A Suggestion about "A Unique Person"...

[Skeptic]

Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?

The solution is simple: give him a green card!

Why?

Well, it is true that, contrary to popular American belief, many people in the world do not with to become Americans, and are not American patriots, but partriots of their own countries--yes, despite the fact that they are poorer places that lack cable TV.

But such people do not go on the internet to criticize and belittle anything and everything the US does. They might have SPECIFIC criticisms, but that's something else.

When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy.

AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.

As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us...

[Flo]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?

The solution is simple: give him a green card!

Why?

Well, it is true that, contrary to popular American belief, many people in the world do not with to become Americans, and are not American patriots, but partriots of their own countries--yes, despite the fact that they are poorer places that lack cable TV.

But such people do not go on the internet to criticize and belittle anything and everything the US does. They might have SPECIFIC criticisms, but that's something else.

When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy.

AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.

As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us...


Why the oratory precautions ? It is a well know fact that the only reason anyone dares criticise the US is because of jealousy ... those who abstain do so only due to a lack of access to the internet :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

Unique... I am still available if you wish.

Wouldn't be fun to have an Israeli lawyer? :)

Skeptic, allow me please to notice that in comparison with what Unique says about Israel his posts about USA are hymns...!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?

Yeah, he's annoying sometimes.

I don't start threads about it, though... :confused:

and instead of 'jealousy' (a desire to keep from others something which you possess) you mean 'envy' (a desire to possess something that others have).

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?


[de-lurk]

No, I am annoyed at neo-Americans like yourself who don't recognize that dissenting voices are essential, and who won't be satisfied until you've run EVERYONE off who disagrees with you.

We need MORE people like AUP, not fewer. Whether he's always right, or even logical, is immaterial. Americans desperately need a slap up side the head right now and he helps provide that.

Keep it up, AUP; I don't talk any more but I assure you I'm glad you're here.

And by the way, Diogenes, your hat is still too tight.

[lurk]

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Sundog


[de-lurk]

No, I am annoyed at phony neo-Americans like yourself who don't recognize that dissenting voices are essential, and who won't be satisfied until you've run EVERYONE off who disagrees with you.

Keep it up, AUP; I don't talk any more but I assure you I'm glad you're here.

And by the way, Diogenes, your hat is still too tight.

[lurk]

Hi Sundog, good to have you back.
And good to have dissenting opinions like AUP's here on board - athough I agree with Skeptic in the assessment that AUP's criticisms are generally excessively sweeping...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Hi Sundog, good to have you back.
And good to have dissenting opinions like AUP's here on board - athough I agree with Skeptic in the assessment that AUP's criticisms are generally excessively sweeping...

I never left. I'm just not talking much any more, as this is no longer a place for that.

Love ya people, til next time...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?

The solution is simple: give him a green card!

Why?

Well, it is true that, contrary to popular American belief, many people in the world do not with to become Americans, and are not American patriots, but partriots of their own countries--yes, despite the fact that they are poorer places that lack cable TV.

But such people do not go on the internet to criticize and belittle anything and everything the US does. They might have SPECIFIC criticisms, but that's something else.

When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy.

AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.

As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us...

For a start, you will have to stop with the gross generalisations, I am hardly critical of everything the US does. I am also not jealous. I am, however, along with many others in the world, subject to the whims of US policy.

If you will also look further, I have been critical of Australia, but then, such topics do not seem to interest many Americans. Also notable was a thread I started on the Roadmap to Peace, which died a very quiet death. Despite my cynicism, it is the only chance for peace in the near future.

Why would I be jealous of the US? The standard of living there, for the ordinary person, is not better. It is quieter here, with less crime, less killing, and more egalitarianism. We are more tolerant of a wider range of political views. I can buy any of the latest electronic gadgets, and we are metric. If someone wants to put a bottle shop (liquor store) up on the corner, I can object, along with my neighbours, and get it banned.

The current conservative government is trying to destroy many of things that make this country great, but do not fit in with the US inspired 'free enterprise' model of living. I hope that at the next election, it will get booted out.

Maybe you could regale us with tales of your time as a bulldozer driver in the IDF?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Sundog


I never left. I'm just not talking much any more, as this is no longer a place for that.

Love ya people, til next time...

Sundog, you are not the first to say that. I am glad that people do read what I write, and also glad that they criticise it. (I find out a lot that way). Feel free to put your hard hat on and join the fray every so often. At first I was disconcerted by the abuse that can be levelled around here, but with time, I saw that it was often just a bad tactic of debating.

[Skeptic]

You miss the point. The point is not that criticism of the US isn't welcome. The point is that AUP ISN'T any sort of serious critic.

He is, rather, a conspiracy theorist: EVERYTHING the US does is "really" bad, evil, stupid, etc.--and AUP is, of course, always quite willing to give us the benefit of the "real reasons" this is so. Never mind that he never even heard of this latest "evil and stupid US action" until five minutes ago, and that he would criticize the opposite action just as fiercly, for just the same reasons. He knows the TRUTH(tm), and that's that.

There are numerous examples of this in his writing. According to AUP, the US keeping its bases in Saudi Arabia is "imperialism", but pulling them out is obviously just a "cover" for expansion elsewhere. The US not interfering in the middle east is a license for israel to kill innocent palestinians, but the US inferering is obviously biased in favor of israel and therefore just as bad. Invading Iraq was of course evil... but so is pulling out of Iraq (or Afghanistan), as it would "leave the country in chaos". Oh, and the Mississippi river flooding "proved" to the disgusting Americans that they are not gods; want to bet AUP would have said the exact same thing if there was a drought?

And so on and so forth. Clearly, no matter WHAT the US does--staying in Saudi Arabia or pulling out, pushing a diplomatic effort or not pushing it, having a drought or a flood--it is ALL "proof" of how evil or stupid it is.

This isn't criticism. It's the ranting of a man who is obviously very jealous of the US of A, and determined to find fault in it no matter what.

[Dancing David]

Can't say that I agree with everything AUP says, but hey it is good to read a dissenting voice in the moo cow herd.

Does AUP resort to conspiracy theory, well considering our beloved counrties history of messing things behind the scenes, I for one am not sute that there isn't some conspiracy.(Remember how Pinochet got into power?)

Peace

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Sundog
We need MORE people like AUP, not fewer. Whether he's always right, or even logical, is immaterial. I have to take exeption to part of your statement. Without regard to AUP, logic is paramount. I don't care about ideology but being obtuse or illogical serves no purpose.

Americans desperately need a slap up side the head right now and he helps provide that. America is learning who are and who are not its allies and friends. We get attacked and respond and people want to slap us upside our head. We take out a tin horn dictator whose hobby in life is killing and torturing and people want to slap us up side the head.

Maybe others need to be slapped up side the head.

[thaiboxerken]

Lots of food, lots of wealth, lots of sportscars, malls and broadband internet access. The USA would be a perfect place, if not for the christians. Hey, if you don't like the USA, don't move here.

Oh, and I don't like Bush's international policy either.

;)



Ken: Wants to be a millionaire and is making it happen.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Skeptic
When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy.

AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.

As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us...

"You know, one of my concerns was the farther we got away from September the 11th, the more likely it would be that some in our country might not think the enemy still existed. But they do. And they're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers. That's all they are. People in our country wonder why, why would somebody hate America. It's because we love freedom, that's why. We love the idea that free people can worship and almighty God any way they so choose in America. We value the freedom for people to speak their mind in this country. We value a free press. We value freedom. And the more we value freedom, the more they hate us. That's why. That's why the enemy still exists." - George Bush

"I went to Congress, and I said, in order to help me and future Presidents -- and notice I say future Presidents, because I don't think this war and this hatred is going to go away any time soon" - George Bush

"Because we're the greatest nation, full of the greatest people on the face of the Earth." - George Bush

And who said that the President isn't influential? ;)

"To dismiss terrorism as the result of [a_unique_person] hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people." - Representative Ron Paul

:D

[kittynh]

Just like Australia, the US is a big country. I just don't like sweeping attacks that include every single person and state. Some states have the same cultural and even legal differences that different nations in the EU have. Gays can marry in liberal Vermont. Conservative NH no seatbelts and no income or sales tax.

Also, I defy anyplace to be as rural as certain parts of Montana and even where I live. I suppose the outback, but would you want that part of a nation portrayed as being the same as Perth?

There's Alaska, Hawaii, TExas, Lousiana...

There's good and there's very bad. Americans seem to find the place to live where they fit in. I couldn't do Texas, though I'd like their weather...

[reprise]

I wonder if the high level of overt patriotism in the US sometimes leads those living there to perceive as criticism comments and questions which are - quite frankly - nothing more than observations or attempts to understand the differences between our cultures.

I do know that in the past when I've asked questions related to life in the US, the response has often been a quite defensive one of "well our system is better", when my questions weren't related to which way of running government was "better" or "worse", but how government policy directly impacted on the lives of those living under each system.

My perception is that people in the US are much more staunchly supportive of a specific political party than here, and much more likely to have a very definite opinion on the Israel/Palestine question, but that perception might well be a wrong one given that it is those who care most passionately about an issue who are most likely to start threads about it - those who really don't give a rat's (which may well be the majority) are unlikely to enter the discussion in the first place.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.


Maybe others need to be slapped up side the head.

Is that a threat, little boy?

People like you are why I am now firmly in lurk mode. Back to it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by kittynh
Just like Australia, the US is a big country. I just don't like sweeping attacks that include every single person and state. Some states have the same cultural and even legal differences that different nations in the EU have. Gays can marry in liberal Vermont. Conservative NH no seatbelts and no income or sales tax.

Also, I defy anyplace to be as rural as certain parts of Montana and even where I live. I suppose the outback, but would you want that part of a nation portrayed as being the same as Perth?

There's Alaska, Hawaii, TExas, Lousiana...

There's good and there's very bad. Americans seem to find the place to live where they fit in. I couldn't do Texas, though I'd like their weather...

I try to consciously avoid attacking Americans directly, with sweeping generalisations, as I do not think it is a sign of good, critical thought.

Skeptic has searched the archives, and not really found much at all, execpt for one or two pieces I may have been typing out after a few snifters on a Friday night.

I do try to differentiate between attacks on American policy and American people. I have met Americans, and people from many other countries and cultures, and there is good and bad everywhere.

What distinguishes America is it's unique position of power, and how that affects the American society, and how America interacts with the rest of the world.

A book I have been reading, "Blowback", states it quite simply, many Americans are not aware of what is being done in their name.

I really enjoy this board, (you may have inferred that by now), and what do you know, the majority of participants are Americans. There are many intelligent, thought provoking people here. As well as the infuriating, hilarious and the intriguing. That is all good and well.

However, let me just say, if I am criticising American foreign policy, and there are plenty of Americans who do exactly that, that does not mean I am criticsising Americans, per se.

[peptoabysmal]

Actually, I kind of like the banter with AUP. He and I disagree on several points, and I can be assured that whatever I say he will find some view that is 180° from mine. This forces me to think, which I like.

