Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Again with the "projecting" crap?>> <I'll stop mentioning it when you stop doing it.> You'll mention it whether I or any of the rest of us that you continually and comically accuse of it when you have nothing else to say do it or not. Which we don't. You only reveal your paucity of ideas when you do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm glad you had a good trip but please don't even begin to convince me that the USA doesn't have its enemys in the Muslim world.> To be fair to DVC_Dad, that's not what he said. Sure we have enemies there. But if I read him correctly, what he was saying is that before he went he had a vague idea (shared by many Americans) that enmity towards us was the norm. That he'd encounter hostility around every corner, which he decidedly did not.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think that what DVC_Dad came to realize was that people, by and large, are the same wherever you go. What we are accustomed to hearing is rhetoric from GOVERNMENTS, or their more extremist loyalists (we have that here too, it's called FOX and MSNBC lol). But people? I thought it was touching when he mentioned how most folks were more absorbed in making sure their family was clothed and fed (same as anywhere, if a lot more desperate there) than on "hating" Americans. But in any case, I think most people realize that the people are not the governments. I'll bet he DID run into some folks who really dislike "America" (I've met plenty of Japanese who do, as well), but that doesn't mean they would have a problem speaking to or being friendly with an American should they run into one of us. It's a different thing. And for Kennesaw Tom, sure we have enemies there. But you are pointing out the reactions of people there to MILITARY folks, which is a far cry different. We really can't comprehend it, since America is so isolated and trouble free...but you have to realize that when regular folks see military folks from far off lands it feels aggressive to them. And to use Afghanistan as an "example"? Well, come on. What did you THINK the sentiment would be, champagne and roses? However, I think you would find if you went there as DVC did (and yes, I'm guessing here because I've not been there yet myself but basing it on what friends have told me along with DVC_Dad's sentiment), as a tourist, with an open mind, you could go into most of the other countries (even the more extreme ones like Syria or Yemen or even Iran perhaps) and find much the same situation that DVC_Dad did in Egypt.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm sure DVC_dad can speak for himself, but my impression is along the lines of these last two posts. DVC_dad is no dummy - he gets the difference between Cairo and the tribal regions of Pakistan. He gets that there's people still out there who want to harm us. But the larger point, especially about education, is a superb one. Ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate. It's much easier to demonize someone when you don't know anything about them. And what about the Iraqis? How do we explain that, other than through DVC_dad's explanation? Iraq was a secular country before we invaded. Sure, they hated Saddam - who didn't? But they wanted to feed their families. So we came in, overthrew Saddam, and they loved us for about 5 minutes. Then the weeks and months dragged on and they still didn't have electricity, or water, or gasoline. We turned the army away and criminalized anyone who was part of the Baath party. So they turned against us, despite it being a secular country. They did that not because of ideology (although people will always rally behind an ideological leader, their motives are usually selfish) but because they couldn't make their families safe and provide for them. So what did the administration responsible for this cluster "snafu" do? They started pretending like it was Al Qaeda attacking our soldiers in Iraq. It was "Muslim extremists." It was Syrians crossing the border. Never mind that the Pentagon's own figures showed that those people amounted to less than 2% of all the insurgents. In the real world and not the fantasyland of Neoconia, the insurgents were almost exclusively Iraqis who were pissed off at us and who used old divisions like Suuni and Shia to rally their troops and attack the invaders. Sorry, but the black and white world George Bush lived in really was gray. All the comments about "freedom" and "tyranny" were meaningless then and they're meaningless now. People don't define freedom in grand, sweeping terms; they define it by their own corner of the world - what do they do each day. Fortunately the two-dimensional, simple-minded ideas of George W. Bush have fallen by the wayside, except for a handful of diehard defenders for whom reality and truth means nothing.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<The GOP also told you that those sort of men deserved to be free and prosperous, shouldn't have to live under a tyrant, and shouldn't be abandoned to terrorists. >>> Absolutely. I agree. This was the beginning selling the war in Iraq if memory serves. But it IS a very true statement none the less.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< I'll bet he DID run into some folks who really dislike "America">>> Yes I did, one guy was very adamant about it. People there seemed to dislike the US support of Israel more than anything else. There seemed to be little interest in Iraq or Afghanistan at all. There was far more talk about Israelis and Palestinians, and the problems going on there. I avoided commenting at all. I had learned earlier in the trip that sometimes things can get lost in translation, even IF you are both speaking English. It's easy to misunderstand. And honestly I don't know nearly as much about the details of this ongoing problem, (and what I do know is what I've been told from only one point of view) and it's on their border. So I just listened, nodded in all the right places and kept chewing my falafel. But for the record, you don't have to convince me that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc... are not the same as Egypt. I didn't see anyone dying from war in Egypt. When I was out and about in Giza, even that was very different than Cairo. I also visited Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo, and Aswan. Some of the places we went were pretty damned remote in every sense of the word. We were very close to Sudan at the farthest point. When we visited the high dam we were about 600 miles up the Nile from Cairo. God it was so beautiful up there. It was interesting to see the change in people from Cairo to Aswan. You go from Egyptians to Nubians. It's sort of like you go from Middle Eastern'ers to Africans in a very lose sense of comparison. They are all wonderful people. Anyway trust me, I know Egypt isn't Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. I'm not stupid.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So I just listened, nodded in all the right places and kept chewing my falafel.