Sorry Wolfe, but I have to disagree with you on Panama. Having studied Latin American politics I can say that the way the US acted with regards to Panama was appalling.

The good guys did not ‘win’ during the invasion of Panama - the ‘good guys’ only wanted Noreiga out (to ‘bring him to justice’) because he wasn’t doing what they wanted him to do. Noreiga had been on CIA payroll for a considerable amount of time before they ousted him - he supported and organised US efforts in Nicaragua, helping the contras to bring down the regime there. The US knew about his drug-trafficking and money laundering and the fact that he was fixing elections even while they were working with him… and they allowed the dictator to stay in power because he was their runner boy.

The US gave four reasons for the invasion but they were all dubious (for reasons I am not going to go into here) and they were all mere excuses for going in there and kicking Noriega’s ass. And kick his ass they did. They did so with little care for civilians and it was said to be one of the most violent and brutal invasion at that time since Vietnam.

I don’t have a problem with the US intervening, I have a more a problem with US hypocrisy. The US preach ideals of democracy, justice, and peace - but what they really mean is they want democracy, justice, and peace on their terms and only when it suits their best interests. In the case of Panama, they were fine with Noriega’s regime in Panama while he was their lap-dog, but the moment he stepped out of line, Noriega is turned into international criminal #1 … the US didn’t give a damn about the Panamanian people - they cared only to control Panama and to secure control over Latin America as a whole - not to mention the financial implications too.

Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe when US takes military action against a country that they are doing it for the good of that country, or for humanitarian issues. I think a lot of the time we are sold humanitarian reasons because we cannot swallow the idea that war is actually declared on grounds of greed, power and territory. I think this annoys me also because it is insulting to the intelligence when you are being lied to, especially when the lies are so badly disguised. I can almost forgive being lied to if the lie is credible, but I find it intolerable when I am fed a bad lie and being expected to believe it.

Again, this should be in Politik. If the discussion continues, I’ll move it there.
wolfe: ‘I really believe it is a binary choice of US involvement in the world vs. a radical drawing back.’

Anon said:
wolfe, I almost feel it would be preferable if the US did exactly that.

That’s a very fair comment. Many (perhaps most?) Americans feel the same way. Certainly Biff does. I don’t. I view the world as being in the Siege of Vienna, circa 1529. I may be mistaken to do so; I may also be mistaken in the positive effects the Americans can have, and, finally I may be gravely mistaken on the horrible price we are prepared to pay as a country.

I don’t know very much about wars but it seems that everytime they go somewhere to fix a mess (with the exception of WW2) wars just become messier and more entrenched.

Offhand:
- the Revolution — the Bill of Rights remains one of the great documents of mankind.
- The Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.
- The Spanish-American War. People were freed, including slaves. Heck, Cuba became malaria-free. Go go USArmy.
- The Mexican and Indian wars solved things, so refute your point as to “messier and entrenched” but were hardly great examples of US benevolence. Quite the contrary in the latter case.
- WWI. Yeah, I guess Wilsonian idealism was stupid. It beat what anyone else had to offer though.
- WWII. We agree on this. Amazing.
- Korea. Visit the country if you don’t believe me. The difference made possible by the US in North vs South Korea (after a horrible US diplomatic bungle) is stunning.
- Grenada. Yeah, a pathetic little war, but the good guys won.
- Panama. Ditto, though the US deserves culpability for its very dubious ‘Munroe Doctrine’-backed Latin American policies.
- Kuwait. A no brainer, even if it was a war for oil. Again, helped along by stunning US diplomatic incompetence.
- Yugoslavia. The jury’s still out, but I think US intervention there helped things. It certainly didn’t make them worse.

With respect Anon, your view is entirely legitimate. Your knowledge of history is either biased or altogether lacking.

On the whole ‘foster war’ and support peace thing where we ‘can’t have it both ways’, sorry this is a very naive view. If the above isn’t enough food for thought, I’ll be glad to take this up with you in Politik. Usual rules, you’ll be treated with respect and not banned unless Dick wants to fire me.

