I have just lost a ton of respect for Rush....

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
a couple of people who ought to be ashamed of the way they've carried on

I agree that some people should be ahamed of the way they carry on

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[80sU2isBest]

Achtung, I realize that Chain's post have been arrogant beyond words, but please don't stoop to the level of a couple of our opponents who name call. To be honest, I think it only adds fuel to the fire. It shocked me when I read it because it's so unlike you.

 

[Not George Lucas]

When I first saw this thread, I thought you were talking about the band, Rush, not the idiot radio whore Rush.

------------------

Truth is offensive.
I'm morally opposed to rape, and I would never rape anyone, but I think, ultimately, it's up to the rapist and no one else.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Achtung, I realize that Chain's post have been arrogant beyond words, but please don't stoop to the level of a couple of our opponents who name call. To be honest, I think it only adds fuel to the fire. It shocked me when I read it because it's so unlike you.

At some point, a human being has to decide that enough is enough.

Very recently, I've been criticized for my religious beliefs; conservative Christians have been called homophobic Bible-thumper in a forum that supposedly practices religious tolerance. I've been harassed for my political beliefs; conservatives and the leading conservative commentators have been called NAZIs without the shadow of a legitimate reason, in a forum where I can't dare call Michael Moore an idiot. And I've been personally attacked, being called a bully and Pharisee.

Why has this happened?

Three reasons: my beliefs are contrary to many other beliefs here, I confidently hold that I am actually right, and I am able to brilliantly defend my position.

Seriously: if you people could have picked apart my arguments even in this thread, you would have by now. You would have addressed the reminder of Malcolm X's violent legacy in the wake of the L.A. Riots. You would have countered the claim that a scandal-happy Senator should be under scrutiny, despite the fact that she happens to black and female. And you would have responded to the fact that the 40,000 residents of East St. Louis constitute less than two percent of the metropolitan population.

But you didn't attack my actual points, you attacked the fact that I made those points to begin with:

Originally posted by Salome:
trying to convince that you are right has become more important in here then trying to find out what the exact truth might be

A Catch-22 of contradiction if I ever saw one. Had I merely said, "the article's biased," you'd chalk that up to "a difference of opinion." I actually demonstrate the worthlessness of the article, and now I'm apparently too concerned with proving my point.

You claim I responded out of nothing more than anger:

Originally posted by chain:
So you post a said requested list, and three angry white males get hopping mad.

Another trap: merely disagreeing with someone and backing up the disagreement with evidence and logic now constitutes anger.

And you went right to name-calling:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Bubba, I can't talk to you. I do not find your observations "astute." You have a need to be right. I don't. I find you to be a bully and I will not debate with a bully. I disagree with 80s 99% of the time, but at least he is a nice person. I don't think you are.

All because I demonstrated, paragraph-by-paragraph, that that petty little editorial is worthless.

When chain posted his most recent banality, I decided I had enough.

You people don't discuss anything, you don't address my actual arguments - any of the points I actually make - and instead resort to name-calling and hypothetical arguments that don't stand up to any scrutiny at all.

(Again, NAME ANYONE on this forum who's seriously changed their opinions and apologized accordingly. I'd say no one has, so it doesn't matter that I don't either.)

Ultimately, if you can call me names, I can and eventually WILL return the kindness. I won't turn off my brain and start spewing emotional drivel. I will use my brain to harness my hatred and tear you a new 'hole.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

One more thing:

CHAIN ACTUALLY IS AN ASSHOLE.

Look at his replies in this thread:

Originally posted by chain:
Joyfulgirl,

Or course you are right.

Any clear thinking, rational person hears the mean spirited and intolerant statements Rush continues to make.


Chain

?Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you?

Originally posted by chain:
Joyfulgirl,

You are a voice of reason.


?I'd definitely like to see you list any racist remarks he has made.?


So you post a said requested list, and three angry white males get hopping mad.

"Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
How exactly is this racist?
Anyone?


That says it all!

Anyone who would ask this question just does not get it, probably never will.


I now light a candle against the darkness.

Chain

?Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you?

Amusing: two nearly identical posts, neither of them saying anything of any importance.

Not terribly outrageous in comparison to what would follow, but this already demonstrates his two worst attributes: pseudointellectual arrogance and a complete lack of anything substantive.

The obvious reply is that I too am arrogant. Let's say for the sake of argument I'm arrogant and not merely confident. At least I back up what I say.)

