What the Liberals don't get

[tabs]

Yes, there are two sides to every issue. I know that very well, I can empathize with you and feel your pain. I can clearly see the validity of your arguments. However when push comes to shove...and this is what Bill Clinton doesn't get.. it does me no good to empathize with you, I have to represent my side of the issue in order to prevail. Now this is something my conserative friends don't get.......by feeling your pain, I know what your weaknesses are and I can exploit them by using them against against you......

[Isabo]

Ah hah!
A pragmatic empath!
Is that Sun Tzu's Art of War or Musashi's (sp?) Book of five rings?
Or perhaps a cynical interpretation of Goldratt's the Goal?
No matter, there's some truth in it.

[CamB]

Yes, there are two sides to every issue. ...I can clearly see the validity of your arguments. However,... I have to represent my side of the issue in order to prevail.

So to summarise, you see the validity of the arguments of the other side, but stick with your own (presumably less valid ones) because you want to prevail.

What does that mean?

[CJFusco]

Tabs is just trying to start a controversy again, that's what it means.

[island911]

Two sides;
Many conservatives were, at one time in their life, liberal (leftist, naïve do-gooders).
Having transended that state of belief, the emerging conservative has full knowlege of the leftist mindset.
Most Leftists do not have this advantage. The best they can hope to do is to leverage argumentation skills and "feelings."

Most Leftists are central on how they "feel" about things. Very emotional (ie killing makes me feel bad . . lets not be responsible for killing anyone) Many leftist take this a bit further, and become vegetarians.

In the end, pragmatics will win this final argument; regardless of how valid they seem to a leftist.

It's interesting the handful of liberals playing this Iraq/terrorist situation as "business as usual" . . . the right puts something forward, and the left looks for a way to block (simply because it came from the right).

Don't get me wrong, Im all for having a reallity check between the primary parties; but sheesh, the left is countering with some lame stuff. They may as well hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

[CamB]

Many conservatives were, at one time in their life, liberal (leftist, naïve do-gooders).

Yes, but I was once a conservative, free-marketeer. I actual don't consider myself that leftist either. Liberal and conservative are far too black and white as labels.

[speeder]

Originally posted by island911



Don't get me wrong, Im all for having a reallity check between the primary parties; but sheesh, the left is countering with some lame stuff. They may as well hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

They would have to hire him to compete w/ Rumsfeld, (who called the looting of Iraq "untidiness", when it actually caused more damage than 3000 cruise missiles), and basically said that the photos in the paper depicted something not really happening. Mohammed S. would have been proud.

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
. . when it (looting) actually caused more damage than 3000 cruise missiles . .

Wow! really? how many were killed from the looting?

Also, whats the cruise-missiles equivallent of Los Angeles Lakers' first championship? 1000 cruise missiles? Or was it worse?

Anyway, you guys in LA were to slow in recruiting Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf. . . Toronto got him.

[speeder]

I will admit that I guessed the # 3000, how many bombs/missiles did we hit them with? Whatever the actual number, it has been widely reported that the looting has caused more damage to the infrastructure of Iraq then our bombs did. One can argue all day about the causes of this, but the fact remains that Rumsfeld downplayed the severity of it in a way that would have made old Mohammed proud. And claimed that photographers were cherry-picking their subjects in portraying looting.

Island, you should seriously try to get a job with FOX-jereeza, you are truly a master of the (crude) art of spin.

[tabs]

Originally posted by CamB
[i]So to summarise, you see the validity of the arguments of the other side, but stick with your own (presumably less valid ones)....

From my point of view my arguement has more validity then yours does......but thats besides the point I was trying to make.....

I was simply saying that...I can see where your coming from....but when push comes to shove I have to stick up for my side....and because I can understand where you are coming from I can use it against you...... More valid or less valid has nothing to do with it...thats a value or a moral judgement......

I really wasn't trying to be controsversial here either.......BTW I only try to explain things to people who I consider to be friends.....otherwise......

[CamB]

I see what you mean about validity (ok, so I went and looked it up at m-w.com to check I knew what it meant). Two sides to an argument can be valid.

So we are back to Isabo's comment then. Your new (old?) mantra seems to be "know your enemy"

[dd74]

Originally posted by CamB
I see what you mean about validity (ok, so I went and looked it up at m-w.com to check I knew what it meant). Two sides to an argument can be valid.

So we are back to Isabo's comment then. Your new (old?) mantra seems to be "know your enemy"

Wasn't that a tactic of Karl Marx? He knew his enemy as well if not better than himself, and from their blueprinted his argument according to his enemy's beliefs and potential responses.

Tabs would make a hell of a trial lawyer. I'd sure want him on my side.

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
I will admit that I guessed the # 3000, . . .
Island, you should seriously try to get a job with FOX-jereeza, you are truly a master of the (crude) art of spin.

SPIN !? It seems quite clear to me, "spin" is NOT my thing. I do however have a sharp eye for BullShiet.

For Example:
When you try to spin the severity of looting to have caused more damage than the loss of life and property inflicted by "3000 cruise missiles" . . .well, seems you're spinning, like Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

[dd74]

C'mon guys: that statement came from ol' Rummy. He's got about as much tact as an anvil.

[island911]

An Acme anvil?

[dd74]

Originally posted by island911
An Acme anvil?

That's it! There's only one brand in my world.

