THIS WAR IS EVIL AND NEEDS STOPPED, how nice of Bush to say yesterday that ANOTHER President not him, has to decide when to end it, what a coward. Thinks that’ll protect his image for the history books, it only solidifies him ast the most mentally unstable of all our President’s and we’ve had some doozies.

Allow me to put your two posts together:

..”the magic bus of peace, love and understanding ran out of gas on 9/11/01…”

..”illicit a response” ??

Thanks to you both for proving my point. We got hit, and we responded. Arab’s have been getting hit, from us anyway, for 50 years. Now why wouldn’t they respond?

Tell me guys, why is this most fundamental aspect of human nature so difficult for you to understand?
Is it because you are unaware of what we’ve been doing over there for the past half century?

I hope so, and it’s not merely because you’re obdurate.

As the English would say: “What a bunch of Wanker’s”.

P.S.: Who’s MoDo?

I’m strongly suspecting you’re the love child of Pol Pot and MoDo. Given the apoplectic apologias emanating from her pen, that’s a less unlikely pair than I’d otherwise like to imagine. Or from Freud’s view, you may have named yourself Ho, but your Pol Pot super ego is dominant, big time; you’re also showing signs of running scared btw.

Don’t entirely misunderstand (your lack of comprehension in the other thread is still pronounced), you do bring enough individual facts - facticity - to your effusions such that it would be interesting debating you if it weren’t for your MoDo spew, your refractive and rambling prolixity and your Khmer Rouge rhetorical style more generally. But given the quantity of those qualities in your posts, responding would be a fruitless endeavor.

some people just have a way with words, and other people, well, don’t have way
SM

Your response above to Neo-neocon’s quote:

“It’s hard to argue with someone who was there–although I have very little doubt that many will do just that.”,

a rant about leftist “obduracy”, attempting to pass off as “dialog” and “debate” etc. etc. “demonstrates they’re operating within the framework of an ideological war”, “not in a framework” of “honest, transparent debate”, is hypocritical coming from a guy like you.

Read your response to a April 25 Neo-neocon blog, “A Mind Is A Difficult Thing To Change”, where a May 2nd post by a Mr. Barnes shares the experiences of two individuals, David Elliot and Daniel Ellsberg, “who were there”, in this case Vietnam. Read first how you belittled Barnes at length for his “cut-and-paste” presentation from their books, of what I thought at least was some pretty interesting material “from two people who were there”. That was inspiring (not).

Then read how you go off on a right- wing tirade, dis-ing a point of view you do not share. While you do offer some links to prove your point (Pentagon Papers), you do not offer the links from the same source that would lend credence to Elliot’s and Ellsberg’s premise, and there’s a slew of them.

As for your commitment to honest, transparent debate, I tried having an intelligent exchange of information with you on Neo-neocon’s “Dr. Sanity On Terrorists…” blog (if anyone’s interested, it’s the last postings on the list), and never got answers to any of my legitimate questions, only insults and an arrogant posturing.

And in hypocritical fashion, as I never got a reply from you on the validity of Hoang Van Chi’s methods of date collecting, extra-polating Land Reform atrocities over all of “North” Vietnam from his experience in one village, you question the validity of David Elliot for doing the same thing, in his case extra-polating American and “South” Vietnamese atrocities from his observations in one village of the Mekong Delta over all of “South” Vietnam.

You have no ideological agenda? Who’s obdurate here?

You know, I was going to apologise for allowing your arrogant, condescending attitude to make me lose it and insult you (although I was holding back But now I’m glad I didn’t apologise, for two reasons:

1) Because it demonstrated in miniature the cause and effect nature of international affairs and evolution of conflicts I tried explaining to you, but you refused to even consider. That is, you pissed me off, then I lashed out. Actions illicit a response. If we’re not friendly and fair to others their response, whatever it is, should be viewed in the context of a backlash. Not rocket-science really, but beyond comprehension to a right-wing ideologe like yourself.

2) Because you do have your head up your ass.

Having said that, let’s all try to have a friendly, intelligent debate

Priceless.

And perhaps such would not be worth noting excepting for the fact that this type of obduracy - and obduracy is precisely what it is - absolutely typifies so much of what the Left and even the MSM attempts to pass off as “dialog.” Rhetorically it represents a type of ratcheting effect - or affect - within the overall social/political debate, “debate” being an generous term indeed in this context since the agitprop/rhetoric and praxis more generally perpetually employed by the Left demonstrates they’re operating within the framework of an ideological war, not within a framework where they’re seeking honest, transparent exchanges within a broadly based social/political debate.

I claim we DO have enough to win the war to oust Saddam, but it’s not possible to have enough to bring democracy & freedom & responsibility to the Iraqi people — ONLY the Iraqis can do that.

And Mark’s great point indicates the Iraqis are figuring that out, too.

For instance, suicide bombers keep blowing up people standing in line to become policemen.

Just think about that. One side is suicidally desparate. One side is committed enough to a new Iraq to stannd in line and risk messy annhialation.

One side has numbers (and guts) working for it. One side has terror working for it.

Which side is winning? Which side is losing?