*** lol. That's what I do too (except I'm chewing on sushi).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <According to this, America doesn't even crack the top 10.> That map shows the 10 countries with the "top quality of life". You'll notice most of Europe is not included. Below the map is a list of the countries with the highest standard of living. The US is number 5, ahead of most of Europe. <This chart places America at number 6. Still not too impressive.> But still ahead of most of Europe. <Doug, have you ever even BEEN outside of America? What have you seen that convinces you that things are so much better (compared to other wealthy countries, I mean)?> Yes, I have, and more importantly, I've read a lot about it. And what I know is that the standard of living of the US is ahead of most of the world. I also know that the more free a country is, the more prosperous it tends to be. Regarding health care, you might want to check this out. People in the US are more likely to survive cancer than those in Europe and Canada, we wait less, we're generally more satisfied, and we provide most of the medical breakthroughs. <a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649" target="_blank">http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649</a> You might also want to consider that we spend the more on our military than Europe does, and much of it is to defend them. We also pay most of the costs of the UN.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But don't you forget for a SECOND the folks responsible for forcing us into this predicament.> I won't forget that Democrats have controlled Congress for the last few years, that they controlled the Senate when the Iraq force authority was passed, that they have consistently pushed for more domestic spending, and that they pushed legislation pressuring banks to make risky home loans. If President Obama and the Democrat Congress want to continue to push idiotic schemes and illustrate their incompetence, I won't forget that either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <While the GOP was off waving flags, Jimmy Carter made it happen.> And while the GOP was making it happen in Iraq, President Carter was undermining the effort.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You only reveal your paucity of ideas when you do.> On the contrary, you reveal the paucity of your ideas when you denigrate, distort, and dismiss me, and accuse me of the things you do. Now, you can present some facts that refute what I've said, you can let this go, or you can continue these pointless and boring accusations.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You only reveal your paucity of ideas when you do.>> <On the contrary, you reveal the paucity of your ideas when you denigrate, distort, and dismiss me, and accuse me of the things you do.> And where have I done that on this thread? Specifics, please. You're always saying stuff like this, but when asked to show examples, you usually fall back on stuff like "I could show you, but I don't have the time" or something similar. <Now, you can present some facts that refute what I've said, you can let this go, or you can continue these pointless and boring accusations.> I did exactly that, if anyone wants to check the "11-20" page. Meanwhile I ask you specifically for sources and context of "Clinton was closer to capturing bin Laden than Bush was" even though the US army was not on the ground in the country bin Laden was in under Clinton, and I get silence. You're not fooling anyone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh No, I've shown examples of it over and over. You just dismiss them. But on this thread, you started the snide remarks in post 12, and then accused me of being disingenuous in post 14. If your arguments were that strong, you wouldn't have to stoop to question whether I'm arguing in good faith. <I ask you specifically for sources and context of "Clinton was closer to capturing bin Laden than Bush was" even though the US army was not on the ground in the country bin Laden was in under Clinton, and I get silence.> You get silence because you constantly dismiss, distort, and denigrate my opinions. If you want to have an honest, intelligent, civil discussion, then start. <You're not fooling anyone.> I'm not trying to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No, I've shown examples of it over and over. > You only think you have. <You just dismiss them. But on this thread, you started the snide remarks in post 12,> Let's go to the video tape. 12 was a response to 11, in which you responded to my agreeing with an ecdc post not by responding to ecdc's substance, but by saying "that's hardly reality," the equivalent of "nu-uh." What I said was in response to the snideness of that. <and then accused me of being disingenuous in post 14. If your arguments were that strong, you wouldn't have to stoop to question whether I'm arguing in good faith.> I said that your comparisons of Clinton and Bush vis a vis bin Laden was a disingenuous argument, because it was. One president had tens of thousands of troops on the ground in the country bin Laden was in, one did not. <<I ask you specifically for sources and context of "Clinton was closer to capturing bin Laden than Bush was" even though the US army was not on the ground in the country bin Laden was in under Clinton, and I get silence.>> <You get silence because you constantly dismiss, distort, and denigrate my opinions. If you want to have an honest, intelligent, civil discussion, then start.> In other words, you can't back up your argument, so when called on it you fall back on your boilerplate. <<You're not fooling anyone.>> <I'm not trying to.> Sure you are. You're trying to say you're debating in good faith, but when called upon to back up your argument you claim someone else isn't debating in good faith, so why should you. It's an old, old, pattern for you, multiple people have called you on it, and you try to turn it around and present yourself as the aggrieved party. Which fools no one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Indeed. Because you don't change. You don't (can't) refute the above, and again posit yourself as the aggrieved party. It continues indeed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm not the one that responds to a point by calling it "lame" or "disingenous". I'm not the one who drops modifiers from statements and when called on it proclaims them "weasel words". Now, again, you can present some facts that refute what I've said, you can let this go, or you can continue these pointless and boring accusations.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I only called your one point disingenuous because it was. Comparing the apple of Clinton's position with the orange of Bush's (who had tens of thousands of Americans on the ground) and trying to say Clinton was somehow "closer" to bin Laden (and presenting no evidence or even context for this even when asked to) WAS disingenuous. Sorry, but it was. As for the rest, I'm afraid you're projecting.