[speeder]

I could care less about Rumsfeld's "tact", I am talking about his craven dishonesty and cynicism, combined w/ outright hostility towards media that do not blindly follow the Pentagon controlled version of events. His mocking, cynical tone when asked about the looting was disgusting, as if someone dared to report problems w/ our "liberation" of the Iraqis. He went so far as to joke about a photo of someone making off w/ a priceless vase, (early civilisation piece), asking, "how many vases are there"? He is a POS. But he would make Mohammed proud.

Once again, the looting caused more damage to Iraq's infrastructure than the bombing did, with the added benefit of robbing the Iraqis, (and really the whole world), of irreplacable artifacts from the dawn of civilisation. Prehistoric texts from their national library that survived every war for 1000s of years are now toast, while we protected the priceless oil ministry.

This is not the fault of our military, who are stationed and protect what they are told to, (and do an admirable job), it is the fault of our leaders, period.

And I wasn't talking about human casualties, but since you brought them up, have you seen any estimates from our Pentagon controlled, "free embedded" press? And you never will, I can assure you that. What a joke. Mohammed would be proud.

I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would feel glib about the outcome of this operation, but there sure seems to be some (ignorant) back-slapping going on.

[dd74]

Denis: I think you're spot on with your feelings. I have despised Rumsfeld from the get go. I believe he is a very strong example of the arrogance within the Bush Administration. His behavior, in fact, seems to be sacrosanct to the entire Pentagon. It's bad P.R. and with my being an ex-journalist, I cringe at the lack of backbone possessed by the press corps to stand up against him as he lies directly in their face. He is an SOB in my opinion, but then again, why I got out of journalism is because of the very lack of stance within those genuflecting (not reporting) in front of the podium.

As for the looting: depends on who was looting. The museums, it has come to pass, was an inside job. Or artifacts were appropriated by the regime. And as usual, the boys making the decision have no idea when they're thousands of kilometers away about what their bombs - "smart," "laser-guided," "GPS-guided" or otherwise are hitting and what may be inside the buildings they do hit. There's just no capacity to know, really.

My issue (as intangible as it is when compared to the loss of human life), is looting WILL hurt Iraq. After all, the country only has its history. It can't bring up its own oil. That's why ex-Secretary of State Schultz and Bechtel have been awarded a contract to "rebuild" Iraq that may, when all's said and done, total 115 billion dollars.

Iraq once was a Byzantine empire akin to what Japan is today. It took good ideas and made them better. Paper for example, was made into an artform. Historically, the country remains a true leader of civilization. Of course "the scholared" will only see this - the businessmen running the U.S. gov't couldn't give a **** about history in the sense of a history such as Iraq's. Not only is it missing from American DNA, but those "in charge" want most people to never know about Iraq or Persia or other Middle East countries history. We want their oil, plain and simple. To hell with the rest of it.

As a sidenote about what our military has been left to mop up: pure old G.I.'s - at the Baghdad zoo: these guys are in and of themselves, weapons, but here they were in a complete quandry as to what to do about all the abandoned animals - lions, tigers, bears, wolves, sheep, etc. And only because of their humanity, could they negotiate themselves around the problem of starving animals and what to do with them.

A wolf was dying, and they let it die because a tiger and bear were starving. These guys had to cut up the wolf and feed it to the tiger and bear.

Now if that doesn't SUCK about this war, then nothing does.

[speeder]

Yeah, that sucks. There are a river of heartbreaking stories about this war, (as in all wars), but you wouldn't know it from listening to Rumsfeld or FOX-jereeza. The men and women who are there know it, that's for sure. The (not) funny thing is the title of this thread. As if anyone opposed the war because they doubted the outcome(?) The strongest military in the history of the world vs. a depleted third world force that fought what experts are calling, "the most inept campaign in the history of modern warfare"? We lost ~100 soldiers, (and every one a tradgedy, so don't read me wrong here), versus their, what, 30,000? 40,000? Whatever, we'll never get to know because our government doesn't want us to know the true cost of this war.

What kills me are the ignorant ass-clowns of the right saying things like, "the 'liberals' are on the wrong side of history again". HINT: history hasn't been written on this one yet, and when it is, "George the sequel" may very well go down as the most disasterous president in the history of the U.S. As if the FOX-jereeza crowd or Rumsfeld have a clue about or respect for the history of that part of the world.

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
. . "history hasn't been written on this one yet, and when it is, "George the sequel" may very well go down as the most disasterous president in the history of the U.S. . . .

You can hope, Speeder.

It seem that undermining Bush is your central theme. The only thing that pisses you off more than Bush successfully toppling a mass murdering dictator coupled to 9/11, is the sardonic mouth of the Secretary of Defense, consistantly being right.

Apparently, Clintonian things are excusable; however, the combination of being confident and correct (right about things) is inexcusable by the left ( ).

BTW, when you say "versus their, what, 30,000? 40,000? Whatever, we'll never get to know because our government doesn't want us to know the true cost of this war. "

I read that as "speeder is going to make-up (an exagerate) MORE #'s, then divorce himself from those #'s so he can blame the current governtment for one more thing."
Not to worry, speeder; those number WILL become available. They always do.

Why don't you talk about how many were killed, or died to malnutrition, each year due to Saddams methods? What's this. . .Saddam didn't make those numbers available to you?