Take care,
-wolfe
Take the latest middle east crisis, which, I have been following scantily, I think I read the other day that the US are supplying Israel with more weapons, while today I read that Bush is calling for humanitarian aid for Southern Lebanon. If this is true, this is what the world finds difficult to stomach - that the US seems to both foster war, then try and make it look as if it is actually against it and trying to help. You just can’t have it both ways.

This should be in Politik. Oh well. Sorry Dick.

sonyad said:
It was your fallacious assertion of any merit or worthiness on the part of the USN for Europe not (still) being under Soviet hegemony.

If you don’t believe that the USN was a significant part of what brought the Soviets to their knees, then, well, obviously we think very differently. This was not a fallacious assertion; the USN was, in my view, a vital part of the solution.

Off-hand, the following things helped lead to the end of Soviet domination over eastern Europe. You’d certainly have a better perspective than I on the internal politics, and what happened in your country, but I respectfully submit you are missing at least one element of Grand Strategy.

- SDI as a psychological threat to intimidate the Soviets into believing their vaunted nuclear leverage might be no more,
- The Helsinki accords as a critical influence on hearts and minds in occupied countries
- The ability of the United States for the first time since 1945 to project power via the USN right into the White Sea, and right to Vladivostock as she chose This was huge. It threatened an end to Soviet adventurism in Africa, central America, and elsewhere. It rendered the USSR supremely vulnerable to tactical (non-nuclear) US forces.
- The general revitalization of capitalist democracies in the West in the wake of the post-Vietnam syndrome and the realization that Keynes and Khrushchev were wrong.
- Gorbachev himself, in making the honorable decision not to use violence to suppress the Baltics
- To some degree, the rhetoric of Reagan and Thatcher.
- Solidarity in Poland.
- Other regional leaders who were persuaded that Communism wasn’t merely a weak horse, it was a dead horse.

And to add insult to injury, your blended (be it rhetorical) claim that, melodrama yours and emphasis mine, crucifying the USN is congruent to preferring, and intrinsically being approving of, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

No, I didn’t mean that. I don’t think what I wrote implied that, but if it did, then I apologize. That said, neutering that Captain, given the facts (see my post), would have badly damaged the morale and capability of the USN at a very critical juncture in the Cold War.

By removing one of the key factors in demolishing the Soviet Empire, it would have, in my belief, potentially lead to another few years of Soviet occupation. That doesn’t mean that proposing to (say) dismiss the Captain or charge him means you support Soviet occupation, far from it. If you read that into what I wrote, then, again, I’m very sorry. As a victim of the Soviets, along with your beloved country, I don’t think for a nanosecond you back them. I do, nevertheless, believe that would have been one of the consequences.

You may argue I am wrong; fair enough. Please don’t argue that I am arguing fallaciously or raising straw men. I’m not.

We agree on many things. The shootdown was wrong. There are a list of facts suggesting incompetent strategic command at the highest levels of the USN, to say nothing of the ludicrousness of an AEGIS cruiser having to handle terrorist gunboat attacks on innocent civilians.

I’m glad you’ve posted further on this. It’s restored my respect for you, now that I better understand your position. I just wish you could understand mine.

Best,
-wolfe

sonyad said:

That was until he sprang that latest gem on me. I took it personally, and still do, so.

You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, can you tell me what the gem was?

I really believe it is a binary choice of US involvement in the world vs. a radical drawing back.

wolfe, I almost feel it would be preferable if the US did exactly that. I don’t know very much about wars but it seems that everytime they go somewhere to fix a mess (with the exception of WW2) wars just become messier and more entrenched.

Take the latest middle east crisis, which, I have been following scantily, I think I read the other day that the US are supplying Israel with more weapons, while today I read that Bush is calling for humanitarian aid for Southern Lebanon. If this is true, this is what the world finds difficult to stomach - that the US seems to both foster war, then try and make it look as if it is actually against it and trying to help. You just can’t have it both ways.

It was not your raising of the issue of Soviet hegemony that ticked me off. That’s historical fact.