Chain asserts that Rush's comments are clearly racist, this after I posted an essay of 1,151 words picking apart the article, arguing to the contrary. Does he dispute my repsonse? No - all he does is claim my response is just proof that I'm mad, and that I'm clearly wrong, again without explanation. Does he offer his own defense of the article? NO.

Originally posted by chain:
First Mr. Bubba,

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, and was pleasantly surprised.

Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.


If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.


Let?s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


Regards,

Chain

This post again contains no substantive arguments, only implying that majority rule should determine what's racism. It has this really artificial "sincere complement", the claim that he was once a "huge Rush fan" who's now seen the light (again, by hearing the same thing that joyfulgirl hears, even though she doesn't listen to the show), and this insincere "Regards" that lawyers, CEOs, and other use so well when they really don't mean it.

It's at this point I begin to suspect a more thoroughly irritating individual - again, a person marked by arrogance but lacking the mental prowess to support such evidence.

That said, I replied quite reasonably, quoting a case in which popular opinion thought something was racist when it wasn't (the word "niggardly") AND a case in which popular opinion doesn't support the activists' case for establishing racism (the SI article about Native American mascots).

Did he acknowledge this response at all?

No.

Instead, he offered "help" that I never requested in apologizing for things that I don't think qualify. Again, the post that first led me to bring my anger to bear:

Originally posted by chain:
Bubba,

A little help my friend.

Here IS how it is done.

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, ****(I WAS WRONG) and was pleasantly surprised.
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.

If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.

Let?s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.


Regards,

Chain

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: he claims I was lying about my general civility in these forums AND he claims that objectivism "goes wanting in real world applications." Does he offer ANY evidence to support either claim? Of course not.

And between this attempt to proofread MY post and the "a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class", he's clearly trying to affect the personality of an English teacher when this is a forum of equals, when he's been registered for a month (having posted less than 50 times), and he's shown himself to be absolutely TERRIBLE at offering anything substantive.

The end result is that I would like to meet the guy personally, so I bash his skull in.

"You are a voice of reason."

"I now light a candle against the darkness."

"But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications."

Gosh, he sounds so smart. It's a damn shame he hasn't demonstrated a single idea that suggests he's actually as smart as the phrases he uses.

Unless he does demonstrate a level of rhetorical skills commensurate with his language skills, I will continue to believe that he is a know-nothing pretending to be a know-it-all.

An asshole.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Achtung, I hope you don't think I was jumping your case. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, I just don't think we should respond in the same way some of them do. Anyhow, I've got your back on this one!

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Achtung, I hope you don't think I was jumping your case. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, I just don't think we should respond in the same way some of them do. Anyhow, I've got your back on this one!

No, I didn't take your post the wrong way. My original tirade just needed more explanation.

And if you thought THAT post was bad, you should have seen it in its original form.

 

[z edge]

A-Bubba calm down and take a breather please. Don't post any 1500+ essays for a while, and dont let the ants make you scratch.

Enjoy your weekend

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Lemonite, I've been wondering about something:
That new "chauvenist" bit under your name; did you put that on there, or did someone just decide to put that there for you?

Hahaha, 80's, Naah, I didn't put it there, I was sort of bestowed that by our Integrity Filled Leader Elvis as his final 'nyah' in some sort of Argument that He had with me..

I just sort of go with it.. The green is a nice touch though.. Don't ya think?

L.Unplugged

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

Hahaha, 80's, Naah, I didn't put it there, I was sort of bestowed that by our Integrity Filled Leader Elvis as his final 'nyah' in some sort of Argument that He had with me..
I just sort of go with it.. The green is a nice touch though.. Don't ya think?
L.Unplugged

Yeah, I agree. The green is a nice touch. I wonder if he attached the word "leprechaun" to the wrong person, though. He obviously doesn't know that I stand only 5 ft 4 and am of strong Irish descent.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Had I merely said, "the article's biased," you'd chalk that up to "a difference of opinion." I actually demonstrate the worthlessness of the article, and now I'm apparently too concerned with proving my point.

this is about the third time in this thread you assume me to post/act in a certain way and 'critize' me because of this
so far you've been wrong on all accounts

first you assume is that I'm a conservative basher
Bubba you know nothing about my political believes and I have never attacked anybody's political views in here, just their posting habits (and don't start about me only attacking conservatives on this because
a. so far I've only made a point out of making my views known to 2 people in here (you being one of them)
b. I have pointed out more than once which sorts of posts I don't like and that people with different political ideas have been posting in this manner)

then you start ranting about me not giving you the right to defend your beliefs
again something I've never done, since the only thing I have ever 'attacked' (yes, I'm a violent human being) is - and I'll say this again - your posting habits
which - according to me - are 'agressive'

now you post this catch 22 nonsense as if my only joy in life is to set you up
if my posts in here have offended you - and considering what I've read here from you and 80's U2 I obviously have - I do apologize

feel free to mail Elvis or anybody re. my behaviour
point out every post which show my diabolical plan to set you up/annoy you or whatever in this forum
do whatever you want
just don't pretend you have any clue why I have spent more time in this thread then I have the rest of "Free Your Mind" put together, because you obviously don't

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-22-2002).]

