May 24, 2006

The History of self-marketing

Confud said,
I've asked you several times what is a "supporter of the BBC" and what one of those does. I chose to question one of many outright bizzarre statements you've made.

Please answer it.

Supporter of the BBC means exactly that. Someone who believes and supports the BBC's function as they have outlined it. No different from the CBC or the ABC.

When you're characterizing Fox as the end all and be all to bad journalism, there's a really bad bias when either your information or your beliefs come from an organization like the BBC.

I really don't answer questions when they're part of the insult package, and I've already said this to SB and many others.

Forgive me as you will probably think I am a bit naive with my questions to you. I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US. A lot of us in the outside world just don't get what is driving you.

I said,

"What is it that the US public actually thinks Iran has done wrong to the point of being threatened with a nuclear strike?"

Taking our embassy hostage. Aiding Hezbollah in blowing up our Marine barracks killing more in one attack than any single IED or suicide bomber has in Iraq on US troops. Sending money and destabilization agents into Iraq. Hanging a teenaged girl for being raped. Oh you know, the usual things that will piss off the Jacksonian segment of America.

As I've pointed out before to our Brit visitors. America has had a very successful history of using wars to solve our problems. Revolutionary War solved independence from Britain. Civil War solved slavery for us. WWII solved fascism. Cold War solved communism. You get the picture. Compare this to what the rest of the world accomplishes with war. Zippo, you get zip, in terms of success. Any other country tries to do war, they just make the world more of a mess.

You can believe its engineered, but that's not how 85% of America sees it as.

You said,

Oh, OK. So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation. I'm not on the side of the mullahs or anyone else, but the Iranian revolution came about because the Shah's regime was an incredibly brutal period in a country with a very long history and a proud culture.
Sorry to be a little abrasive about this, but I did find your response to my genuine question, a touch arrogant and dismissive. Tally ho.

Elvis said,

arrogant and dismissive is kinda the neo con norm.....get used to it.
[...]oh and ignore yrmdwnkr - he is truly out there on his own....check out his blog, highly comical. all sci-fi and war games

Note who started calling people names after I had answered in a calm response to your "genuine question".
You said,

I did look at the young Y man's blog and I agree with you, I don't think I'll get much insight there. Apparently, 6 billion people are jealous of his power and money.

Apparently answering questions gets repaid with snarky remarks about my power and money.

I said in reply,

"So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation."

Something like that, but with Bush his motives are not personal but solely about WMDs. He believes Iran is a threat, Bush however is an internationalist, he believes in the UN and in Europe. Most of America actually are not very confident in the UN. Sure, there's the 22% on our Left that always favors the UN, but you're always going to have someone favor something in any poll.

Bush could easily have destroyed the UN after Oil for Food was found out, and taken retributive action against Iran free of any international barriers, but he didn't. A lot of Americans regret that. I know I do.

"Where will it end?

It'll end when one side wins. When was Europe's wars going to end? When America stepped in and Ended it For Them. That's when.

Not a lot of people actually believe Bush is sincere, but he actually is. You won't get any real grasp on American policy until you accept that premise. Unlike Europe, Americans elect their President directly by a modified popular vote. We don't vote for the Republicans and the Republicans elect Bush themselves like a Parliamentary system would do in Europe. This means Bush's policies are not Congressional but rather sourced from the people, the base of power.

Confud's reply,

You are pretty offensive for someone so young and obviously untravelled. That sort of stuff usually takes years of practice. But, you are confusing me for someone who will respond to your racist claptrap. Two pieces of advice for you though. You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy. FOX news may tell you what you want to hear, but it won't way you down with any facts.
The second is, that if you are going to spin a yarn, there needs to be an element of truth somewhere in there. Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

Don't even start on people not answering your questions Confud, don't even start. You really don't want to know where I can take it.


Blogger class-factotum said...

"The Palestinian tragedy?"

Oh please. They practically invented terrorism. Any tragedy is of their own making.

30 May, 2006 16:26  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home