[renata]

Originally posted by Sundog


Is that a threat, little boy?

People like you are why I am now firmly in lurk mode. Back to it.



Sundog ( wish you would post, BTW- it is good to hear opposing point of you eloquently and intelligently expressed)

Randfan has been posting under his son's account recently, so I think it is Randfan, not his boy.

As to AUP- - his style reminds me of the people who say something inflammatory and then say- Of course I do not mean XYZ, but you draw your own conclusions. Kind of like- blacks commit so many crimes and are so poor! Of course I do not mean they are inferior violent and stupid, but you draw your own conclusions.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Sundog


Is that a threat, little boy?

People like you are why I am now firmly in lurk mode. Back to it.
Come on Sundog,

You and I had a good relationship. I respect your opinion. I'm just voicing the frustration I feel towards those who share your sentiments as I'm sure you were expressing yours.

A lot of things that are said on this forum upset me. I strongly disagree with you and others concerning the war and America's actions in the world. But I try not to take them too personally. We are what we are, human. Our egos and worldview find it difficult to understand why the opposition takes a hard stance against our position.

I am not your enemy. I am willing to listen to your logical arguments and will change my mind when I think that you have made a compelling argument. I should point out that I have changed my mind on this forum and have admitted when I was wrong or when I thought someone with an opposing view made a valid argument.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must no break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." --Abraham Lincoln.

Some of us who disagree with you like to see you post. I hope you don't lurk too long. We need you.

RandFan.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata



Sundog ( wish you would post, BTW- it is good to hear opposing point of you eloquently and intelligently expressed)

Randfan has been posting under his son's account recently, so I think it is Randfan, not his boy.

As to AUP- - his style reminds me of the people who say something inflammatory and then say- Of course I do not mean XYZ, but you draw your own conclusions. Kind of like- blacks commit so many crimes and are so poor! Of course I do not mean they are inferior violent and stupid, but you draw your own conclusions.

I don't think that saying that blacks are poorer and commit more crime means I ams saying they are inferior and stupid. Their own leaders know that they have major problems with violence and crime.

As to your analogy, the heat does get turned up a little high here from time to time, on all sides. Sometimes I do not state my arguments clearly, such as people thinking I tried to equate the Holocaust with the Protocols. If I think I have been offensive, I think I have acknowledged that.

However, it is worth pointing out, that anit-arabic sentiments are quite OK, and cause no indignation, IIRC.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't think that saying that blacks are poorer and commit more crime means I ams saying they are inferior and stupid. Their own leaders know that they have major problems with violence and crime.

As to your analogy, the heat does get turned up a little high here from time to time, on all sides. Sometimes I do not state my arguments clearly, such as people thinking I tried to equate the Holocaust with the Protocols. If I think I have been offensive, I think I have acknowledged that.

However, it is worth pointing out, that anit-arabic sentiments are quite OK, and cause no indignation, IIRC.


I will be the first to acknowledge that there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the issue- in real world and on this forum. I object to some of the ridiculous characterizations on the right as much as I do to the ones on the left. You will note that in my Conversation thread I did not tolerate that kind of behaviour from either side.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Sundog




People like you are why I am now firmly in lurk mode. Back to it.


Sundog we haven't interacted in this forum at all but I have interacted A LOT with Unique.

From the one hand I enjoy very much his subtle sense of humour that I know that exists and most people here fail to see, from the other hand, I find amazing in a bad way,the fact that Unique doesn't seem to know with whom he discusses everytime.

I don't know if he feels hurt by ther forum and behaves likes this but he doesn't hesitate to hit people below the belt and some people might deserve this but other people don't.

I enjoy very much discussing with people with different opinions and my endless dialogues with Unique and others like Capel Dodger, proove it. That's why I would never start a thread like this one but I understand how Skeptic felt and did it. In Criminal Law sometimes the murderer is the innocent and the victim is the real guilty part...

During the last months I have taken up learning karate and while I was discussing with a friend who practices for years,instead of giving me an advice he told me a story of a woman who fought dirty and got herself badly injured...

It's not wise to "hit below the belt" because you never know how much able is the other one to lift his foot and kick you straight on the face...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



I enjoy very much discussing with people with different opinions and my endless dialogues with Unique and others like Capel Dodger, proove it. That's why I would never start a thread like this one but I understand how Skeptic felt and did it. In Criminal Law sometimes the murderer is the innocent and the victim is the real guilty part...



Skeptic hit me first.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


From the one hand I enjoy very much his subtle sense of humour that I know that exists and most people here fail to see, from the other hand, I find amazing in a bad way,the fact that Unique doesn't seem to know with whom he discusses everytime.



Just as long as you don't say what Diezel said to me once



LOL. Oh, you were serious.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Skeptic hit me first.


And believe me that in a virtual court he would go to "jail" for this but in the hearts of people you would be the guilty.

Would you like this?

And BTW I don't know what Diezel or God himself, have told you once and hurt you so much.

Come on Unique we are not 15 years old kids to get engaged in such conversations ...

[athon]

Not wanting to turn this into a Australia vs. US argument, I hesitate to add fuel to the fire by supporting AUP.

I've not seen any excessive slagging in his posts, and indeed often pay more attention to his pro's and con's of Australian politics. His criticisms, far from inflammatory, actually reflect actual arguments held outside of any 'conspiracy' minority. I agree with many of them, and in fact, fear that Australia is heading down the same road in many ways.

As for jealous, all I can say is - pull your head in! The standard of living in America, like the UK when I was there, is high, but hardly of a level that I would migrate there for. Healthcare, education, transport, price-of-living etc. are better here - why would anybody be jealous?

Attack the arguments if you're so against them, Skeptic.

Again, I'm not anti-US. But this is a forum where we can dare to look critically at the world around us. And the US is hardly beyond reproach.

Athon

[reprise]

I agree with many of them, and in fact, fear that Australia is heading down the same road in many ways.

And I would suggest that a cultural divide exists which makes it very difficult for those living in the US to understand why "we're becoming like America" is a comment made in an almost exclusively negative manner by Australians.

It's a pity that the attitudes of so many Australians towards the US have been shaped by Hollywood and the US fast food corporations, because I've met so many Americans through the internet over the last few years that I've become extremely aware that most of them are like your average Australian - living in an average city or large town, working an average job, and just doing the best they can to survive.

Like us, they're more concerned about how the decisions made by their state and federal governments are going to impact on them on a daily basis than they are about the longterm ramifications of their nation's foreign policy - which is something which those of us who are worried about the changes to Medicare and the higher education system should be fully able to appreciate.

[davefoc]

AUP makes interesting well thought out arguments on many topics that I often enjoy reading. I can't think of any one who I disagree with more often that makes his points as well as AUP and I for one I am glad he's around.

Of course, in his mind he is always absolutely correct and I do not recall even the slightest withdrawal from any position. This is mildly annoying at times, but without that he wouldn't be AUP, so keep going guy, you might be wrong (not of course when you agree with me) but at least your wrong opinions are well written and well thought out.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



And believe me that in a virtual court he would go to "jail" for this but in the hearts of people you would be the guilty.

Would you like this?

And BTW I don't know what Diezel or God himself, have told you once and hurt you so much.

Come on Unique we are not 15 years old kids to get engaged in such conversations ...

Sorry, Cleopatra, but I was making another one of my jokes, at my own expense this time.

[BillyTK]

It's a curious logic that those of us who are critical of US policy must be so because we are envious of the US. I guess it reduces that problematic cognitive dissonance.

Another curious argument I met in another forum was that non-US citizens had no right to criticise the US government because that was reserved for the US citizens who voted (or not as the case may be) the particular government in; and by extension criticism of the US government is also criticism of US citizens. But I digress.

Anyway, I have no problem with threads which are simply annoying; if there's points to be examined I do so; if I simply don't like the thread or the thread starter, I simply pass it over and move on to the next one.

[thaiboxerken]

It's a curious logic that those of us who are critical of US policy must be so because we are envious of the US.

I'd say it would be a false premise. But, the thread starter made no such claim. What you've created here is a straw-man.

The thread is about AUP's constant need to turn almost every thread into something "anti-american". Not just anti-USA policy, but anti-american which includes the people and the culture. AUP is demonstrating more than a critique of the USA policy, but more of a nationalistic american-hate attitude. This is what the thread starter has claimed. I don't know if it's true.

I am very critical about USA policy, especially with this war with Iraq. I actually view the Iraq war as being unjustified and wrong. I don't like our current president, or most of his policies. But I do love my country, it's people and it's culture.

:D

[Mike B.]

Isn't there a difference between critics like Danish Dynamite, mpb and others vs. AUP?

Danish Dynamite often is a critic of the US, but usually does it in a balanced and fair manner.

AUP on the other hand turns EVERYTHING into a horrible sin by America and Israel.

Heck, he even turned a fun Fawlty Towers thread into an attack on American cultural institutions.

I mean give it a break...

I don't believe the jealous thing, but there is something strange about someone spending hours on here and constantly being critical.

[hal bidlack]

This thread was reported to me with a request that it be moved to flame wars. Having read it, I think that while it has elements of flame in it, it also has some interesting points about opinion, disagreement, and such. Therefore, I am inclined to leave it where it is. Does that seem like the right call to you folks?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This thread was reported to me with a request that it be moved to flame wars. Having read it, I think that while it has elements of flame in it, it also has some interesting points about opinion, disagreement, and such. Therefore, I am inclined to leave it where it is. Does that seem like the right call to you folks?

This thread was meant to be (100%, it seems to me) a criticism of AUP. It definitely doesn't belong in Politics and Current Events, in my opinion.

I would move it.

[Linda]

I agree with Hal. The thread should stay right where it is.....I don't see a "war" here, I see an intelligent discussion.

[Cleopatra]

I agree with aerocontrols.

In fact I am amazed at myself for not reporting it too. I wouldn't want to see this forum turning into Banter.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I agree with aerocontrols.

In fact I am amazed at myself for not reporting it too. I wouldn't want to see this forum turning into Banter.
Well, I am the one who reported it, but I now agree with Hal. There are interesting points here about the nature of discussion which are quite apart from the dissection of AUP. So I have withdrawn the request. Imagine that! A flame thread that actually grows in stature! ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Isn't there a difference between critics like Danish Dynamite, mpb and others vs. AUP?

Danish Dynamite often is a critic of the US, but usually does it in a balanced and fair manner.

AUP on the other hand turns EVERYTHING into a horrible sin by America and Israel.

Heck, he even turned a fun Fawlty Towers thread into an attack on American cultural institutions.

I mean give it a break...

I don't believe the jealous thing, but there is something strange about someone spending hours on here and constantly being critical.

I don't recall that. I seem to recall it was an attack on free enterprise vs. state television. I happen to be a fan of NPR.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, I am the one who reported it, but I now agree with Hal. There are interesting points here about the nature of discussion which are quite apart from the dissection of AUP. So I have withdrawn the request. Imagine that! A flame thread that actually grows in stature! ;)

I agree with both you and Hal that there is worthwhile debate here, but it seems to me that the question of whether or not a thread is moved to 'Flame Wars' hinges on the intent of the thread.