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
It appears you consciously stopped the moment I asked for more definitive proof that conservatives are Nazis.

I work "BUBBA." Something that you don't seem to do. I really don't know where you get all this time to post.

I've argued enough with you to know very well that you don't listen to me whatsoever, so what is the point of me even responding to you?

BTW, did I call conservatives "Nazis" in this thread? You seemingly brought that on yourself. Nice sidetrack, Rush, Jr. Big Daddy would be very proud.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
One more thing:

CHAIN ACTUALLY IS AN ASSHOLE.

You exhibit histrionic personality disorder more and more. A whole quote on how a particular member is an asshole? Whatever happened to the issues? That's right. Rush can talk about how it takes 5 minutes for a liberal to call names, yet I can probably compile a novel of all the names you have called people in this forum. Yet another instance of the Rushist attacker/victim "role reversals."

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Salome:

then you start ranting about me not giving you the right to defend your beliefs
again something I've never done, since the only thing I have ever 'attacked' (yes, I'm a violent human being) is - and I'll say this again - your posting habits
which - according to me - are 'agressive'

Honestly, this is the only problem I have with you, Bubba. I don't have major conflicts with anyone else who has views that differ from mine. I can disagree with anyone else, but with you it always becomes aggressive. You have "forum rage." Let's hope you don't have road rage. You think that when people back down it's because they are intimidated by your "brilliant" arguments when really it's that no one wants to engage with one who seems to be in a near constant state of anger. This is not an attack; it is a shared observation by many people on this forum and it would behoove you to take a look at it.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
This is not an attack; it is a shared observation by many people on this forum and it would behoove you to take a look at it.

Hahha... It sounds like you sit around a coffee table with a Cafe Americano in your hands discussing the merits of our Dear Bubba.

Nice way to try and strengthen your statement by pulling the ol' Majority by Committee.

L.Unplugged

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Hahha... It sounds like you sit around a coffee table with a Cafe Americano in your hands discussing the merits of our Dear Bubba.

Nice way to try and strengthen your statement by pulling the ol' Majority by Committee.

L.Unplugged

Trust me, Bubba does not enter my consciousness when I sign off. I have seen many comments like, "calm down, Bubba," 'have a cookie, Bubba," and the mentions here about histrionics and aggressiveness. Those, in my opinion, qualify as shared observations.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:

Trust me, Bubba does not enter my consciousness when I sign off. I have seen many comments like, "calm down, Bubba," 'have a cookie, Bubba," and the mentions here about histrionics and aggressiveness. Those, in my opinion, qualify as shared observations.

Hahah.. only joking.. It just brought an amusing scene to my mind..

L.Unplugged

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Hahah.. only joking.. It just brought an amusing scene to my mind..

L.Unplugged

Well, get your facts straight. It would be a soy latte.

 

[U2live]

i bet you'd argue all night with Bono about Bullet the Blue Sky being wrong because Oliver North in his basement and Fawn Hall with stolen papers in her panties were true heroes, and that was a "just war."

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by U2live:
i bet you'd argue all night with Bono about Bullet the Blue Sky being wrong because Oliver North in his basement and Fawn Hall with stolen papers in her panties were true heroes, and that was a "just war."

What does this have to do with Rush??? You goofball

This might be an interesting thread by itself, however...

 

[Lemonite]

Ya know, I completely tend to believe that there's a huuuge difference between being Inflammatory and Ignorant.. Now, I've been called both.. Hahaha.. But I always have some sort of evidence/article to back up my position, as some others here in this forum that tend to irritate others do, cuz if you don't you've got nothing to have your back.. But just dropping shits for a warm dump's sake is completely asinine, and wholly ignorant..

But let's try and see where Chain's vomit is coming from.. He's an English Teacher?.. Hahaha.. Maybe he's just bitter at someone successful in the media/arts business.. You know how pole in the assed those 'Failed Authors' are who didn't make it... I'll just add him to the list of people Diamond's Praying for.

