459 replies to this topic

[GostHacked]

Now you're moving the goal posts.

I am not the one moving the goal posts.

You sound like the quintessential politician.

And if you want doublespeak take a look at what the government is saying. Don't blame me for doing what the government does without blaming them.

[bleeding heart]

This is one of the most evil men on the planet, and yet it's all brushed aside and the US posters here for the most part end up being apologetic towards it, without even considering the other side. Some people here think Cheney was a god.

Cheney isn't evil (well...I admit I'm assuming....). The fact of international shenanigans, including those that cause what we might term "evils," are the result of institutional factors.

Not that individuals aren't responsible; but it's bigger than that, by a long shot.

The "evils" of particular leaders and policymakers (besides the oversimplifications inherent to the view) is an idea that pretends there are no serious institutional flaws or issues, and if people could only elect the Proper Hero, all will be well. Hell, Obama--and arguably Reagan and Bush Jr.--won elections based in part on just that premise.

It's not an American phenomenon. The Americans are unsurprisingly normal. But Cheney is...just Cheney. I might think he's a big jerk, but I don't believe he was attempting Evil.

[eyeball]

I don't believe he was attempting Evil.

He's inspired a fair bit of it.

[bleeding heart]

He's inspired a fair bit of it.

Granted.

[DogOnPorch]

Granted.

Lots of mass beheadings and children being splashed with acid. My personal favorite is when the neer-do-wells use smaller sticks to beat to death a non-conformist. Takes longer. Damn that Cheney.

[bleeding heart]

Lots of mass beheadings and children being splashed with acid. My personal favorite is when the neer-do-wells use smaller sticks to beat to death a non-conformist. Takes longer. Damn that Cheney.

Well, of course I've never suggested that Cheney is responsible for the behaviour of lunatic theocrats, who have only god-addled brains to blame for the horrors they routinely unleash upon the weakest members of their own societies.

But that their behaviour isn't Cheney's fault doesn't quite place him at the level of freedom-fighting hero, either; or else most of the world's population must share in that honour, rendering it meaningless. The guy's still, and uncontroversially, a monumental douche.

Edited by bleeding heart, 18 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[American Woman]

I can't help but wonder why it has to be either extreme - Evil or Hero? Why can't Cheney's and Bush's policies and the removal of Saddam and the hope for better times be discussed without making it one or the other - simply the way it was/is? Surely things were terrible under Saddam. Surely terrible things happened as a result of the war. Terrible things happened during all wars, so I don't know why the discussion about Iraq centers only around the U.S./Bush-Cheney et al. Seems that most people who opposed the war can't have an actual discussion about it (ie: all inclusive). It's all about Evil USA/Government (and of course all of the evils the U.S. has been accused of for all time becomes relevant) - and anyone who strays from that at all and talks about anything else is a war monger, war supporter, blind American patriot, etc. Deaths due to U.S. = bad while deaths under Saddam flew under the radar of the world at large. That's what I don't get. Even those against the sanctions were suddenly singing their praises, crediting them for Iraq's absence of WMD.

I didn't support the war nor do I have any love for Cheney (or Bush et al), but he certainly has become the poster boy to hate - which really gives others who deserve contempt a pass. Chretien, for all his hypocrisy and lies, is almost defended by a lot of Canadians who go after the U.S./Americans. He certainly hasn't come close to the scrutiny Cheney (and Bush et al) have been subjected to. I'd love to see other governments put under the microscope that the U.S. lives under - and the reactions of their citizens. I would love to see the reaction of those anti-Cheney rioters in Vancouver. It would be oh-so-interesting; I can see that much.

[bleeding heart]

I can't help but wonder why it has to be either extreme - Evil or Hero?

Precisely my point, if you read my post.

Seems that most people who opposed the war can't have an actual discussion about it (ie: all inclusive).

As opposed to....whom? The sober and thoughtful tendencies of the war's boosters?

Ah, the good old days of being informed I was "objectively pro-Saddam" by opposing the war. (I happen to know this common insult was plagiarized directly from hawkish lunatic, the late Christopher Hitchens. But I have no doubt that the mouth-breathers really believed it, being slightly hostile to thought.)

It's all about Evil USA/Government (and of course all of the evils the U.S. has been accused of for all time becomes relevant)

Not all of us are adhering to that particular narrative, as you well know. I have all kinds of complaints about American foreign policy, but i see it as quite intrinsically connected to the allies...certainly to Canada. Canada is what Canada does, just like America.