I would like to think that if someone started a thread based on the premise that I am a shameless shill for "America, right or wrong", the thread would be removed from this board without regard to the merits of the discussion below the primary thread.

Just my opinion.

MattJ

[renata]

If this thread is moved to Flame War ( And I think there might be a good case for it) there are several others that should follow- threads about Jedi, for example.

Interestingly, this thread has fewer flames than a lot of the PC&E threads.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's a curious logic that those of us who are critical of US policy must be so because we are envious of the US.

I'd say it would be a false premise. But, the thread starter made no such claim. What you've created here is a straw-man.

The thread is about AUP's constant need to turn almost every thread into something "anti-american". Not just anti-USA policy, but anti-american which includes the people and the culture. AUP is demonstrating more than a critique of the USA policy, but more of a nationalistic american-hate attitude. This is what the thread starter has claimed. I don't know if it's true.

I am very critical about USA policy, especially with this war with Iraq. I actually view the Iraq war as being unjustified and wrong. I don't like our current president, or most of his policies. But I do love my country, it's people and it's culture.

:D



When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy.

AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.

As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us...



Tricky has also said as much about being critical of policy, while loving his country. That sounds like a reasonable person to me. One of the sad parts of the Iraqi invasion, to me, was the spectacle of an army that vanished into thin air. How humiliating to be a part of an army that does not even have the desire to defend it's own country.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of the sad parts of the Iraqi invasion, to me, was the spectacle of an army that vanished into thin air.

It doesn't sadden me a bit that all those people are still alive.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How humiliating to be a part of an army that does not even have the desire to defend it's own country.

How much more humiliating to be conscripted and die to defend Saddam's rule?

MattJ

[Tricky]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It doesn't sadden me a bit that all those people are still alive.

How much more humiliating to be conscripted and die to defend Saddam's rule?

MattJ
Two very good points, Matt. I don't blame the troops at all for refusing to die for a despot. But AUP, I beleive, is saying he is sad that Iraq had become a country not worth fighting for.

As Sir Walter Scott (http://www.legallanguage.com/poems/BreathesThere.htm) said:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.

[Skeptic]

One of the sad parts of the Iraqi invasion, to me, was the spectacle of an army that vanished into thin air.

Only "A Unique Person" could grieve about the awful fate of the Army that kept Saddam and his thugs in power. I'm sure AUP he would have been happier if they had put up stiffer resistance and killed more Americans.

This isn't the first time, by the way, that the evil Americans do such awful things: the SS and Gestapo also "vanished into thin air" at the end of WWII, when the Americans occupied Germany! What a tragedy, eh, AUP? I'm sure you're still grieving about that, as well...

I'm far more saddened by, for example, the discovery of the mass graves of Saddam's victims. But who cares about THEM, when you can't blame the US for their deaths.

Oh, wait, you CAN: in another thread, AUP just blamed Pol Pot's murders of his people on the US "destabalizing" the region. Are you SURE Saddam wasn't driven to butcher all his political opponents by some evil US "destabalization of the region", AUP?

Think about it. I'm sure you can eventually find some way to blame the US for Saddam's actions. After all, you blamed it for the weather in the Mississippi delta...

P.S.

Of course, despite AUP's melodramatic weeping for the awful fate of the Iraqi army and its inability to kill more US Marines, what really happened when the army "vanished into thin air" was NOT that its soldiers got killed. They simply deserted and went home. Not exactly the most horrible fate, as far as 99% of that Army was concerned.

[renata]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Oh, wait, you CAN: in another thread, AUP just blamed Pol Pot's murders of his people on the US "destabalizing" the region. Are you SURE Saddam wasn't driven to butcher all his political opponents by some evil US "destabalization of the region", AUP?

Think about it. I'm sure you can eventually find some way to blame the US for Saddam's actions. After all, you blamed it for the weather in the Mississippi delta...



This one is a no-brainer. US supported Saddam when it suited them, they supplied him with ingredients for WMD and weapons and they screwed over Kurds and Shiites by not supporting them in the rebellion after Gulf War 1, and that is who is buried in the mass graves.

[Skeptic]

But AUP, I beleive, is saying he is sad that Iraq had become a country not worth fighting for.

Nah. He's just pissed that the Iraqi Army didn't kill more Americans.

Besides, who said the people of the Iraqi Army think Iraq was "not worth fighting for"? They think SADDAM HUSSEIN was not worth fighting for, something completely different.

It would have been different if the Americans were going to annex Iraq and submit it to their rule. But everybody knew that this isn't the case. The American plan, at least, is to only stay for a little while until a democratic government can replace Saddam. So when you surrender instead of fighting for Saddam Hussein, you are doing what is BEST for Iraq under the circumstances, just like the Germans who surrendered in WWII to the americans did what was best for Germany.

Fighting for your country against invaders is USUALLY, indeed, the partiotic thing to do--but NOT when your country is invaded by the Americans, whose goal is to remove the dictator who is destoying your country for the last 30 years.

There is an old joke that says that all a small country needs to do to solve its problems is to declare war on the US, cause it to invade the country, and then instantly surrender. The US will temporarily occupy it, remove the local dictator, establish a democracy, and rebuild the infrastructure and schools in the bargain--all for free!

There's more to that than I care to admit...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But AUP, I beleive, is saying he is sad that Iraq had become a country not worth fighting for.

Nah. He's just pissed that the Iraqi Army didn't kill more Americans.
Oh yes, AUP is one bloodthirsty individual. :rolleyes:

Besides, who said the people of the Iraqi Army think Iraq was "not worth fighting for"? They think SADDAM HUSSEIN was not worth fighting for, something completely different.

It would have been different if the Americans were going to annex Iraq and submit it to their rule. But everybody knew that this isn't the case. The American plan, at least, is to only stay for a little while until a democratic government can replace Saddam. So when you surrender instead of fighting for Saddam Hussein, you are doing what is BEST for Iraq under the circumstances, just like the Germans who surrendered in WWII to the americans did what was best for Germany. [/B]
I think that is the exact point being made. It is sad when a country is so poorly run that the people regard being invaded as a better solution than maintaining autonomy.


Fighting for your country against invaders is USUALLY, indeed, the partiotic thing to do--but NOT when your country is invaded by the Americans, whose goal is to remove the dictator who is destoying your country for the last 30 years.[/B]
Especially when it was the Americans who brought him to power. "Oops, we're just here to clean up our mess. We'll be out in a jiffy."


There is an old joke that says that all a small country needs to do to solve its problems is to declare war on the US, cause it to invade the country, and then instantly surrender. The US will temporarily occupy it, remove the local dictator, establish a democracy, and rebuild the infrastructure and schools in the bargain--all for free!

There's more to that than I care to admit... [/B]
I believe you are referring to the plot of The Mouse That Roared (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheMouseThatRoared-1014304/about.php)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by renata



This one is a no-brainer. US supported Saddam when it suited them, they supplied him with ingredients for WMD and weapons and they screwed over Kurds and Shiites by not supporting them in the rebellion after Gulf War 1, and that is who is buried in the mass graves.

It is pretty awful how my government handles things. Heck, the USA trained Bin Laden as well. When will we learn not to use other people for our own "interests"? I'm wondering when we'll turn on Saudi Arabia for it's inhumane practices and add another nation to our list of enemies.

The "any means" policy to promote democracy is immoral. I think it's more than democracy being promoted as well, Christianity is also being promoted and I think it's just disguisting.

[thaiboxerken]

It would have been different if the Americans were going to annex Iraq and submit it to their rule. But everybody knew that this isn't the case. The American plan, at least, is to only stay for a little while until a democratic government can replace Saddam.

Yes, that's what was said. I don't believe Bush though. I wonder how many Iraqi's believe. Maybe they surrendered simply because they saw it as being a losing situation. I think the Alpha Centurian thread shed's light on what Iraqi's might really be thinking.


Fighting for your country against invaders is USUALLY, indeed, the partiotic thing to do--but NOT when your country is invaded by the Americans, whose goal is to remove the dictator who is destoying your country for the last 30 years.

I wonder if there has been an objective poll done to see what the Iraqi's really think about Saddam and America.

[Malachi151]

There is an old joke that says that all a small country needs to do to solve its problems is to declare war on the US, cause it to invade the country, and then instantly surrender. The US will temporarily occupy it, remove the local dictator, establish a democracy, and rebuild the infrastructure and schools in the bargain--all for free!

Yeah, it is a joke, exactly.

The Iraqis know what's really up:

The Statement of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq on the Fascist Baath Regime

With the entry of American and British troops into the center of Baghdad at noon this day, the fascist Baath regime has uttered it last words. Now, regime is ousted, a major obstacle has been rubbed from the way of masses’ liberation in Iraq, but the expense is a gloomy future that the masses encounter in Iraq.

The collapse of this barbaric regime has not been an outcome of the struggle of working masses and toilers who are after welfare, life, freedoms, and happiness, but an outcome of the US missiles and bombs, the most barbaric massacre and the operation of mass annihilation whose victims are thousands of the innocents children, elderly, women and men who all have no guilt in what is happening. Millions have been displaced and have held their breaths for weeks due to devastating and ghastly horror. The collapse has occurred on the expense of destroying the infrastructure of the society and its economic pillars and edging it toward the whirlpool of chaos and insecurity. Such an outcome will not achieve the noble masses’ expectations which they have shed blood to enjoy for decades.

The USA is not the “ liberator” of masses in Iraq. It is not the masses’ “ savior”. The collapse of the Baath regime is a yield of a reactionary war waged by America to enthrall the world and impose its hegemony on it. This collapse can not be considered a victory for the masses in Iraq. The USA and its allies have brought this regime to stand against communism and workers, freedom and equality, left and radicalism, and the efforts for a better life during the Cold War. They had backed him and strengthened his espionage and suppressive institutions. They had trained his criminal gangs. They had disregarded his crimes, operations of annihilation and bloodbaths. They have aligned in the regime’s trenches against the struggle of the masses in Iraq for liberation and equality. They had helped it live longer by imposing the economic sanction on the masses in Iraq, fettered their will and blown all their struggle efforts to present them handcuffed to the teeth of this barbaric regime. The USA is responsible of the death of more than a million of peoples in Iraq due to the oppressive sanctions. Getting rid of the USA, its ominous role, its existence and the total of its plans and projects are an obvious goal declared by emanicepatory masses in Iraq and all over the world for decades.

Because of its excessive recklessness, the USA blatantly talks about a military interim government to rule Iraq and openly deny the masses’ right of determining their political destiny and their expected political rule. America does not refrain from supporting nationalist, religious tribal and sectarian militias and groups, ex-hirelings of the fascist Baath regime and its ex-generals such as Al khazrajy, Al Samerrae and Al Jobory and nominates them as the bases of future government in Iraq disregarding the masses’ opinions and against their will. The USA has no problem in handing the responsibility of ruling Basra and Amara to sheikhs whom society had swept since decades. The government, the pentagon is after, is not the representative of masses in Iraq as much as the case with the Baath regime. It enjoys no legitimacy and must unconditionally and immediately withdraw.