L.Unplugged

 

[80sU2isBest]

Lemonite, I've been wondering about something:
That new "chauvenist" bit under your name; did you put that on there, or did someone just decide to put that there for you?

 

[STING2]

Yellowkite,
I find your assertion that the USA is partly responsible for what happened on 9/11 to be absurd. The actions of 9/11 were done by a sick twisted individual who used his enherited wealth to attack the USA for his own stupid reasons. Its not because this country or that country faltered. Bin Laden has lived in many area's across the middle east for the past 10 years, not just Afghanistan. There are terror training camps all across the middle east, not just in Afghanistan. 9/11 could have happened with or with out Afghanistan. There are over 50 countries around the world that have poverty levels equal to or worse than Afghanistan.
To address Afghanistan itself, the country was under attack by the Soviet Union, we offered military aid to the amount of about 1/3 of the total military given to the rebel movement there. The other 2/3 was given by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The forces we supplied had already been fighting the central government before the invasion by the Soviets. They were far from being cannon fodder for US interest. The few billion dollars that was sent is in reality a drop in the bucket when it comes to military aid. US military operations in the Gulf War cost 2 billion dollars a DAY! After the war in Afghanistan, aid went to the newly forming democracies of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, because supporting that was of greater US interest. In hind site more should of been done for Afghanistan, but there were at least 50 other countries that could make the same claim for that aid.
Certainly the USA does act in its own self interest. But its self interest in an increasingly interdependent world is tied to countries all over the world. Its better to say the USA acts in the interest of its multitude of allies, trading partners as well as itself. No country let alone the USA has the money to act in every country that has a problem in the third world.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by YellowKite:

As far as this comment "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" is concerned. It is racist simply because it assumes that all wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson,i.e. black. And it assumes that all black people look similar to each other - being interchangable as criminals on a wanted poster sharing nothing more than a skin color.
Mone

You are making a large leap of logic. Rush Limbaugh never said that all blacks look alike; he simply implies that Jessie Jackson looks like a criminal. You are the one who brought up some silly notion that all blacks look alike. Better be careful with what you say, or people will call you a racist.

What statements/arguments of Rush's did your professor use in his great "experiment" (read: indoctrination)? I am not surprised that your professor cut down a conservative personality like Rush Limbaugh. Today's universities have become blatant liberal recruiting grounds and brainwashing centers.

You're wrong about the Afghanistan/Soviet situation. We didn't "use the Afghans to our own ends". We didn't start the rebellion. The war over there had been going on for some time, and the Afghans were losing; America stepped in and drove back the Soviets. How is that "using" the Afghans?

And as far as teh Kuwait situation, yes, a large part of the decision to help them probably was oil. And there are other countries taht have equally bad situations that we have not helped. But, is theer anything wrong with first helping the countries in which we have a national interest? We can't send people to every country that needs help - we don't have enough people. That begs the question, then; how else would you suggest we decide where to send help, rather than places where our own interests are at stake? On hair color?

Mankind is gluttonous, selfish, proud and loud. How you can distinguish America from any other nation on the face of the earth in this aspect is certainly beyond me.



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 03-25-2002).]

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I am not surprised that your professor cut down a conservative personality like Rush Limbaugh. Today's universities have become blatant liberal recruiting grounds and brainwashing centers.

one of the few things this forum has taught me (or at least is trying to) is that:
- either 70% of the U.S. + rest of the world is liberal and hates conservatives (even though our own political structures are quite different)
- or 98% of every U2 fan in the U.S. + rest of the world is liberal and still hates all conservatives

if those stats are true then that would at least explain to me why every other post concerning politics in this forum make the conservatives out to be a minority that are treatened by evil liberal powers prowling in every corner of this forum and society in general

anyway, my question is that if this is true then how did Bush (being a conservative) become your president?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-25-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Salome:

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I am not surprised that your professor cut down a conservative personality like Rush Limbaugh. Today's universities have become blatant liberal recruiting grounds and brainwashing centers.

one of the few things this forum has taught me (or at least is trying to) is that:
- either 70% of the U.S. + rest of the world is liberal and hates conservatives (even though our own political structures are quite different)
- or 98% of every U2 fan in the U.S. + rest of the world is liberal and still hates all conservatives

if those stats are true then that would at least explain to me why every other post concerning politics in this forum make the conservatives out to be a minority that are treatened by evil liberal powers prowling in every corner of this forum and society in general
anyway, my question is that if this is true then how did Bush (being a conservative) become your president?