Even those against the sanctions were suddenly singing their praises, crediting them for Iraq's absence of WMD.

I would never sing the praises of the sanctions, which were in fact murderous.

I didn't support the war nor do I have any love for Cheney (or Bush et al), but he certainly has become the poster boy to hate - which really gives others who deserve contempt a pass. Chretien, for all his hypocrisy and lies, is almost defended by a lot of Canadians who go after the U.S./Americans.

I agree, without reservation.

And I've never deviated from this stance.

Edited by bleeding heart, 18 April 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[American Woman]

Precisely my point, if you read my post.

I read your post - he's not evil, he simply inspired it.

As opposed to....whom? The sober and thoughtful tendencies of the war's boosters?

I'm talking about those who opposed the war because that includes me. I've noticed that I cannot have a discussion about it - it's all about Bush/Cheney/the US and how essentially bad it all is. And yes, I know, Cheney is a douche. What about the other non-American douches? Would be nice to see them get their due.

Ah, the good old days of being informed I was "objectively pro-Saddam" by opposing the war. (I happen to know this common insult was plagiarized directly from hawkish lunatic, the late Christopher Hitchens. But I have no doubt that the mouth-breathers really believed it, being slightly hostile to thought.)

Poor you, eh? The truly ironic fact is that I have been called everything you have been called and more; since I am an American, I was called a traitor also - and not just by Americans. AND a war supporter/war monger/mindless patriot - by those oh-so-self-righteous people who opposed the war and represent nothing but truth and light (and yes, that's sarcasm).

Not all of us are adhering to that particular narrative, as you well know. I have all kinds of complaints about American foreign policy, but i see it as quite intrinsically connected to the allies...certainly to Canada. Canada is what Canada does, just like America.

I couldn't agree more, yet the U.S. gets 99% of the 'air time' around these parts - along with the "Canada's not as bad" bull.

I would never sing the praises of the sanctions, which were in fact murderous.

A lot of people DO; people who had nothing good to say about them said war wasn't necessary to get rid of Saddam since the sanctions prevented him from being a threat. Yet he was terrible, and people were dying, and without the sanctions, he every well could have had WMD. But no one discusses that - what it would be like had there been no sanctions, had Saddam remained in power, with his dynasty to follow. And that includes you. I sure haven't seen it.

I agree, without reservation.

And I've never deviated from this stance.

Yet even as you say this, you don't describe Chretien as a douche the way you did Cheney - and I wold wager a month's pay that you haven't spent nearly the time criticizing Chretien that you have others. He gets nowhere near the contempt from Canadians that Americans/the US government does - which is quite telling (especially from this side of the border).

Canada does not deserve its reputation - and that doesn't mean I hate Canada, which I've also been accused of (by people say anything and everything about the U.S. while claiming not to be anti-American).

Edited by American Woman, 18 April 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[bleeding heart]

I read your post - he's not evil, he simply inspired it.

That was a little joke, a friendly throw-away response to a response to my more substantive post...which, as I'm sure you must know, is the post to which I'm referring.

i.e. the serious one.



I'm talking about those who opposed the war because that includes me. I've noticed that I cannot have a discussion about it - it's all about Bush/Cheney/the US and how essentially bad it all is. And yes, I know, Cheney is a douche. What about the other non-American douches? Would be nice to see them get their due.

i know. I already agreed with this...an unqualified agreement, in fact...in the post from which you're now quoting.

Poor you, eh?

No:

The truly ironic fact is that I have been called everything you have been called and more; since I am an American, I was called a traitor also - and not just by Americans. AND a war supporter/war monger/mindless patriot - by those oh-so-self-righteous people who opposed the war and represent nothing but truth and light (and yes, that's sarcasm).

Poor you, eh?

I couldn't agree more, yet the U.S. gets 99% of the 'air time' around these parts - along with the "Canada's not as bad" bull.

Since we are self-evidently in agreement on this particular matter, I don't know why you're preaching to the choir in the style of an argument.

A lot of people DO;

Yes, both war supporters and opponents have had all kinds of ill-thought-out ideas as they've debated this extremely controversial issue.

But what other poeple do remains not my fault.

Yet he was terrible, and people were dying, and without the sanctions, he every well could have had WMD. But no one discusses that - what it would be like had there been no sanctions, had Saddam remained in power, with his dynasty to follow. And that includes you. I sure haven't seen it.

