Ohhh, Gosh. You really are the Galatic Emperor of my heart, building a Death Star of pure stupid, firing off beams of unjustified self-confidence. With you, every day is like waking up, pulling on a pair of pants you haven't worn in a while, and finding a ticket to the special olympics in the pocket.
Let's observe, but let's throw in Guest Host Hussain, so we can go for an MST3K sort of feel. Let me also preface this by saying that I will probably not be responding to every single piece of stupidity that Gosh barfed up, so, Gosh, if I miss something you were particularly proud of, I apologize in advance. Gosh will be speaking in DeepPink.
Your post contains:
- Several straw men. Numerous ad hominem attacks. Even a “love it or leave it“ reference. You are clearly an angry person.
Hussain says: “I'm using trite deargumentations to show how stereotypical I am. Also, I don't think.“
I agree with Hussain. I love this tack. Gosh wants me to know I'm going to get hit with the business, there's going to be a lot of it, and it's all being delivered by somebody with a fine grasp of logical fallacies, rhetorical devices, and general debate asskicking. I'd be incredibly intimidated if I hadn't seen the exact same thing said a thousand times before, and then immediately followed up by a scattered, confused recounting of Nancy Pelosi's talking points (this is what we call “foreshadowing”).
Open and cynical disdain for the American public. You have insulted the intelligence of the public in much the same way the Bush administration has.
Hussain says: “My very existence proves how I insult intelligence, I just can't see it, so I'm going to accuse you of doing what my main talent accomplishes. I'd like to thank my mom and dad for sending me to a liberal arts college and I'd also not like to thank Jesus.”
In case it had gone unnoticed, the “American public” isn't reading this blog, so sucking up to them isn't going to win any votes. Gosh seems to fancy itself a real rhetorician, but then makes a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Wouldn't it help to explain why I shouldn't have “open and cynical disdain for the American public?” No, for populists it's a forgone conclusion that everyone is above average, and deserving of an audience to their expansive portfolio of thoughts and ideas. In fact, for liberals in general, pretty much anything they assert is a forgone conclusion, and in no need of support or clarification.
“Saddam killed more than we did.“ This assertion is subject to debate.
Ok, but do you debate it, Gosh? If so, could you please supply some basis for your debate? What was I just saying about your inability to support your own arguments? I was promised a rhetorical beat down, and so far all you've managed to do is put on an outraged frown, and say “well, maybe not!” See? It must be you, it's in DeepPink.
As has been endlessly noted by even the President himself, there is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks.
Yaaay for talking points! What's great about them is that they've already been linked to a certain emotional response, so you can throw them out, even when they're completely inapplicable, and all your liberal buddies will be just as outraged as you are.
Gosh, I need you to understand something right now: you don't get it. You're providing canned liberal responses to things I'm not even saying. Providing canned responses alone would indicate a lack of actual understanding. Doing it at the wrong time proves it. I suggest that the American public is incapable of seeing beyond a very narrow, stilted, dumbed down version of the actual debate. You're outraged by my cynicism. Then, the instant you're provided with an argument that falls outside the scope of the mainstream prattle, you're confused, and just try to steer things back.
Pay attention: I am not suggesting that the guys who flew the planes into the towers were Iraqis. I'm not suggesting that they were trained in Iraq. I'm not suggesting that Saddam had any significant relationships with AQ. I'm talking about international policy, and about containment. We put sanctions on Iraq, we bombed the no-fly zones, we demanded inspections. Containment. Then 9-11 happened. Why did it happen? Because OBL doesn't like airplanes? Or towers? No. Because he doesn't like non-Arabs sitting right next to Mecca, bossing people around, and bombing things. We contained Saddam just fine. But the policy of containment led to outrage, and to non-Iraqi organizations attacking us.
“Iraq had become a rallying point for jihadists.“ This is quite an exaggeration. The only known major terrorist presence in Iraq before the invasion was operating in Kurdish territory which was protected by the American no-fly zone..