Salome, did I say anything - anything at all-about this forum or the country as a whole at all? Nope, I was talking about today's colleges and universities. That is a specified area of our society, and doesn't necessarily reflect the values of American society in fact at all. In fact, it definitely DOESN'T reflect the values of American society, which is the irony of certain professors' plans to me. Can you seriously aregue with me that my portrayal of a good deal of this nation's universities and colleges are just as I described?

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Can you seriously aregue with me that my portrayal of a good deal of this nation's universities and colleges are just as I described?

no, I know near to nothing about US universities and colleges
still, there are a few other threads around where references are made about how rublicans are a minority over here who are constantly 'harassed' by non republicans

so I was curious

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[YellowKite]

80sU2isBest:

What statements/arguments of Rush's did your professor use in his great "experiment" (read: indoctrination)? I am not surprised that your professor cut down a conservative personality like Rush Limbaugh. Today's universities have become blatant liberal recruiting grounds and brainwashing centers.

In my logic class we used arguments from many sources. Rush was the one that was relevant here. We also used Martin Luther King, Jr., Pope Paul, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George Bush. It was all stuff the students brought in to examine. The prof just helped us diagram them. This was approximately 15 years ago at a small Presbyterian college - certainly not a bastion of liberal brainwashing. (Tsk tsk - you assumed I was some young nonthinking college student) However, of all the subjects we examined only Rush is the one I can recall consistently failing the logic exam. (read - all of our subjects failed in some aspects) Rush was just coming into some sort of mainstream then, and he was not at all familar to me outside that class for years. When I heard him on his own I recognized his name from that class, and have therefore consistently taken his opinions with a healthy dose of salt.
[Edit - the student who contributed the Rush info was from MO and a fan - I had to look at my old annual]

You are making a large leap of logic. Rush Limbaugh never said that all blacks look alike; he simply implies that Jessie Jackson looks like a criminal. You are the one who brought up some silly notion that all blacks look alike. Better be careful with what you say, or people will call you a racist.

I regret that you think I said all blacks look alike. I clarify that the presumption that ALL of a class of people resemble each other is one commonly used in race based discussions. That 'all cats are black in the night' type of thinking. I did 'leap' in my logic. Mostly what I leaped off of is that implied comment in that statement that Jesse Jackson looks like a criminal and the use of the word ALL - that implies that a whole group shares a common trait. Since a picture is two dimensional and the word LOOK was used, I discerned that he was comparing physical traits - the most obvious being skin color. Considering the source of the comment, maybe I did read the implied racism on my own. Since it is my opinion, I still feel that it is a racist comment. I simply wish to illuminate how others can read that as a racist comment.

America stepped in and drove back the Soviets.

My problem with that is that we didn't step in and drive the Soviets back. We went out of our way to provide the Afgans with weaponery that would look like they had captured it and not be traced back as American supplies. We did not step in as allies - we provided under the table, back room support. Had we stepped up as allies then maybe the aid may have been more forthcoming - because the American people may have been more aware of the situation and felt some gratitude.

Mankind is gluttonous, selfish, proud and loud. How you can distinguish America from any other nation on the face of the earth in this aspect is certainly beyond me.

I said that, so I have to agree with myself. I wrote that humanity is self serving, Americans are self serving. I included myself. Maybe it wasn't clear that I was expanding that theme beyond the scope of my country.

And in the end I beleive we do have to act what is in the best interests of our nation. Only I ask that we be honest about it. Let's not argue that we defended the Kuwaitees [sp?] for humantarian reasons when we have to know that our concern was for the oil. If we do it, then admit it.


STING2
I find your assertion that the USA is partly responsible for what happened on 9/11 to be absurd. The actions of 9/11 were done by a sick twisted individual who used his enherited wealth to attack the USA for his own stupid reasons. Its not because this country or that country faltered. Bin Laden has lived in many area's across the middle east for the past 10 years, not just Afghanistan. There are terror training camps all across the middle east, not just in Afghanistan. 9/11 could have happened with or with out Afghanistan. There are over 50 countries around the world that have poverty levels equal to or worse than Afghanistan.