It was your fallacious assertion of any merit or worthiness on the part of the USN for Europe not (still) being under Soviet hegemony.

And to add insult to injury, your blended (be it rhetorical) claim that, melodrama yours and emphasis mine, crucifying the USN is congruent to preferring, and intrinsically being approving of, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

Very quickly, I appreciate Sony posting this, though he didn’t have to. No, ‘lefty’ doesn’t equate to anti-American, and it’s quite right to call America on the things she does badly — slavery, the horrific treatment of aboriginals, especially the Cherokee Nation, to name just three.

And the killing of 60+ innocent children (and over 200 people total) over the Persian Gulf.

I didn’t raise this as a defence tactic, and I didn’t — and don’t — consider Sony anti-American.

My raising the issue of Soviet domination was obviously highly offensive to Sony. Given that, I’m somewhat sorry I raised it in the fashion I did. Believe me, it was not raised as a straw man or chimera. I raised it knowing well his country had suffered terribly under brutal tyranny for decades, but if I’d spent longer thinking about it, I might have held back, powerful and correct argument though I very sincerely believe it to be.

As I’ve said, I’ve friends and family serving in the USN. I’ve studied centuries worth of Naval history, and even lectured on it. I did not choose my words lightly.

There were some points I made Wolfe walked cleanly around

I don’t see this, because I share Sony’s view that the downing was wrong. Medals shouldn’t have been awarded to the officers. George H.W. Bush said a stupid and spiteful thing when he said he’d never apologize for America.

What points did I “walk around”? I’d be happy to address them in the appropriate thread.

On the factual points, Sony, check Wikipedia perhaps. There’s another good (Iranian site) on the matter. It’s very mildly biased against the US I think, but it bends over backwards to try to be fair. I’ll send you the URL if you are interested.

As for non sequiturs, it was not my intent to employ them. Having agreed that the downing of the aircraft, and the death of 60-odd innocent children and 200-odd innocent people was wrong, I didn’t see it as being sensible to dispute other details.

I did and do sincerely believe that the Captain couldn’t be keelhauled for what he did, for it would tend to castrate the US Navy.

Perhaps Sony views this as a non-sequitur or perhaps he genuinely doesn’t grasp my point of view (one which I strongly believe is correct).

To the contrary, I felt Sony ‘walked around’ the core of my argument and ignored it. With 20 or 30 paragraphs, he chose to bold and underline a single sentence and announce an end to the discussion he had begun.

Yes, I was disappointed. I’m appreciative that he chose to amplify here.

Sony says he’d share my ‘biased’ views if he were in my place. I guess that’s some comfort.

I in turn can offer him comfort by noting that almost certainly most of the planet would agree with him and not with me.

That said, be careful what you wish for. I really believe it is a binary choice of US involvement in the world vs. a radical drawing back. I think the US is nearing a tipping point of doing the latter.

-wolfe

I see.

There is at least one confirmed instance of you posting by two distinct names from the same ip.

Female, Anon, whoever you are and whatever pseudonym you chose to go by. If you feel you’re competent to add courteous and pertinent contribution to the relevant thread then, by all means, do. I personally am of the opinion that you are not and can not.

However, if I am wrong but you can’t be bothered to register a name on the forums to said end at least try to preserve a courteous, non-presumptuous manner when spamming.

Having already decided on spamming I see no choice but to implicate myself as wll by reciprocation because it would be more severely inappropriate on my part not to answer your direct interpellations on the subject.

[...]you chose to see his statement as evidence of American egocentricity.

This statement is presumptuous as wll as being plain stupid. However, let me try to elaborate.

Wolfe. The first time I came across http://www.dailykos.com was when I googled for more in depth writings regarding this incident. I did not know it was a ‘lefty’ site. OR anti-American, for that matter. In retrospect, the name and that banner they have over there seems rather indicative.

I did not set out seeking to convey a leftist point of view simply because anti-American groups use it as basis for their ‘propaganda’.

