Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
I don't think you covered the hypocrisy in which we've had to listen to all of the America-haters' shrill cries of "Why are we in Iraq? Why aren't we doing something about Iran and North Korea????"
And now that we MENTION Iran, the screams are hitting "E" above "high C."
You're right--with this level of intellectual dishonesty, there's no point in debate.
|
Well you seem to have garnered a fair amount of replies to your post. However, it should be pointed out that not all people contesting our nation's actions are in agreement for the reasons of our opposition. Maybe I'm not in the "America-haters" category, but stranger things have been tossed at me in this forum,
Far from asking why we weren't invading Iraq, some opponents to the war, myself included, actually argued that Iraq was an objective. In contrast to inumerable people in this country, I could point these regions out on the map and was aware of a rudimentary history and geopolitical backstory to find my way to a sensible pattern.
When I pointed out that Afghanistan was on one side, Iraq on the other, our military and economy necessarily tied to oil, and Iran a looming threat, I was branded a conspiracists, a hater of some sort-bush, america, freedom, and even saddam loyalist, lover, supporter, & what-have-you.
My posts were peppered by asenine responses, such as, if we're after oil, why isn't it cheaper at the pump?!
Links to papers written by neo-conservatives, both inside and outside the current president's administration, detailing their long-term plans in the middle east went unattended to. Maybe they were read, but certainly nothing mentioned in subsequent posts to suggest they were.
Ultimately, I made the argument that sovereign nations ought not meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations. To my understanding, Iran claims they want to use nuclear development for energy purposes. I support alternate energy resources, I support nation-state sovereignty in the current geo-schema, and I support the notion that someone (or entity) is to be believed unless proven guilty.
I looped some of those arguments back and was in opposition to the war in Afghanistan, and I was in opposition to the war in Iraq. I never supported or even, to my knowledge, asked rhetorically why we weren't invading North Korea. I did warn that our actions could set off repurcussions that those of us in the most populated regions on the West Coast would suffer most from. But I never linked that to pre-emptive warfare, but instead requested that the people who supported this president contact members of his and their party and demand he quit acting so radically.
If I remember correctly, those kinds of posts were met with titters and jeers. Similar derision as what drips from your most current post. Such agitation is understandable from people who feel they must resort to physical violence to resolve difference. Yet, what is not understandable to me is how that commonsensical notion is repeatedly turned on its head to make the claim that people who articulate alternative visions in quest of peaceful resolutions to difference are accused of being the agitators.