on their paradigms of government, I have a bridge to sell you.
Again, do you have any basis for believing this other than really, really wanting to?
Point 6) Conclusionary remarks are a start anyway.
I've outlined some of the shifts taking place in the region, and the vision that many conservatives have for change. You provided what again, as an alternative means of change? Oh... nothing.
Point 9) OK, so I can't spell; you can't cite a source, and I can't spell. I'll take my defect here over yours any day of the week.
Here's the heading that preceded my quote in #51:
"I've decided to quote from American Prospect, which while from an EXTREMELY biased view, still takes seriously the fact that a shift has occured:"
It's an interesting form of playgerizm that references the website. Usually when someone uses such a term it's in a case where an individual is using material and not citing the source. I clearly stated that it was from American Prospect, and therefore feel vindicated from the charge of plaijurism.
"First time you admitted it."
You- Riiiiight: Another misdirection, my point relates to a history backing peopl like the Shaw of Iran, Pinochet, Noriega, Marcos, etc."
Me- "None of which have been supported in over a decade. Two of which we actively pushed out of power and the "Shaw" was undermined by tremendous pressure from Carter's State Department. Which is the time period in which the shift has taken place. Which, you'll note, is also stated in the Prospect article I cited."
Unless the standard of proof is that I need to have written it out in crayon, then yes, I HAVE already "admitted" it.
As to counte-examples in the middle east, you yourself have admitted in your own source that none of the couintries you claim are moving towards democracy actually arehave substantive democratic institutions at present.
Please clean up your syntax and diction here. I have honestly no clue what you're trying to say. What shall I make of arehave?
No, I think I'll content myself with pointing out the dishonesty of your basic approach. You've poisoned the well, now don't act surprised that I refuse to drink from it.,
Translation-- you're taking your toys and going home. Well, not REALLY home. You're going to sit on the sidewalk and complain about how I play with mine.
I imagine it's a great lot easier than actually defending a position of your own...
Upvote
0