However, neither does being ‘lefty’ mean one is anti-American nor vice versa. In the case of this site you might be right to interchange labels though I don’t think the article itself, in particular, can actually be viewed as skewed to the left. It seems more than reasonably objective to me. A lot more anyway, than I could probably say about the US Navy. Had I found a report of theirs on the downing.

Also, calling America on the ills it does (as opposed to the fictitious ones) is not the same with being anti-American. Neither is resenting plain wrong things that America and Americans say or do. I find many Americans too easily resort to labeling as anti-American as a defence tactic. That is to say I should not be labelled as such for my stance on the downing of IA655. My stance on the incident is neither leftist, nor anti-American. It is simply the right stance. Nor should I be labelled as such for quoting what people likely rightfully deem as leftist skewed, biased sources that happened to break with principle and write the truth on occasion.

If I were to affirm, for example, that all Americans are at fault and therefore to blame for spawning and supporting the NRA and NOW, then yes. I could rightfully be labelled as decidedly anti-American. Especially since ’second amendment lobbyist’ or NOW like groups have not at all significantly intruded into my existence nor trampled my quality of life. Yet.

Wolfe had previously stated and showcased his aversion to leftist sources and points of view. By all means, I would have avoided using such sources precisely to make my argument less prone to logical, reasonable attack, if not for plain mistake. I respect that and I am sorry that one of the informal sources I used happened to be http://www.dailykos.com.

Again: just because someone, or more, are decidedly biased against the US and consistently generate false positives in terms of accusations and blaming of the US does not preclude them from having true positives once in awhile. The truth when told by a confirmed liar does not make it any less true.

There were some points I made Wolfe walked cleanly around, just writing nothing about or unspecifically contradicting using non sequitur (some things were completelly unrelated to the matter at hand, just as what ticked me off) and what I view as completely false arguments. As if I hadn’t written them at all. All without citing sources, and getting emotional. Indicative of him not having taken the time to read and analyze them thoroughly. At least not at first. I have read all of his, several times. Incredulously, I might add.

Though getting weary of the exercise in futility that that discussion represented, I realistically did not envision overturning wolfe’s strong convictions, I did have the resolve to continue mustering pertinent replies to his rebukes of the thread’s premise with largely. That was until he sprang that latest gem on me. I took it personally, and still do, so.

I do not attribute him malintent, however. That said malintent is not a prerequisite to successfully causing offence.

Wolfe’s views are understandably biased and strongly so. I would most likely share his views, being in his place.

sonyad said:

My turn to what? To whom? With whom? Could you be more explicit?

Sure. It’s your turn to admit you jumped the gun in the forums and rather than literally interpret wolfe’s statement about Russian domination of Europe, you chose to see his statement as evidence of American egocentricity.

Anon said:
Jebus.

sonyad said:Please try and refrain from such publicity stunts when they are inappropriate and out of bounds.

It wasn’t a publicity stunt, I don’t even see how that can be interpreted as one. wolfe is correct in explaining it is a non-offensive substitution.

sonyad said:
Also, if I may inconvenience you so far as to ask that you refrain from using that abbreviation for post scriptum. Such light use of it is akin to children’s writing.

Pardon? I don’t understand what you are saying. That’s the shortened version, I’m not writing it out in full everytime I use it.

‘Jebus’ is actually a well known convention/word to use as a substitution. Doing so avoids giving offense to those of religious faith who take the second/third commandment very seriously.
-wolfe

My turn to what? To whom? With whom? Could you be more explicit?

Jebus.

I believe the name is Jesus. The ‘B’ key is quite removed from the ‘S’ key on the keyboard so I will assume intent. Please try and refrain from such publicity stunts when they are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Also, if I may inconvenience you so far as to ask that you refrain from using that abbreviation for post scriptum. Such light use of it is akin to children’s writing.

wolfe said:

Formal thank you, Anon.

Anon said:
Thanks, it was due.

Okay by this I meant I was due to give you an apology, not that you were due to thank me.

Jebus. *wipes sweat from brow*

P.S. Sonyad, it’s your turn now.