So what? Is there nothing of import that you have so far failed to discuss? Or have you covered all the world's horrors in properly-balanced fashion?

Yet even as you say this, you don't describe Chretien as a douche the way you did Cheney - and I wold wager a month's pay that you haven't spent nearly the time criticizing Chretien that you have others.

You'd be wrong, and based only on petty-mindedness (as opposed to evidence).

You could use the search function, pore through the many posts I have written as "bloodyminded" and now as "bleeding heart," and discern it one way or another, with evidence to back up your claim.

Not that I'd expect anyone to commit to such a sizeable undertaking....but if you're going to make the accusations, the onus is on you.

He gets nowhere near the contempt from Canadians that Americans/the US government does - which is quite telling (especially from this side of the border).

Your continued hectoring on all hypocrisies Canadian begs a question along exactly these lines: whether or not American Woman spends as much writing time here excoriating the United States of America for its fantastic adherence to violent international criminality as she does lambasting Canadian hypocrisy, ignorance, and collusion with the Superpower.

Because, AW, this notion is here stated as your focus...so why expect more from others than you will commit to yourself?

Canada does not deserve its reputation

Of course not.

- and that doesn't mean I hate Canada, which I've also been accused of (by people say anything and everything about the U.S. while claiming not to be anti-American).

But you could easily do what some of us here do...willingly stand up and denounce your own country, which it self-evidently deserves, rather than concentrating with laserlike fixity on the crimes and misdeameanors of others.

Then you would no longer be engaging in the hypocrisy which you so prominently indict in others.

Edited by bleeding heart, 18 April 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Peeves]

"Then you would no longer be engaging in the hypocrisy which you so prominently indict in others."

by bleeding heart: Today, 03:39 PM

You don't think AW has at times openly been critical of the USA?

I certainly don't find her position as one of Jingoism.

[American Woman]

But you could easily do what some of us here do...willingly stand up and denounce your own country, which it self-evidently deserves, rather than concentrating with laserlike fixity on the crimes and misdeameanors of others.

Then you would no longer be engaging in the hypocrisy which you so prominently indict in others.

Some of you here do criticize your country during these discussions, but it's not who you think it is. If you think the occasional 'yes, we've done some things that aren't right in our history' when you're called on specifics is "willingly denouncing your country," you are just proving my point.

As I've said before, and I'll repeat only one more time to you, I've criticized my country for years - as the "Criticize the U.S." crowd focused only on the U.S. When it became apparent that most had tunnel vision, as I started to learn more about other's actions, I pointed it out - only to get the standard responses. So, and as I've said this before I won't repeat it one more time to you, I point out the hypocrisy, because I'm done having one-sided conversations where only the actions of one nation are continuously vilified, as the holier-than-thou bury their heads in the sand.

In other words, your accusation of hypocrisy is a crock. I've denounced my country and in all one-sided conversations, which was my point. It was all about my country. As I've clearly stated in this post you are now criticizing, it's all but impossible to have an all encompassing discussion, and until it becomes all inclusive, I will continue to point out what other refuse to see/own up to. When and if that changes, I'm all for discussing ALL aspects, not just the "bad USA/no one would ever want to commit a terrorist act against Canada because we've given them no reason to/we stayed out of Iraq/we're not as bad" ignorance I'm constantly coming up against.

[American Woman]

"Then you would no longer be engaging in the hypocrisy which you so prominently indict in others."

by bleeding heart: Today, 03:39 PM

You don't think AW has at times openly been critical of the USA?

I certainly don't find her position as one of Jingoism.

Thank you. It's not jingoism, of course; I just refuse to keep carrying on with the one-sided discussions. I've come up against many on this board who will back me up on that, my post history here speaks for itself, but after years of it, I feel it's time to discuss every aspect of these issues or the criticism is nothing but a biased viewpoint - and I refuse to continue to be a part of that.

[eyeball]

I couldn't agree more, yet the U.S. gets 99% of the 'air time' around these parts - along with the "Canada's not as bad" bull.

Ahem...exsqueeze me? We're actually worse. We should have and probably did know better than to be inspired by Cheney but did that stop us?

Not.

[Manny]

The good thing about these forums is, we are all learning and if we can stay objective and honest, we can find out more about the real truth of what's going on. Like the collusion and the level of corruption that's inherent in all countries, and in the media. But, knowing about it is not ALWAYS a good thing...