The Worker-communist Party of Iraq seeks to build a socialist republic by establishing the authority of masses’ councils and calls on the masses to organize in councils to take the initiative. At the same time WCPI demand the US and UK troops withdraw immediately from Iraq and that the UN is held responsible of security in the Iraqi cities, the safety of civilians and ensuring a free political circumstances that give masses in Iraq the capability and freedom to determine their expected political rule.

WCPI calls on all libertarians all over the world and humanity advocates – ahead of them the million forces that have taken to streets against the war on Iraq to defend the banner of the Party, support the masses’ demands which are establishing a just, free and equal society and the priority is the right to choose their political alternative freely.



No to the US and UK troops in Iraq!

No to the US alternative!

Yes for the socialist republic!



The Worker-communist Party of Iraq

April 9,2003”


Japan and Europe were both re-built under liberal control, but also heavily influenced by anti-Communist ideology because they feared communism. The reasoning behing spending money on Japan and Germany was that they felt it was less expensive then the possibility of those countries going communist and then being a threat again down the road we would have to fight again.

Seeing as Japan and Europe were already well developed cultures they were able to counteract Ameircanization and retain their own national identity and goals. Iraq is going to have to fight to do the same thing against a group that does not want them to do the same thing.

To quote my own ppaer again:

"The real way that American foreign investment works is this:

Wealthy American investors build factories, farms, oil wells, etc in under developed countries where labor and resources are cheap.

The people eventually get restless and rebel against the foreign investors because of unfriendly business practices and the effort by business to maintain cheap labor and working facilities.

The American investors get support for a coup from the American government who employs any number of means to put an American business friendly leader into office in the country (overt war, covert war, funding of local loyalists, assassination, etc).

American banks, or the IMF, give loans to the country, which the American friendly leader agrees to take out, for things like the building of infrastructure, roads, railroads, shipping ports, etc. The rational is that this infrastructure will help the country develop economically. Of course the country is really paying to build things that serve the interests of the American investors.

America also agrees to train the police and military forces of the country so that the leader can protect his position.

America then pays "foreign aid" to the leader of the country in order to keep the leader loyal to American interests, as well as supplying the government with arms.

In addition, the American investors that are now doing business in the country also give payoffs to the local leadership to keep them loyal to the American business interests.

These countries do not have constitutions that grant significant rights to the people. The governments are loyal to America, not their own populations. As the people begin to fight for labor rights and improved working conditions and increased pay, the governments use the American supported military and police to oppress the population.

By doing this America has cultivated American loyalists in countries all over the world, who are loyal to American interests, not the interests of their own countries. America sees to it that these American loyalists are who maintains political power in these countries.

Traditionally there have been two typical consequences of this since WWII. The people either move towards communism or Islamic fundamentalism. This is for a variety of different reasons, but the main thing that both scenarios have in common is that radical leaders that oppose foreign control over the local government gain growing support as the people become increasingly more desperate to rid their country from oppressive foreign control.

The evidence for this type of behavior on the part of America goes all the way back to 1855 and what was termed Walker's War, which was waged in Nicaragua.

For a full listing of American military activity since the American Revolution see:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/index.html#18

As this list shows, America has been far more militarily engaged them most people realize.

This is the type of behavior that General Smedley D. Butler toured the country to speak out against in the 1930s, and it is this type of activity that led to the anti-war sentiment of the 1930's as Americans learned of the unethical practices of international American businessmen and the American military. Ironically it was America's withdrawal of support for military activity due to the abuse of the military that led wealthy Americans to cooperate with the fascist powers of Europe."

[Mike B.]

Tricky,
Could you please back up your statement that the US brought Saddam to power.

[Skeptic]

The Statement of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq...

Ah, yes, a looney communist fringe group. Just the source for "objective information" about what is "really going on". Without reading, let me guess: it's all part of a huge, evil conspiracy by the disgusting "capitalists" and "imperialists", right?

[Skeptic]

Oh yes, AUP is one bloodthirsty individual. :rolleyes:

You must have missed his post about supporting the destruction of israel and the genocide of the jews there--and then claiming it isn't antisemitism, because he only supports the butchery of jews "within a strictly limited geographical area".

Sounds rather bloodthirsty to me...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Tricky,
Could you please back up your statement that the US brought Saddam to power.

From the my paper, which is linked in my sig:

Iraq
Iraq has an extremely long history. The territory of Iraq is home to the cradle civilization and has hosted numerous cultures and empires over the millennia.

The most pertinent timeframe in discussing modern Iraq and Saddam Hussein begins at the turn of the 20th century. At that time the Persian Gulf was controlled by the British and French. In the early 1900s the Middle East was seen primarily as a trade route to India. This alone made it a place that had a significant role in international economics, but mostly that of Europe and India.

Special relationships developed between European merchants and governments and the Middle Easterners that worked with these foreign powers to become extremely wealthy by controlling trade routes. Local Sheiks made private arrangements with European leaders in return for various favors. The Sheiks of Kuwait were particularly friendly with the British powers, which has resulted in British favoritism towards them in political matters throughout the years.

The Middle East and the Ottoman Empire were critical elements of WWI, which lasted from 1914 to 1919. The Gulf region was important for the British because their navy was reliant on oil from the region. The Persian Gulf region was hotly contested due to its critical oil resources and its importance as a trade route.

In 1916 the French and British entered into a secret agreement known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, with cooperation from Russia, to divide up and administer the Middle East. This agreement was made in contradiction to terms that had already been set between the British and Middle Eastern leaders. Arab and Kurdish leaders were planning to lead a rebellion against the crumbling Ottoman Empire and establish their own self-representative government. This agreement betrayed those arrangements. The agreement called for Baghdad to be administered by Great Britain.





(map courtesy of the BBC)

For the full text of the Sykes-Picot agreement see:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/sykespicot.htm

In 1917 Britain occupied the city of Baghdad, routing Turkish troops and “liberating” the people of the region by proclaiming:

"People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavored to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

After the Bolshevik Revolution the Bolsheviks published all secret documents of the Russian Czars and the Sykes-Picot agreement was made public, which inflamed Arab sentiments.

The region of modern Iraq was put together by the British in an attempt to collect the various oil rich regions into one group so that they could control the oil of the region and administer it collectively. Essentially what they did was take the most oil rich regions that they had under their control and lump it together to form modern Iraq. The area of modern Iraq though contains traditional regions that were divided and separate from one another, these being the Kurdish tribal lands, the Sunni Muslim region around Baghdad, and the Shia Muslim region in the south as well as the area that is now Kuwait.

The Kurds are not Arabs. The Kurdish people are of a different ethnic group; Kurds, Semites, and Arabs, are all different ethic groups, and Arabs recognize different ethnic groups within the Arab ethnic group.

After about 2 years of British rule over region of Iraq Kurdish and Arab forces revolted against British rule. The British used aerial bombardment and poison gas to put down the revolts. Thousands of Kurdish and Arab people were gassed to death by the British during this event. Winston Churchill proclaimed, "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."

The native people continued to protest foreign rule and anti-British sentiment was still rising.

In 1921 the British decided that an Arab leader was needed to help ease the tensions of the Iraqi region. The British put deposed Syrian ruler King Fascil in as dictator of Iraq. A public vote of affirmation was performed, much like the vote that Saddam Hussein employed, that showed that 96% of the Iraqi people approved of King Fascil.

Fascil was an international man having lived in various parts of the Middle East, Persia, and Europe prior to becoming King of Iraq. He favored Iraqi nationalism, but he was highly influenced by British concerns as well. His true power came from Britain, but he was an improvement for the Iraqi people over direct British rule.

The region of Kuwait was separated from the region of Iraq in 1921 by the British due to specific relationships between Kuwaiti royal families and British oil tycoons who wanted both wanted more direct control over the resources of the area.

In 1933 Ghazi, son of Fascil, became King of Iraq. Ghazi was a strict militant leader but he was also widely supported by the Iraqi people because he opposed British influence on the region and supported Iraqi nationalism. Ghazi continued to cooperate with British and international interests, he simply tried to shift Iraqi policy to favor the Iraqi people more as opposed to its stronger favor to foreign interests under Fascil.

During the 1930s the Iraq Petroleum Company, a British, French, and American conglomerate, retained rights to the Iraqi oil fields and Britain maintained a military presence in the region to protect the oil interests. IPC represented a large number of international interests, not just American, British, and French.

In 1939 King Ghazi made plans to invade Kuwait and reunite it with Iraq. King Ghazi was soon after killed in a mysterious car crash that many claim was the work of the British secret service.

After Ghazi died his son, Fascil II, at the age of four, took the throne. Fascil II was educated in Britain and his authority was assumed by his uncle during his reign. Fascil II was king of Iraq from 1939 to 1958.

During World War II Iraq sided with Germany in an attempt to break free of British influence. The British regained control of Iraq during WWII but strong anti-Anglo and anti-Semitic sentiment had already been fueled by the German Nazi influence. The anti-Anglo and anti-Semitic feelings were easy to stir in Iraq because most of the Iraqi people had strong feelings about what had already been going on in the Palestine region where the British had put down Arab forces in a revolt against growing Jewish influence in the region prior to WWII, as well as the strong resentment of British rule in Iraq.

While Britain was the country most heavily involved in Iraqi affairs, America was moving in on Iran after World War II.

In 1953 the CIA supported the Shah’s return from exile to Iran to replace Iranian leader Mossadegh. The Shah had strong ties to the Nazi Party and his father was part of the Nazi regime of Iran during WWII. The CIA paid for staged demonstrations in support of the Shah, who returned through the use of military force as ruler of Iran.

In 1958 Karim Kassem led a military coup again King Fascil II. The overthrow of Fascil II was very violent. Kassem declared Iraq a republic, formed a new government, and took the position of primer. Though there was wide support for the overthrow of the government by Kassem, Kassem had his own self-serving agenda and lost the support of the Iraqi people. Kassem was not a communist, but he developed strong ties with the Soviet Union and communist parties grew under his rule. He also opposed the Pan Arabism movement, which many Iraqis supported.

Pan Arabism is a Middle Eastern movement for the unification of all Arab nations.

For more on Pan Arabism see:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/PanA1rabi.asp

In 1963 Kassem was overthrown by the Ba’ath Party, stood trial, and was later killed. Saddam Hussein is one of the assassins that that participated in assassination attempts on Kassem prior to his overthrow. The CIA assisted in the overthrow of Kassem by supporting the Kurds in their effort to overthrow Kassem as well as supporting the Ba’aths.

Supposedly the United States was also working on plan to invade northern Iraq and take control of the oil fields in the Kurdish area at the time of the overthrow of Kassem in a plan supposedly code named Cannonbone.

The Ba’ath Party were secular democratic supporters of the Pan-Arabism movement. However, once members of the Ba’ath Party took power in Iraq and Syria they decided to retain dictatorial control.