One individual did not carry the 9/11 attacks off by himself. He was able to get, and seems to continue to have, a large amount of people agree with him enough to commit their lives to his cause. If you are willing to commit your life then it becomes your cause also. If it was just one man this would be over. It is never just one man. He is a leader. We have a history of leaders for good and bad. Martin Luther King didn't march by himself. Hitler didn't kill six million by himself. Ghandi didn't starve in obscurity and John Lennon wasn't alone in 'giving peace a chance' during the Vietnam years. Since you so aptly pointed out - there are terrorist training camps all over and I think that he probably recruited from them all. Afghaninstan is just symptomatic of how our foriegn policies are not always well thought out and do have unforeseen repercussions.

I would never say we deserve 9/11. (and if you reread my essay then you will see that I only asked that Americans acknowledge our culpability for the events that predated 9/11 - not the event itself) I just wanted to point out that it didn't happen in a vaccuum. Bin Laden was able to harness the underlying resentment of Americans and turn it against us, in some cases resentment that may not be entirely without cause.

I enjoy a healthy, well thought out debate. If we can keep it there then I would gladly discuss any number of topics. I consider myself open minded enough to admit that some arguments have more than one side and there are many layers to the truth.

M

[This message has been edited by YellowKite (edited 03-25-2002).]

 

[STING2]

Yellowkite,
I did not mean to suggest that it was only Bin Ladin himself that did everything, but what a meant to say was that events in Afghanistan over the past 20 years are not as important as Bin Ladin and Al Quada operations in multiple countries in the middle east.
In Afghanistan, it was public knowledge from 1981 on that the USA was sending aid to rebels in Afghanistan. Again 2/3 of the aid sent came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I see no attempts for some type of a cover up. Soviet weapons are very simple to use compared to American weapons and easier to train rebels with them. One of my friends workmates use to work for the CIA and trained Afghan rebels how to use certain weapons. Also the US Stinger is not a Soviet made weapon and was supplied to the rebels from 1985 on.
I don't see the problem with aiding Afghan rebels during the 1980s. Contrary to popular opinion, Bin Ladin was a minor player during that war. The only real player was the former leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered on Sept 10, 2001. He was the top leader in the war against the Soviets and thats where most of the aid went.
Once the Soviets left and the Communist regime defeated, it was only natural to assume that without foreign interference, that the Afghans would return to their long history of warlords and tribes.
You could argue that aid should have continued after 1989, but that would have been difficult to do enlight of the new challenges presented in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
So I do not see any real foreign policy problem in relation to Afghanistan.
Bin Ladin is able to harness people who come from countries where "freedom of the press" does not exist and are not democracies. Their views of the world are narrow and uneducated. But even in the USA you can have sick "leaders" get people to follow them. Just look at David Koresh from Waco Texas. The people under him would have done anything he told them to do. A sick twisted perversion of religion just like Bin Ladin.
Just as the US government is not culpable for David Koresh and his followers nor is it responsible for Bin Ladin and those that follow him. I'm not sure what other US foreign policy you may find fault with or be critical of, but I find Arab resentment of the US to be unfounded and misplaced largely as a result of the much more closed societies they live in.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by YellowKite:
80sU2isBest:

What statements/arguments of Rush's did your professor use in his great "experiment" (read: indoctrination)? I am not surprised that your professor cut down a conservative personality like Rush Limbaugh. Today's universities have become blatant liberal recruiting grounds and brainwashing centers.

In my logic class we used arguments from many sources. Rush was the one that was relevant here. We also used Martin Luther King, Jr., Pope Paul, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George Bush. It was all stuff the students brought in to examine. The prof just helped us diagram them. This was approximately 15 years ago at a small Presbyterian college - certainly not a bastion of liberal brainwashing. (Tsk tsk - you assumed I was some young nonthinking college student) However, of all the subjects we examined only Rush is the one I can recall consistently failing the logic exam. (read - all of our subjects failed in some aspects) Rush was just coming into some sort of mainstream then, and he was not at all familar to me outside that class for years. When I heard him on his own I recognized his name from that class, and have therefore consistently taken his opinions with a healthy dose of salt.
[Edit - the student who contributed the Rush info was from MO and a fan - I had to look at my old annual]
[This message has been edited by YellowKite (edited 03-25-2002).]

Well then, I can certainly admit when I'm wrong and I do so now. Please accept my apology for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
However, I wonder where you got your info that our support of Afghanistan was under the table? I for one knew that we were the power behind driving the Soviets out, and if I, just a child at the time, knew that, it wasn't very hidden. It was all over the news. My entire point, in fact, wasn't whether we actually had soldiers or not. It was that we entered the war in some capacity after it had started, so how could we have been "using" Afghanistan?