"Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think, nor do I give a damn what
you think about me."
I don't think anything about you. I wonder what makes some lefties so
intractable sometimes, and finally decided it was something like a "lust for
peace," which was an hypothesis of a friend of mine. It made sense to me,
because mere wishful thinking didn't explain it. And it does need some
explanation. That said, I probably understand it better than I let on.
When one accepts the notion that the world is simply not like the world that
the romantic poet within hopes it is (and perhaps needs to believe it is)
there's a price to pay. I think some people simply see the price as too
high, and prefer to hang out in the foyer for as long as life will let them.
I'm sure it's easy to convince yourself that this is all due to George W.
Bush somehow, that he's some sort of unique war monger. But the truth is
that the majority of men running for the presidency would have made the
choices Bush made, and some would have followed up the same way too. Carl
Levin was one of Bush's harshest critics, but if you examine his position
closely his only real disagreement was that we neglected to compel Saddam to
start the war by an act of aggression. It's also unlikely that many people
will have missed the fact that there's a kind of "freedom deficit" in the
Arab world that contributes to its ability to produce terrorists and nutty
people like that kid in the WaPo story who decided it was preferable to
become a terrorist than admit that he masturbates. I sometimes think the
only real gripe that Democrats have is that the Republicans appropriated an
issue that ought to have been theirs.
The truth is, there are literally millions of men and women who'd have done
pretty much what Bush did, just as there were millions of men like Harry
Truman (a whisky-drinking, poker-playing, classical-reading, self-taught,
failed entrepreneur). Our strength is that there are so many of us who
could step up to lead during a time of crisis that it really puts the lie to
the notion that a "great leader" is required. And that lesson is
apparently sinking into the Arab Middle East, finally. Some day it'll just
look like it was inevitable.
--
--Scott
"Tom Sherman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
>> So, my opinions are propaganda and lust for violence (note: not a concern
>> that people live better, under governments that are more just and free,
>> just a naked love for violence), but your preferences are what... by
>> definition, and like Robespierre's, beyond question? Apparently,
>> however, the majority were with me this time.
>>
>> Anyway, you're not much for the substance of a debate are you? I at
>> least respect your right to present your opinions, though I don't
>> necessarily respect those opinions themselve (especially if you don't
>> consider them worthy of debate).
>
> Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think, nor do I give a damn what you
> think about me. Earl Russell was right when he said we all just shut up
> about politics here.
>
>> What part is propaganda, by the way? That Afghanistan had a relatively
>> free election, and that 80% of Iraqis seem prepared to brave painful
>> death to cast a vote for a national assembly? I suppose that, having
>> acknowledged these empirical facts, if you were still able to make a
>> decent case that the world would be better off if we left such brave
>> people to the tender mercies of Zarqawi & Co. you'd have earned my
>> respect. But you're not about to make that argument, I suspect. Because
>> if you tried, and fell short (which you almost certainly would) you'd
>> have even less esteem than you do now.
>
> [Yawn] More macho posturing. You really do have issues with power and
> dominance.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
>