The role of communism, and American anti-communist policy, played a significant role in American involvement in Iraq at this point. The Ba’aths had been supported by the CIA in the overthrow of Kassem because Kassem was opening ties to the USSR and communist groups were growing in Iraq under Kassem. However, the CIA was not very well educated on the ideologies of the Ba’aths, they simply took the approach of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

After the overthrow of the Kassem regime by the Ba’aths the CIA provided the Ba’ath Party with a list of communists that the CIA wanted to have assassinated in an effort to put down the communist movement in Iraq. This was all part of a larger anti-communist program that the CIA was involved in throughout the Middle East. The majority of the people on the list were intellectuals and professionals.

At this time the US did not have strong ties to Israel, but they were working on it. Actually, when Israel was formed they were more closely allied with Russia. Israel was formed out of the Zionist movement, which is a form of theocratic communism. The Russians were attempting to use Israel to spread communism throughout the Middle East but this failed because the Arab peoples of the Middle East opposed Israel, and so rejected Russian influence based on their ties to Israel.

In the mean America was courting Israel in order to move them towards American alliance as opposed to Russian alliance. Interestingly, America has ended up taking on the same problems that Russia had with Israel. The Russians wanted to use Israel to promote communism in the Middle East, which backfired, and now America is trying to use Israel to promote the American agenda in the Middle East, which is again backfiring.

Back to Iraq.

James Crutchfield of the CIA commented on the issue:

“We were better informed on the 1963 coup in Baghdad than on any other major event or change of government that took place in the whole region in those years. But we did not identify a radical movement within the Ba'ath that would, six months later, stage a kind of counter-coup, and replace the moderate elements in the Ba'ath. That was our mistake--that surprised us.”

After the Ba’ath Party had taken control of Iraq with American assistance American oil companies began to get heavily involved in Iraq for the first time.

Anti-communist actions, including torture and assassination, continued in Iraq in the early years of Ba’athist rule supported and encouraged by the CIA. However, things started to get really complicated at this point. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and Saddam Hussein began playing both sides of the fence, both American and Russian. They were Iraqi nationalists and were attempting to play for favors from both the Russians and Americans.

During the 1960s American resources were being spread very thin in attempts to control South America, the Middle East, and Asia, as well as Europe.

In the late 1960s American attention in the Middle East turned to Iran and the Shah of Iran. At this time there was a movement in Washington to support the Shah in an effort to dominate the entire area of the Persian Gulf through Iran, including of course Iraq.

By the 1970s Iraq become one of the wealthiest and best run countries of the region. Education and healthcare was highly advanced in Iraq under the leadership of the Ba’ath Party.

Saddam was going to meetings in Moscow and was influenced by socialist ideology.

Saddam is an intelligent man though and, like most Arab leaders, very head strong. He was influenced by socialism but he developed his own views on the matter.

Saddam became very impressed by Joseph Stalin and studied Stalin, Stalinism, and of course National Socialism. Key factors about Joseph Stalin are Stalin’s hard-line policies, his pragmatism, and his view that the end justifies the means. Saddam identified with these ideas and learned from Stalinist approaches to problem solving, which include deception and the use of people as disposable tools. Stalin’s actions prior to and during WWII to protect Russia were excellent examples for Saddam to follow. Like others who have studied Stalin, Saddam did not consider Stalin to be a communist or socialist, he considered Stalin to be a nationalist with a self-serving agenda. This is the approach that Saddam has taken.

Because of this, Saddam actually began to increase his ties with America. Iraq was one of the most technologically advanced countries in the Middle East during the 1960s through the 1980s. Saddam strengthened ties with America in order to strengthen the technological and military advancement of Iraq. Saddam played on the American fear that he may give favor to Russia in order to get America to supply Iraq with more weapons and more technology.

Saddam was not a true socialist or communist or capitalist or anything. Saddam developed his own ideologies and developed policy that was designed to strengthen his own position and that of Iraq. He continued to attack Marxist leaders throughout his career. He attacked anyone that had the potential of challenging his position, again, like Stalin did.

Saddam was a major component of the Iraqi leadership even prior to his assumption of the presidency. He was a major architect of the Iraqi economy.

In 1972 Iraq nationalized its oil wells, which pretty much established Iraq as a socialist country in the eyes of the West. This was actually a good move for Iraq and the Iraqi people, but it immediately raised eyebrows in Washington. This move is in many ways what set the current chain of events in motion that have led to this current war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

In 1972 Iraq was placed on the American list of terrorist nations and an agreement between America, Iran, and the Kurds of Iraq was established. The Kurds were to be supported by Iran and America with weapons in an effort to build a revolutionary movement in Iraq to overthrow the Iraqi government.

The nationalization of the oil wells gave Iraq more control over the oil trade and of course upset foreign oil companies who had built in Iraq. Nationalization of oil wells is actually a good way to strengthen an oil-based economy though and to benefit the citizens of heavy oil exporting nations. The profits from the nationalized oil wells allowed the Iraqi people to live tax free, receive free education through the university level, and have access to free medical care. This is one of the major reasons that many people in Iraq strongly supported Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.

In 1975 Saddam negotiated a deal with the Shah of Iran to cede control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran in exchange for an end to Iran’s support of the Kurds in Iraq. This suited Iran fine because many in Iran didn’t like supporting the Kurds anyway.

The end of support for the Kurds through the 1975 deal was a devastating loss for the Kurds who had developed a resistance program based on American support.

Dr. Mahkmoud Othman of the Kurdish Democratic Party recalls the event:

“[We] didn't believe we would be the victim, because he said United States is in the picture this time--it is different. Although he didn't believe in Iran, he thought if America is in it, so things must be different.

But the next day we heard that things were real different and everything was cut. Then Barzani--he was in shock, really--he wrote a telegraph to Kissinger ... saying, 'look this has happened to us, at least deal with this from a humanitarian point of view--we have a quarter of a million of refugees in Iran and it's a disaster. People are not happy to go back to Saddam Hussein.'

... The answer of Kissinger to it was that well, this is politics. There are no moral values in politics. And usually when two sides agree on something which is important, maybe a third side would suffer or whatever it is, and I am sorry to say this is not human rights, this is not a moral issue, this is politics.

And we were very much disappointed. I think maybe part of the thing was because we were a bit short-sighted in evaluating American policy. We didn't have much experience. And Barzani personally was very much disappointed and after that he went to America. He was you know ill. And then he died there also. Even when he went there, till he died, they didn't see him and they didn't care about it really.”

Kissinger’s exact words were: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

Indeed another one of the many truths that deny the altruistic image of American foreign relations.

In 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini because the people of Iran opposed the foreign influence in Iran that the Shah supported and because of the violence of the Shah’s rule. The Shah was essentially an American puppet dictator and had been advised by American economic advisors to borrow heavily on oil futures in order to build infrastructure to benefit American companies. When the price of oil dropped Iran’s economy was in ruins; the people revolted and supported the Ayatollah.

Actually, it would not be right to call the Shah a puppet of America, it was more complicated then that. The Shah had significant influence over American policy in the Middle East as well. The relationship was more of a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby the Shah and American leadership cooperated to strengthen their combined influence in the region. The Shah was certainly part of a much larger plan for American domination in the Persian Gulf. The way it really worked though was that the Shah’s desires were supported by the United States as long as he agreed to lookout for American oil interests. So really, the Shah did not do America’s bidding, American leaders did the Shah’s bidding. He wasn’t so much puppeted by America as he was propped up.

During the Shah’s rule his CIA trained SAVAK military police force used torture and brutality to protect the authority of the Shah and to dispose of his political opponents. Amnesty International ranked the Shah’s regime as one of the most brutal in the world during the late 1970s.

That same year, 1979, Saddam became president of Iraq and he sensed opportunity with the fall of the Shah. The CIA was not prepared to the fall of the Shah and they had no contingency plan for this event. The feeling of the CIA was that the Shah was too powerful and that were was no way he could fall. In many ways they thought that the Shah was as powerful then as many people felt that Saddam was during the 1990s, and for many of the same reasons. When Khomeini took control American leadership was in a state of shock. It’s arguable that the fall of the Shah was the most sever blow to American covert operations in history.

In 1980 the Carter Doctrine was established when President Carter proclaimed that, “An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

This statement was made in reference to the recent revolution in Iran. The US sought to prevent Soviet influence on the revolutionary country. The statement was primarily addressed to Russia, but it generally applied to anyone, and still does. The issue is that the entire American way of life in totally dependant on the Persian Gulf oil supplies, and as such America leaders have made it clear that anything that threatens the American hold on that region is seen as a direct attack on America.

In 1982 Iraq was removed from the American list of terrorist nations and arms sales and military aid to Iraq commenced.

Many American companies immediately took a strong interest in Iraq when relations were restored with Iraq, primarily oil companies but also technology and weapons companies. Mobil Oil was directly involved in high-level talks with Iraq and Saddam. They were forming strong economic ties with the Saddam regime.

Throughout the 1980s America sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, but primarily to Iraq. Oliver North told the Iranians that America would support the Iranians in overthrowing Saddam Hussein. At the same time we were telling Saddam that we would support him in taking land in Iran.

Like many other issues, this is a book in itself. What is important about the Iran/Iraq war, and the American involvement in it, is that arms sales from America to Iraq increased dramatically, which is not something that was done by the government it was done by private American corporations with the approval of the government. Donald Rumsfeld was called in as an independent advisor in the affair and to access the Iraqi regime as a potential client for the sale weapons. After Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam the US increased its military assistance to Iraq, including providing Iraq with material needed for biological weapons programs.

The reason that these weapons of mass destruction were sold to Iraq was because Iran had a much larger force then Iraq did and the US wanted to make sure that Iraq would be able to at least defend itself from Iranian counter attack. For this purpose the biological and chemical weapons programs were supported in Iraq by America.

Some inside Iraq were opposed to Iraqi entry into a war with Iran. America courted Saddam’s interest in invading Iran. Saddam had those Iraqis that opposed the war killed. The CIA was of course aware of this and continued to support Saddam. The CIA cooperated with Saddam by providing intelligence information to Iraq on Iranian forces.

Some of this information turned out to be incorrect and Iraq ended up in a difficult war that it was not capable of winning. Upon entry into war with Iran Iraq was advised by American and Israeli officials that a quick land grab of the waterway that Saddam had previously ceded to Iran, as well as some of its western oil fields, would be a relatively simple and safe matter. This was proven to be disastrously wrong.

During the Iran/Iraq war Saddam’s forces were engaged in chemical warfare in the region of northern Iraq, Kurdish territory. Iran was using chemical weapons in that region as well. Saddam authorized the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish cities that had been invaded by Iranian forces.

When the Iranians invaded northern Iraq the Kurds joined forces with the Iranians to fight the Iraqi forces. The Iranians and Kurds were entrenched in defensive positions within the cities so Saddam authorized the use of chemical weapons in order to flush them out.

