bleeding heart

As you have conceded--after some Herculean effort on my part, I modestly add--the US too has used proxy terrorist groups, and with some pretty devastating consequences. And yet you feel the need to "stick up for them," do you not?

You know, sometimes it's something as benign as dust buildup around the needle that causes it to skip so annoyingly. So you might be able to easily remedy the problem you're having.

I'm not uncomfortable with it; I think it's a preposterous notion. I'm NOT saying you're "guilty of discrimination against left wingers." This is all YOUR formulation, with which I don't agree.

How I feel about it is not the issue. I demonstrated that you objectively misunderstood what I said. Go back to my "offending" post and re-read it. And then you'll see. It's post 116. In fact, I will generously help you out: Bud made some remarks about the power of the Israel lobby. I responded to him, Which you somehow misread as a "conspiracy theory" against "the JOOOOOS!" ....with, apparently, clear anti-Semitic overtones. How you got from my notion--that the US holds the primary influence, not Israel--to anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about too-powerful Jewish people...well, I doubt anyone could parse that one out.

This is your usual formulation, and is the usual reflexive boilerplate. More to the point, you haven't read a single word I've said on the matter. Which of course is a valid choice to make...until and unless you start responding to posts that you haven't read.

So you think left-wingers are as knowledgeable and sensible as conservatives on matters of the economy, foreign policy, domestic social issues, and so on? Since when?

You can keep talking to yourself, and inventing my stance for me all you like. Thread hijack noted. "Stop criticizing the United States!"

I note that any criticism of America (especially that sainted little gangster, Reagan) forces you off the subject and onto other posters. It's all you got when the Emperor is exposed as naked.

Foreign Policy is not exactly some radical journal. Anyway, I didn't read it as that the CIA wanted to gas the Kurds. (Perhaps the Iranians, yes.) Only that they and the Reagan administration didn't give a rat's ass.

How are Christians being discriminated against?

From the FP article: Quite astute of them, as I predict we're about to find out right here.

Is that not plain in the very passage you quote?

I think "bigotry" is certainly the wrong way to describe any of the criticisms leveled at Christianity in this thread.

I feel exactly the same way. In fact, so far as I think about it (which I admit is not at all often) I actually despise the hijab. But I haven't been convinced it's any of my business, beyond the elementary free speech issue where I can criticize it if I wish. Just so.

That's just...too good.

Yes, the long-suffering victims of terrible abuse, truly too good for this fallen world.

Ok, I retract the statement (just as you doubtless retract your remark that I'm "clueless.") The rest of my post has plenty of substantive rebuttal to your post, if you wish to look at it.

I take no pleasure from watching you twist in the wind. Again, you're flatly mistaken. I said To which Shady responded To which you said So yes, Shady said just what I claimed he did; and yes, you agreed. You said it afterwards, though if you insist it's retroactive, so be it. But why does "the buck stop" with Saddam, but "the buck" doesn't stop with US leaders, or the leaders of the coalition? Are they also responsible for their own behavior? Like, oh, for example, launching a war and precipitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? Um, the US and its sycophantic allies certainly had the power not to launch the war, which would therefore result in hundreds of thousands of people not being killed. Christ on a cracker. Oh, of course I believe it. 100%. When your country shares responsibility for hundreds thousands dead--in Iraq and elsewhere--I understand it won't do to dwell on such things. We got crimes of enemies to consider, after all. First of all, it was two posts--in this thread--which only underlines that you didn't read the discussion in which you claimed Shady did not say what he did. (How would you know, anyway, if you didn't read it? Odd.) Second, it would be good for you to follow your own advice: where in this thread, or other threads, have you "discussed" American precipitation of hundreds of thousands dead in this conflict? So, to recap: 1. I claim Saddam and the invading nations to share responsibility for the suffering of Iraqis. 2. Shady says "complete nonsense," it's ALL Saddam's fault. 3. You agree with him...in fact, you think he has nailed it "exactly." 4. My claim that there is shared responsibility is, to you, not "inclusive"; whereas your view, that we shouldn't keep focusing on the Western part of the problem, but rather ignore it...IS "inclusive." Sure..I could call you "clueless"...but neither of us would stoop to that level of insult, now, would we? Opinion stated as fact...evidently a great sin, so you should stop doing this. Right...the aggressive war of choice had no effect on Iraqi suffering. Zero. Look through your long history of declarative sentences, and think on it a little. You opposed the war. Why do you think the world should have turned a blind eye to it? Besides, as I'm sure you don't know, the war wasn't fought because of suffering Iraqis. The US had been killing them through breaking the sanctions rules for many years. That's how much US officials cared about Iraqi suffering. As for the war itself, one of the architects and key figures of Iraq War policy was Wolfowitz...and we fully know his feelings on humanitarianism thanks to his robust defense of Suharto during that other paroxysm of terror and murder (made possible by the West, especially the United States). It's a lot more than you have offered, vis-à-vis your own country's unequivocal responsibilities for the unleashed horrors. Again with your irrationally uneven standards of discussion. . And yet you have refrained, for reasons of your own, to offer a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've said.

I've never quite understood this matter about his likeability. I'm not a fan of Harper, but I simply don't see him as terribly unlikeable. He's got a reserved manner at times, that's all. Hell, there was even some incredibly trivial kerfuffle about him shaking his son's hand! Talk about reading cheap psychology into a thoroughly benign situation.

Yeah, but his son says it's flatly untrue. At any rate, there's no strong evidence....beyond his own statement that he usually voted "the Democratic ticket." So the jury's out. (I say that to be generous to Republicans.) Ultimately I think it's profoundly unimportant, anyway, just the usual partisan bickering. However he voted or didn't vote doesn't change what he did and said, of course.

I'm hesitant to ask....but what am I missing here, August?

As for Dre's citation: I've heard this too, and similar statutes exist in the US. Which is why obnoxious right-wing loon David Horowitz, who admitted to committing treason back when he was an obnoxious left-wing loon, can't now be charged with it.

these people are morons...laughable, but unfortunately influential, and so dangerous. I'm not talking about their adherence to the 2nd amendment, either. I have no emotional connection to it, but I can see their point. I'm talking about the rest of that nonsense, as you laid out so well. (And, of course, their hypocrisy re Constitutional matters.)

Shady did. You agreed. Or perhaps you were agreeing with his standard boilerplate that I was "making excuses for Saddam"....presumably when I said, Yes, the "excuses"! You can just feel my love for the great man. He SHARES the blame with other entities who also make conscious decision which have consequences. And it's odd that the ultra-violent decisions of your own leaders, and the leaders of allies, aren't as offensive to you as the decisions of leaders over whom you can exercise no influence. Especially since we're talking about the self-same situation. Not in my post--he is held as blameworthy quite explicitly there. And you were responding to that post. Well, I hate to hurt anybody's dainty patriotic feelings, but the facts are what they are. But (again, as I said with total clarity) it's not about "the" bad guy, bad multiple agents. Namely, like I said, allies that are weak and/or venal. Inclusive. AW, I was arguing against the notion that the war was entirely the dictator's fault, as if the aggressor US and its aggressor allies were unwillingly forced into the thing through the laws of physics. In other words, I was explicitly calling for a more inclusive and honest discussion. So far, no takers, I guess. Rather than focus on the murderous consequences of a terrible war for which our countries share direct and unequivocal responsibility...let's talk about how people are too mean in their comments about the USA.