Formal thank you, Anon.

Thanks, it was due.

She says crazy silly things.

Yes, I can’t understand how *cough* she can be so good at reading fine print and so shite at reading the posts on this site. It’s just crazy.

she is ultimately fairly honest V.true (though it often takes intense reflection and time).

Er. yes. I don’t think ‘often’ is the right word. I prefer, ’sometimes.’

I think she can add value to this site,

Wow. Do you? I’m not so sure.

I wish she woudln’t post for reasons I’ve already adumbrated.

I can’t remember what they are, no matter, I think you’ll get your wish.

Thank you Luka. Goes without saying, but hey, well-deserved.

Formal thank you, Anon.

Here is what I will say about Female.

She says crazy silly things. But she is ultimately fairly honest (though it often takes intense reflection and time).

I think she can add value to this site, though I wish she woudln’t post for reasons I’ve already adumbrated. (No, I don’t mean enumerated, I mean adumbrated.)
Best to all,

-wolfe

Yes Luka, you are right. It seems wolfe thought I was supporting astromuffy’s comment that he was a liar, and in retaliation called me a cretinous cow.

I didn’t see the “liar” comment and do not support it. I am sorry. An apology isn’t needed.

wolfe said:

I have trouble believing this, given her behaviour. Malice seems a given.

If, however, she was genuinely attempting to engage in rational dialogue, then I’m sorry I mistook her stupidity/lack of education/incompetence for malice.

-wolfe

One should always consider Hanlon’s Razor when dealing with women. I find It saves a lot of frustration in the long run.

Female, if you have changed your identity so many times can you blame wolfe for mistaking another poster for you? Even if he did so incorrectly, I still think you are being a bit irrational getting so upset and demanding he give you an apology.

Why does he need to give you an apology? If you keep changing your identity eventually someone will confuse you with new posters if they resemble you in some way and that is your fault not the fault of wolfe. If you have a track-record of this kind of behaviour then you bring this kind of situation upon yourself.

It seems to me that you are blaming and attacking wolfe for your own actions. I don’t think that is being fair on your part.

wolfe said:

What you’re missing here is that I simply ask for a clarity of thought and expression that is altogether lacking from both you, Muffy and Female (I assume you are Female, but I don’t know).

Check the man-hash. Your assumption is correct.

If you can’t see then you are either ignorant, stupid or being deliberately obtuse or you may well possibly be blinded by your own indignation or sense of righteousness.

You were right to apologise to Muffy for your character assassination of her if she is indeed less educated and unable to engage in debate, though not for want of trying. You gain 5 man points, bringing your sum total to date to - 999, 999.95. Still in the red.

What you do not see is that I was not advising you that you owed muffy an apology, but that you owed Female an apology.

You specifically typed, “Female, why do you act like such an idiot?” effectively believing that she and astromuffy were one and the same, and thus calling Female a cretinous cow and an idiot. You also attacked myself without explanation, advising all readers that “astromuffy and anon are….far worse.”

Who are you to judge and slander other posters? And where do you get off not acknowledging that you have done this? Nor apologising for it? I have noticed you often like to state that it is not the poster you are attacking, but their argument. I fail to see where you apply this in practice towards Female or myself.

And Shakespeare? What exactly are you trying to say?

If astromuffy called you a liar, then fair enough you have a right to defend yourself against that and maybe try and exercise some maturity and not resort to name-calling.

Now, you can come back to me with an apology for “equally silly cow”.

I shan’t hold my breath.

I don’t. As for still the same in reverse, in terms of your annoyance, certainly. In terms of being logically identical? No. And no weasling.

What you’re missing here is that I simply ask for a clarity of thought and expression that is altogether lacking from both you, Muffy and Female (I assume you are Female, but I don’t know). Things are phrased in a muddy and unclear fashion, that, at its best, is almost right. At its worst, it’s risibly wrong.

Come back to me with your apologies (or comments) when you’ve read carefully the post where she called me a liar, and I responded with what Biff aptly noted as “Google Fu”.
Best,
-wolfe