Iran and Iraq both used chemical weapons during these battles and the Reagan administration initially found that the death of the Kurds was the result of Iranian chemical attacks, not Iraqi attacks. That position was changed when Bush was pushing for war on Iraq under the Desert Storm campaign.

In 1987 an Iraqi Exocet missile hit the USS Stark, an American Destroyer, killing 37 crewmembers. This act was dismissed as an accident and was actually used to twist the situation to allow American forces to enter the war in limited engagement on the side of Iraq. The general logic was that the war between Iran and Iraq was getting out of control and needed a quick resolution.

American forces then attacked and destroyed Iranian oil platforms and patrol boats.

In 1988 American forces shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft killing 290 civilians. The incident is classified as an accident but Iranians were certainly not happy about it.

Due in part to increasing American intervention in the war on the side of Iraq, Iran soon decided to negotiate a peace agreement.

As I said, the Iran/Iraq war and the American involvement in that war is a matter that requires volumes to cover, so I will not cover it in sufficient detail here. It is an important matter though that led up to the current situation in Iraq. An important aspect of American involvement in the war is that most of the involvement was covert, and actually illegal, which is where the Iran/Contra scandal comes into play.

By the end of the Iran/Iraq war there was heavy international interest in Iraq. Saddam was being given huge loans by America and other countries to fund the war which were used to buy weapons from a variety of sources including, British, German, French, Russian, American, Israeli, and just about anyone else that wanted to make some money.

It is important to note that many glowing remarks were made about Saddam and Iraq during the 1980s. Political leaders and businessmen alike fell in love with Saddam and talked of his wonderful leadership and importance as an American ally.

Some of Saddam’s biggest American political supporters during the 1980s were Senators Alan Simpson and Bob Dole. During the 1980s Simpson and Dole met with Iraqi officials in efforts to secure lucrative business and farm deals.

Republican Senator Alan Simpson told Saddam in 1991 that, "I believe that your problems lie with the Western media, and not with the U.S. government. As long as you are isolated from the media, the press and it is a haughty and pampered press they all consider themselves political geniuses. That is, the journalists do. They are very cynical. What I advise is that you invite them to come and see for themselves."

In 1995 former CDC Director David Satcher wrote a letter to Senator Donald Riegle stating that the U.S. Government had provided approximately two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraq in 1985. The samples included plague, botulism, and anthrax. The letter also stated that an Iraqi scientist had received three months of training by the CDC on how to culture these materials.

In1990 Iraq attempted to purchase American equipment that is used for making nuclear bombs. A US Customs sting operation discovered the illegal purchases, and the parts never made it to Iraq. I do not have information on what happened to the Americans who were arranging to sell him the equipment.

Even after this though several Republican officials still viewed Saddam as a valuable American asset in the Middle East, that is, until he invaded Kuwait.

For more on the Iran/Iraq war see:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html

The invasion of Kuwait

After the resolution of the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was in sever debt. This debt was undoubtedly a major motivating factor in Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait.

What’s important to understand about Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait is that right up to the invasion American leadership was giving him every sign that he was an American golden child. That’s what American Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie essentially told Saddam, that, “We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

There is more to this statement then what appears on the surface though. April had never met Saddam before, and when she was called by Saddam to meet she had apparently not been given any specific advice by Washington on the matter. She was basically giving the Washington party line on the matter, but that is significant in and of itself. April was made into a scapegoat on the matter of the American attitude towards Iraq prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Basically leaders like Bush and Cheney took the position that those statements did not properly reflect the American position.

Well, if that is the case then it’s their job to make sure that our Ambassadors are knowledgeable of the American position in matters of such critical importance. Tensions in the area were well known, any Ambassador would have been properly advised as to what to tell Saddam had the administration wanted to make sure a message that properly conveyed the intent of the administration would be given to Saddam. In other words, its not April’s fault, it’s the fault of the administration that this is what Saddam was told.

Other actions of the Bush administration after the invasion of Kuwait make a strong case that Saddam was baited into the invasion of Kuwait on purpose in order to give he Bush administration an excuse to use military force against Iraq, which had become a growing power in the Middle East through US assistance.

After the invasion of Kuwait there was a strong opinion in the intelligence community, as well as the Middle Eastern community, that the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam should be handled in an Arab context, not by Western powers. The Saudi defense minister noted immediately that the Kuwaiti situation should be handled by the Arab community and was against foreign intervention.

A proposal was quickly put forward by the Saudis that could have produced a peaceful withdrawal of Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. The proposal was for Kuwait to allow Iraq to remove two Kuwaiti islands that were blocking the entrance to Iraq’s seaport. The islands were barren islands that were owned by Kuwait; they did nothing for Kuwait and they blocked the precious little access that Iraq had to the sea.

The proposal was seen as a face saving measure for Saddam that would allow him to withdraw from Kuwait and still declare a victory. At the same time the action would have provided assistance to the Iraqi economy.

The opinion of James Adkins, attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from1963-1965 and later U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was that the Bush administration, most likely President Bush himself, placed a call to King Fahd advising him to have the Saudi Sultan withdraw his suggestion.

This was done and the Sultan made no more public statements on the matter.

The reasoning behind this was that the Bush administration wanted the war to go forward. In fact there were several indications that Saddam was going to pull out of Kuwait without a fight. There were several offers for conditional withdrawal, which were rejected by the United States.

Once the plans for war were underway every action was taken to make sure that Saddam would not commit a peaceful withdrawal so that military action would be able to go forward.

Saddam is definitely to blame here though. Saddam could have withdrawn from Kuwait at any time and spared the attack. Of course he felt that he could not do it unless he got something out of the deal, which America was justifiably not going to let happen.

Basically, America had been looking for a good excuse to gain a stronger military presence in the Middle East for 50 years and this was the perfect excuse, the Bush administration wasn’t going to let it slip away. At the same time, it was in the interest of all of the developed world, and much of the Arab world, not to let Iraq become any stronger, which is why a coalition was able to be put together, basically everyone wanted to keep Iraq down.

Essentially, Iraq was becoming too powerful. Despite its setbacks during the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was still a “well run” and progressive country in 1990. The Iraqi people were well educated, healthcare was good, and the military strength of Iraq was still strong. On top of that the Bush administration was well aware of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programs because America was partly responsible for the development of the Iraqi weapons programs.

Because of all these factors, the Bush administration was intent on being able to destroy Iraqi infrastructure as well as significantly hurting the Iraqi military in such a way that Iraq would be greatly set back developmentally so that Iraq would not be able to become increasingly successful, at least not under Saddam.

There was no attempt to overthrow Saddam at the time because it was felt that it may destabilize the region, and because there had not been enough time to put together a satisfactory replacement government. There were many other political issues involved as well, such as George Bush’s fear that American casualties in a push towards Baghdad would lower his popularity rating and hurt his chances at re-election.

That’s all I’m going to cover directly on Iraqi history because the rest is present information that can be readily obtained through the internet or other information sources, and because like many other issues that I have glossed over, it would require a book to do the issue justice.

Here are a few key links on the Iraqi situation:

A number of high quality interviews with people very close to the Iraqi situation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/

The CIA in Kurdistan:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm

Iraqi Heads of State:

http://home.achilles.net/~sal/Iq_rulers.html

Iraqi timeline:

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html

Communism in Iraq

What is a significant, and mostly overlooked, aspect of the Iraqi political landscape is the relatively strong revolutionary communist parties in Iraq. As one of the most highly educated countries in the Middle East Iraq has been a breeding ground for Marxists since the days of Kassem.

I believe that one of the major, and unspoken, elements of American policy towards Iraq is, and has been, that the last thing that America wants is a natural regime change in Iraq that comes from within the Iraqi borders, because there is a significant chance that regime change could mean the formation of a Democratic Communist government in Iraq.

Saddam has been wary of this as well, and it is one reason that he changed from his secular approach to government to one that supported fundamentalist Islam.

Iraq has traditionally been one of the most, if not the most, secular country in the Middle East. This is one reason that Ossama Bin Laden has been largely at odds with Iraq and Saddam over the years.

Some of the most advanced opposition groups to Saddam’s rule are now the communist parties of Iraq. You never hear anything about this in American coverage though. Certainly no one wants to give the impression that we are going to Iraq to potentially liberate communists.

A primary, and unspoken, issue that America has with Kurdish support is that there are significant communist factions within the Kurdish people. Kurdish communist ideas come in a variety of flavors, from Secular Democratic Marxist Communism, to Maoist Theocratic Communism, and pretty much everything in between. To a large degree though many of the democratic ideas present in the Kurdish ranks come not from American role models, but from Marxism.

This is one of the reasons why America’s support of the Kurds has been dubious.

This is also, I believe, “a” reason why the Bush administration and the PNAC, have decided to take a leading role in the transformation of Iraq. They want to make sure that the new Iraqi government is formed to fit Americans ideals, not Communist ideals.

In many ways, Iraq is the Germany of the Middle East. Those who understand German history will know what I mean. Prior to WWII it was apparent that Germany was the key to Europe. If Germany went Communist, then it was likely that all of Europe would have been swept with a wave of Communism. If Germany went fascist it was felt that Europe would go fascist, which it did try to do.

I think that there is an element of the same fear here. Iraq is certainly a key to the Middle East, at least it was prior to Desert Storm, but it still is.

Now that Iraq has been trampled by 12 years of sanctions Iraq is in the position that Cuba was in when Castro took control of Cuba, with nowhere to go but up. This means that if a democratic communist party took a significant role in Iraq with the fall of Saddam that America could be looking at a new rise of communism.

Of course many will say that this is doubtful and that I’m stretching here. Possibly, secular communism would certainly have a hard time against the rising Islamic tides in the Middle East, but a religiously tolerant communist system really would not have a hard time.

What is even more important about this is that the Kurds represent a significant population in Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. The rise of Kurdish political power is seen by Turkey at least as a threat to its own interests, and as an ally of the United States Turkey’s interests in the Kurdish situation have always been taken into consideration in America’s dealing with the Kurds.

What is more important is that if a democratic communist Kurdistan were to develop, its likely that a rising tide of communism would become significant in Syria and Turkey.

So, I believe that the Bush administration, and anyone else who is anti-communist but actually savvy in Middle Eastern politics, has an interest in America taking a hand in shaping the new Iraqi regime. This means of course that the Iraqis won’t be left to develop their own system, and that it’s likely that America will continue to play a significant role in the Iraqi political system for years to come. It’s also likely that there will be significant anti-communist actions taking place in Iraq once American regime change takes place. This is a reason why many Iraqis are not fond of American involvement and want America to leave immediately. Not just because of communism, but also those that are Islamic fundamentalists. Both know that America will not represent their desires.

What is likely to make a resolution of the political situation difficult in Iraq is that we now have basically 30 years of pent up political oppression in Iraq. This means that many radically different groups are waiting for their chance to make their impact and have their say. It’s not likely that America will entertain these notions. I think that anyone can guess how much of a fair treatment America will give to Communist Party leaders during new government establishment and reforms processes.