You're just relentless with the not-getting-it. Palestine is a rallying point for jihadists. So is Iraq. I don't mean they physically go there to get training and to get psyched up. I mean that when their leadership wants to fire them up, the speak about the oppression of the Palestinians, of the Iraqis dying under UN sanctions, of the infidels invading their lands. They go to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train. They rally around the causes of Palestine, Iraq, etc.
Hussain says: Yes, also, they hate the UN and the West. They blame them both for the starving of muslim children and that's why the UN was one of the first organizations run out of Iraq. They're still, to this day, not there.
We *DID* comply with Al Qaeda's “message“ to exit Saudi Arabia. Don Rumsfeld saw to that.
No. We complied with Saudi Arabia's request to leave. You're willfully ignorant of the actual policy being enacted, but you pretend you're qualified to use the phrase “geostrategic position.” What's OBL's opinion of the government of his home nation? He hates them. And so should you, frankly. Saudi Arabia is run by totalitarian Wahabbist assholes, and is tolerated only because of its oil reserves. But, regardless, OBL hates the house of Saud for letting us maintain a military presence there. Their complicity creates credibility problems for them in the Muslim world, and for the time being we need them stable. We still desire a force in the region, we want to demonstrate that Saddam can't flout UN resolutions, we want to begin the spread of democracy in the middle east. A number of goals, all answered by a land invasion of Iraq, and resulting regime change.
This is what I'm talking about when I say “progressing it to the next phase.” I'm not an infant, like you are. I don't expect a happy resolution before the end of the next news cycle. I didn't expect Bush to have the whole area sprouting daisies and rainbows in three months. He's just moving the policy along.
You seem to think that AQ is the real threat here, that if we could just get OBL, it'd all be over. OBL is insignificant. From a PR perspective, Bush could certainly win a major victory by capturing or killing him, but it'd be irrelevant to the actual war on terror. In order to win this war, we need support from Arab and Muslim nations. We need to improve the quality of life of the populations spawning terrorists. Happy, successful people don't want to be terrorists. You don't get it though, as you'll happily demonstrate:
We needed to invade the country to bring it democracy and freedom.
Hussain says: The guy's not only confused, but also myopic.
This argument is a clear indicator of your qualifications for international policymaking. “OMG, when you invade a country, how free are they! That's stupid!” You're a child. Ever heard of open heart surgery? You've got a problem with your heart, so they slice you down the middle, and crack your ribcage open. “OMG, that's not healing, you chopped open!“
You want instant fixes for everything, you demand nothing less from Bush, like this is a movie or something. What's your instant fix? Kill OBL? You're an idiot. There are no instant fixes. There's only struggle, death, pain and patience. We've paved the way for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now, they're dysfunctional and fragile. They certainly won't grow up into perfect Jeffersonian ideals, either. But Saddam ran Iraq for 35 years, with an iron fist. He invaded neighbors. He oversaw a war that wiped out an entire generation of Iranians, and a huge number of Iraqis as well. History doesn't begin when it's convenient for your “Anybody But Bush” agenda.
If so, how well would you say we have accomplished that goal?
We have deposed Saddam and the Taliban. Functioning democracies now exist in their place. We tried sanctions for 10 years, it did nothing but harm the average Iraqi, and it laid the groundwork for 9-11. Now, after only three years of democracy building, of very slow but definite progress, you're already asserting failure. You may view your need for instant gratification as a virtue, but I don't. You may think that your extreme intolerance for anything but utopian wonder is a virtue, but I don't.
I think you're a simpleton who mistakes a shallow set of partisan talking points for thoughtful scholarship. I think you're entirely motivated by a media programmed animosity for George W Bush, and actual solutions are irrelevant to you. I think you honestly believe that all it takes to run this country is to hate George W Bush.
If that doesn't make you a worthy target of cynicism, a shining example of unintelligence, and a deserving target of disdain, then what does?
In closing, Hussain says: When people believe what the government says on the surface then criticize the government for not living up to "hidden meanings" there's a problem. A psychological problem.