Of course Islamic Fundamentalism is also something that American policy makers want to make sure does not work its way into a new Iraqi government, but Islamic Fundamentalism is not as strong in Iraq as it is in other Middle Eastern regions, though it is still a significant political force in Iraq.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Tricky,
Could you please back up your statement that the US brought Saddam to power.
Okay, perhaps "brought Saddam to power" is incorrect. "Increased his power" is probably more accurate, and for this, there are numerous sources. A quick Google on "US supported Saddam" got 300 hits. Here's a sample (http://indy.pabn.org/archives/204bushs.shtml)
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. There is no question about that. However, the U.S. has never dictated its policies towards Saddam based on his atrocities. Actually, the U.S. supported Saddam through his worst atrocities. Saddam and the U.S. were wonderful trading partners during the 1980s. During this time, Saddam carried out his worst crime of gassing of the Kurds in 1988 with the chemical weapons that we sold him.

How did the U.S. respond to this atrocity? The U.S. increased its support for Saddam through subsidized agricultural exports to his country.
Another take:
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/leopold/030317_PresBushRemindsWorld.htm

[davefoc]

Malachi151,
With all due respect, I wish you would consider the possibility that excessively long posts that are at best vaguely related to the topic are not useful. I doubt that even one in ten of the people that have looked at this thread have read even a few paragraphs of your posts.

[DialecticMaterialist]

AUP is obviously anti-america. He seems to think everything wrong in the world is due to some sort of US involvement. He may give some lip service to the US when called out on his attitude, just as many fundies give lip service to Church-state separation when pressed but after reading a few of his posts about "cowardly US soldiers" and such its rather obvious. Maybe it's not due to jealousy as much as ideological commitments but he's still anti-america.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by davefoc
Malachi151,
With all due respect, I wish you would consider the possibility that excessively long posts that are at best vaguely related to the topic are not useful. I doubt that even one in ten of the people that have looked at this thread have read even a few paragraphs of your posts.


Ditto. Well, there was a joke about Marxists in the law school: " You say hello to a marxist and he must compose a thesis in order to reply " ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
AUP is obviously anti-america. He seems to think everything wrong in the world is due to some sort of US involvement. He may give some lip service to the US when called out on his attitude, just as many fundies give lip service to Church-state separation when pressed but after reading a few of his posts about "cowardly US soldiers" and such its rather obvious. Maybe it's not due to jealousy as much as ideological commitments but he's still anti-america.
While you could justifiably catagorize most of AUPs positions as against American policy, I don't think you can call him anti-American, as he has shown great restraint in replying to what have been blatent attempts at character assasination by some of the Americans here.

There may be an "us versus them" situation going on here, but I don't think you could call AUP the worst offender in that respect.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Ditto. Well, there was a joke about Marxists in the law school: " You say hello to a marxist and he must compose a thesis in order to reply " ;)

:D

Well, the fact is that its impossible to understand a sitution when looking at selected facts in isolation. When seen in context they are easier to understand and more useful as well. The worst part about discussions on the internet, or in person for that matter, is the level of ignorance. Its impossible to have a discussion if people are not aware of the facts. The only solution then is to present the facts. If people wish to igrone the facts then that's there problem.

If people don't want to read it and gain understanding thats thier choice. I went back and highlighted the most relevent information to make it easier for people.

It's not easy dispelling the American civil religion afterall ;)

[thaiboxerken]

I'm very much aware that the USA had and has shady policies towards other countries. Heck, I have a friend that is a merc and knows much about this stuff.

I guess our government feels it knows best, falsely. Isn't there a law that says all government policies should be public? I guess that doesn't apply to anything labelled military though. Dunno how to really solve that problem. With much power, comes much corruption and the USA is no exception.

Doesn't bother me too much, as long as I can reach my million dollar goal.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Are you, too, annoyed at the fact that AUP manages to turn EVERYTHING--including a discussion about the increased rainfall in the Mississippi river--into some sort of weird "criticism" of the United States and its alleged behavior?Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The solution is simple: give him a green card!

Why?

Well, it is true that, contrary to popular American belief, many people in the world do not with to become Americans, and are not American patriots, but partriots of their own countries--yes, despite the fact that they are poorer places that lack cable TV.

But such people do not go on the internet to criticize and belittle anything and everything the US does. They might have SPECIFIC criticisms, but that's something else.

When someone rants against the US like AUP does--criticising everything and anything about it with cynical innuendo--it is usually something else: jealousy. Ahhh. You are once again hampered by your arrogance, your lack of knowledge about the world, and your wish for easy answers. Grow up, get an education, and then we can talk.
AUP is jealous of the fact that the US is powerful and rich, as his posts obviously show--and above all, about the fact that this powerful and rich country DARED not to ask HIM what to do, for some strange reason.Fascinating. Are you psychic?
As long as AUP is jealous of Americans, he will keep annoying us. If, however, he was to become one (or at least a permanent resident) his jealousy will of course subside, having got what he wanted, and he'll stop annoying us... Is AUP annoying you? Auhhh, poor baby. Bad, bad AUP. :rolleyes:

To my knowledge AUP makes arguments for his position. They may be well founded or not. If they aren't, they can be demolished.

Demolish them, Skeptic, or get out. Whining is for pre-pubescents.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Skeptic:Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In AUP case, it's an agenda he is proven wrong on many arguments and then uses the same deflated arguments in another thread.


Ahhh. You are once again hampered by your arrogance, your lack of knowledge about the world, and your wish for easy answers. Grow up, get an education, and then we can talk.

If you disagree with his comment then provide a logical counter argument.


Is AUP annoying you? Auhhh, poor baby. Bad, bad AUP. :rolleyes:

To my knowledge AUP makes arguments for his position. They may be well founded or not. If they aren't, they can be demolished.

They are generally demolished but hearing the same deflated arguments repeatedly can be tiresome.


Demolish them, Skeptic, or get out. Whining is for pre-pubescents.

Its not whining he is just giving his honest opinion.

[DanishDynamite]

Baker:In AUP case, it's an agenda he is proven wrong on many arguments and then uses the same deflated arguments in another thread.If this is the case, this would be a mark against AUP. Do you have examples handy?
If you disagree with his comment then provide a logical counter argument.A counter argument to what? Skeptic's determination that AUP must be jealous of the US because he critisizes various US policies? Who cares why AUP makes the arguments he does. I refer you to the "Are you Russian, Victor?" thread.
They are generally demolished but hearing the same deflated arguments repeatedly can be tiresome.Indeed, hearing the same old arguments from shanek or from the religious right can be tiresome. So what?
Its not whining he is just giving his honest opinion. His honest opinion, in this case, is indistinguishable from whining.

[schplurg]

Briefly:

I think threads such as this one and many of the "JK" threads are in poor taste and are usually more telling of the person starting the thread than the person in question. This belongs in a different section of the board, if anywhere at all. It is quite simple to use the ignore feature to tune out a poster that one does not like, or Private Message them, rather than to try and convince the rest of us that your views on said person are correct and that we should dislike him/her as well. In fact, in reading stupid threads such as this one I usually find that many people who would normally agree with the views of the poster end up defending the person being criticized instead.

I don't feel it proper to attack someone in a thread like this, but I'll say this much: I disagree with a lot of posters, and quite often with the man in question here. That's one reason I'm here. Whether or not someone is anti-American is irrelevant to me, although I'll admit that sometimes my initial reaction to a post is a roll-of-the-eyes or a "here we go again". But I always have to think carefully when I choose to reply because there is quite often some truth in what is said.

I think AUP is one of the more intelligent and polite posters here, whether or not I agree with him. Why am I talking as if he wasn't in the room? AUP...yer cool and you have a good sense of humor that I think blows right by some people (not that my opinion matters). Maybe one day I'll piss-off someone enough to start a thread about me, I feel so "unknown" :(

So what exactly is the point of this thread, if not to flame? I think it should be moved.

[davefoc]

schplurg,
I think there is something to what you say, but in some sense by not putting this thread in banter or the like it was more likely to be a little more serious discussion of what people thought of one of our more erudite and more controversial posters.

I recently posted a thread bashing the Democrats for some of California's problems. I knew the topic belonged in politics and current events but I didn't feel like writing a fair, well documented lead in to the thread and was more in the mood to just take a stream of conciousness rip at the situation which I decided was more approriate to banter. I think Skeptic, by posting a topic that might normally go in to banter in P&CE was hoping to accomplish the opposite.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If this is the case, this would be a mark against AUP. Do you have examples handy?


renata covered it well in another thread.

Originally posted by renata



AUP is a person who thinks Holocaust was "overdone" ( he apologized for that word later, he just meant it was exploited and abused for Israel's gain, and that it was no big deal, anyway).

He is also someone who makes the same accusations against Israel over and over even after others have refuted them. He does not answer the refutation, he goes on to post them elsewhere, a tad later. One example is the "Arabs are not allowed to buy land in Israel" Electrix corrected him on one thread, and he never responded to her after she posted at least 3 additional posts over the next few days.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18464&perpage=40&pagenumber=3 That did not stop him from posting the same assertion in another thread later. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19826&perpage=40&pagenumber=2 When I reminded him about that, he said he was reasearching the issue, which apparently does not stop him from posting previously refuted statements. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19510&perpage=40&pagenumber=2


In another such thing he did in this very thread, is this "Israel targets reporters". Skeptic posted an analyisis here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=377909&highlight=reporter#post377909 Of course, AUP went on to make the claim elsewhere, entirely disregarding what he read.


Some people listen to others and reassess their assumptions. AUP just posts the same old refuted claims. The favorite things I saw so far, in addition to what I mentioned above
Jews use Holocaust to get money out of non Jews and blackmail countries to support Israel
Sharon had a big smile when he went on the Wailing Wall anticipating deaths of thousands
Sharon wants to annex all Palestinian territories and wipe out the Palestinians
Israel is stealing water from Palestinians
US army is either poor starving people forced to war or blood thirsty war criminals- whichever article he stumbled on that day.

There are many others. His posts are quite boringly predictable.

Here is a thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464 in which he is unable to admit that if a book is promoted on Neo Nazi and Holocaust denying sites and crititicized in the media, perhaps the book is a little skewed. It is like relying on "Critical examination of Psychics" if it was endorsed and promoted by John Edward and Sylvia Browne. One would think some alarm bells would ring.



A counter argument to what? Skeptic's determination that AUP must be jealous of the US because he critisizes various US policies? Who cares why AUP makes the arguments he does. I refer you to the "Are you Russian, Victor?" thread.

Being an American and constantly hearing someone criticize and belittle anything and everything the US does has a way of upsetting most Americans.


Indeed, hearing the same old arguments from shanek or from the religious right can be tiresome. So what?


So it does give justification for complaining about it.


His honest opinion, in this case, is indistinguishable from whining.

There is still allot truth in his whining.

[Skeptic]

Who's whining? I'm MAKING FUN of AUP.

I'm certainly not asking anybody to ban him, censor him or otherwise limit his rights to expression on this forum. I never claimed AUP did anything to violate forum rules. Nor am I claiming that he somehow hurt my feelings or caused me any harm.

Sheesh!

All I'm saying is that he's a predictable idiot with only two settings: one is "America is bad. America is bad. America is bad. America is...", and the other is "the jews are evil, the jews are evil, the jews are...".

I'd say there's more than enough evidence to prove this claim, despite his protestations and insulted posts to the contrary. I don't see how telling the truth about AUP is "whining".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But AUP, I beleive, is saying he is sad that Iraq had become a country not worth fighting for.

Nah. He's just pissed that the Iraqi Army didn't kill more Americans.


No, Tricky got it right.

[Baker]

Originally posted by schplurg
I think AUP is one of the more intelligent and polite posters

You haven’t read many of AUP post have you.
Some of his post appears intelligent until you realize there or no facts behind them.
Don’t get me wrong you have a right to your opinion I think Hal put it well when he said these are some interesting points about opinion, disagreement.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh yes, AUP is one bloodthirsty individual. :rolleyes:

You must have missed his post about supporting the destruction of israel and the genocide of the jews there--and then claiming it isn't antisemitism, because he only supports the butchery of jews "within a strictly limited geographical area".

Sounds rather bloodthirsty to me...

I have never advocated such a thing.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Who's whining? I'm MAKING FUN of AUP.
All I'm saying is that he's a predictable idiot with only two settings: one is "America is bad. America is bad. America is bad. America is...", and the other is "the jews are evil, the jews are evil, the jews are...".


MAYBE
All I'm saying is that he's a predictable idiot with only two settings: one is "America is bad. America is bad. America is bad. America is...", and the other is "the jews are evil, the jews are evil, the jews are...".
PLUS
All I'm saying is that he's a predictable idiot with only two settings: one is "America is faultless. America is faultless. America is faultless. America is...", and the other is "the muslims are evil, the muslims are evil, the muslims are...".
EQUALS ZERO?

maybe A_U_P's contributions simply cancel out yours eh? The cosmic balance is preserved?

Or maybe you could prove me wrong one day?

[davefoc]

Skeptic said:
All I'm saying is that he's a predictable idiot with only two settings: one is "America is bad. America is bad. America is bad. America is...", and the other is "the jews are evil, the jews are evil, the jews are...".

Hmm, I may not have been entirely correct about Skeptic's intentions for the thread.

As to the Jews are evil part, I was accused by Skeptic of being anti-semitic when I wrote in another thread that I thought the US favored Israel too much in the Israel/Palestininian disputes. IMHO Skeptic is too quick to see anti-Jew in people that are merely opposed to some of Israel's policies. I think the anti-Jew comment is a serious charge and I don't believe it for an instant concerning AUP.

I thought the Renata post quoted by Baker offered some reasonable criticism that might have some validity. However in her first statement that AUP underestimated the consequences of the holocaust or perhaps was unsympathetic to the people who had endured the holocaust. I don't believe it for a second. AUP strikes me as a bleeding heart liberal who is at least as sympathetic to the plight of the suffering as any conservative. I believe that the discussion that led to this statement was comparing the WWII holocaust with other mass murders in history and the point AUP was making was that there are other mass murders that have resulted in the deaths of more people. Never once did I think he was saying that the holocaust didn't happen or that it wasn't a terrible thing.

As to the America is bad comment and to those of you who have accused AUP of being Anti-American, I also don't believe that. I believe AUP is opposed to a lot of American policies and is often quick to point out evidence that supports his views on this. It might be nice if every now and then he sought out a little pro-American subject and started a thread or two on it, but I don't think it's fair to criticize him for not doing that. I'm sure that he feels that point of view is adequately put forth by others.

Actually I kind of like this idea, how about it AUP, a thread with a pro-America subject? I'm just smiling thinking about you gritting your teeth as you post it. Come on, there's at least one in you, I know it. Whoa, I might be nuts here, but why don't you go for broke, how about a pro-Israel thread?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by schplurg
I think AUP is one of the more intelligent and polite posters
Originally posted by Baker


You haven’t read many of AUP post have you.
Some of his post appears intelligent until you realize there or no facts behind them.
Don’t get me wrong you have a right to your opinion I think Hal put it well when he said these are some interesting points about opinion, disagreement.
"Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here. Each person presents their links, evidence and viewpoints. What any of us accept as "facts" depends largely on what we accept as reliable sources. However, AUP has defended his position without much rancor towards any other posters. The same cannot be said of Skeptic (the originator of this thread intended to flame AUP). Sarcasm, I regard as a legitimate tool of debate, especially if done well. Character assasination is not. While I don't agree with Unique on some issues, I have to say he has not strayed from addressing those issues in order to point out how so-and-so has been a constant whiner.

I challenge you to find a thread started by AUP to complain about another poster. Who then is the aggrieved party?

[renata]

Tricky, I disagree on one point. AUP has flamed me before, although he did not start a thread on it. Furthermore, on my Conversation thread- the one in which I specifically requested no personal attacks he attacked DrBenway in quite a personal manner- the first flame on the thread. After my request, he deleted the flames. However, a few days after he resumed.

So AUP is not quite an innocent in flame wars, you see.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
Tricky, I disagree on one point. AUP has flamed me before, although he did not start a thread on it. Furthermore, on my Conversation thread- the one in which I specifically requested no personal attacks he attacked DrBenway in quite a personal manner- the first flame on the thread. After my request, he deleted the flames. However, a few days after he resumed.

So AUP is not quite an innocent in flame wars, you see.

i deleted the first one as requested. It was in response to a particulaly offensive suggestion that the Palestinians were engaged in an act of self-genocide.

The others were when it had already gone into flame mode, at least from my point of view. Baker, for example.

however, you are correct, I have been known to lose my patience, although I do not try to set out to do so.

Perhaps another point worth raising, an aspect of my personality that has been known to annoy my wife from time to time.

I am a problem solving addict. My work in computers provides me with a good outlet for this addiction, as they seem to produce no end of problems. However, work has been a little slow lately, and the Israel/Palestine problem has given me an alternative to gnaw away at. However, the deeper I delve into it, the deeper the problem gets.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i deleted the first one as requested. It was in response to a particulaly offensive suggestion that the Palestinians were engaged in an act of self-genocide.

The others were when it had already gone into flame mode, at least from my point of view. Baker, for example.


I said you deleted your first flame at my request. I fully reckognize other posters who flamed- that is why I posted a request to keep it civil on several occasions. I was very displeased with ALL flamers- could you not have done it elsewhere? The one thread in which I specifically requested civility had to go the way of all others. I pretty much gave up on that project then- luckily some other posters continued in good faith.

[tamiO]

Everyone! To the back of the plane ! Now !

...oh, nm. wrong thread.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by renata
Tricky, I disagree on one point. AUP has flamed me before, although he did not start a thread on it. Furthermore, on my Conversation thread- the one in which I specifically requested no personal attacks he attacked DrBenway in quite a personal manner- the first flame on the thread. After my request, he deleted the flames. However, a few days after he resumed.

So AUP is not quite an innocent in flame wars, you see.
I realize that you cannot make links to the posts he deleted, but could you link the "resumed" flames?. I know AUP is a bit impetuous, but he does back off (as his post shows). I don't read every thread, so if I am wrong in defending him, I would like to know where.

If he has actually flamed you, Renata, then he is an idiot of the first water, and does not deserve to show his face in public.

[Baker]

Originally posted by davefoc
I thought the Renata post quoted by Baker offered some reasonable criticism that might have some validity. However in her first statement that AUP underestimated the consequences of the holocaust or perhaps was unsympathetic to the people who had endured the holocaust. I don't believe it for a second. AUP strikes me as a bleeding heart liberal who is at least as sympathetic to the plight of the suffering as any conservative. I believe that the discussion that led to this statement was comparing the WWII holocaust with other mass murders in history and the point AUP was making was that there are other mass murders that have resulted in the deaths of more people. Never once did I think he was saying that the holocaust didn't happen or that it wasn't a terrible thing.


I have to disagree I got the same impression that renata got that he thinks Holocaust was overdone look at the comments he made in this thread.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464


http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/revie...view.holocaust/


Sharp. Savage. Ruthless.

That and more describes Norman G. Finkelstein’s attack on the ideological movement he terms "The Holocaust Industry," a term he uses for his book’s title. It’s a small book, but it’s causing a lot of problems for a lot of entrenched interests, and it’s sure to create many more in the future, difficulties Finkelstein, a leftist professor at City University of New York and relentless critic of Israel, may have not even imagined.



http://www.houstonreview.com/articl...gHolocaust.html

reviews that do not totally endorse the book, yet achknowledge that the holocaust industry is not beyond criticism.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/02/books-goldin.php

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=378168#post378168



you have to wonder how much trouble is being caused by a few woo woos who insist on 'settling' a country that is not theirs. Most of those evil, horrible, big nosed, blood eating jews don't even think they should be there. There is a new conservative party formed in Israel for conservative Jews to be able to vote to stop forming co-alitions with these morons.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=382502#post382502


As I have said already, drop the ad hominems. You note the irony in that if these guys are praising the book, it also starts on the assumption that there was a holocaust, which is one of the main points they wish to dispute. one of the reasons I find this book interesting is that it does mention that there were [i]other/i] victims of Hitler. The Jews do not 'own' the holocaust. they share the tragedy.
It is not whether or not there was a holocaust. It is what has happened to the legacy of the holocaust. Has it been immorally hijacked for other purposes.

If I was a real racist, I would have the attitude that others appear to have that Jews are beyond criticism. I certainly don't have that attitude about my country, my race, or anthing else.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=382511#post382511

[renata]

Originally posted by Tricky

I realize that you cannot make links to the posts he deleted, but could you link the "resumed" flames?. I know AUP is a bit impetuous, but he does back off (as his post shows). I don't read every thread, so if I am wrong in defending him, I would like to know where.

If he has actually flamed you, Renata, then he is an idiot of the first water, and does not deserve to show his face in public.


Love you too, Tricky ( that avatar! *swoon*) :)

The flame at me was not in that thread, it was elsewhere, and I am not sure I can find it now. The flames in general in the Conversation thread are located on pages ( is now a bad time to confess I can't link directly to posts in a thread?)

My request to delete his original flames was posted 4/30. Then some aggressive posts from AUP on 5/1, 5/6, 5/7, 5/8, 5/10

Not all of them are outright "flame" posts, like the one he deleted- some are attacks on Israel. However, all violated the spirit of the thread, which was supposed to be low on propagande and vitriol, and high on calm exchange of ideas. What a fool I was, eh? All sides violated the original idea in one way or another.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18464

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky


"Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here. Each person presents their links, evidence and viewpoints. What any of us accept as "facts" depends largely on what we accept as reliable sources. However, AUP has defended his position without much rancor towards any other posters. The same cannot be said of Skeptic (the originator of this thread intended to flame AUP). Sarcasm, I regard as a legitimate tool of debate, especially if done well. Character assasination is not. While I don't agree with Unique on some issues, I have to say he has not strayed from addressing those issues in order to point out how so-and-so has been a constant whiner.

I challenge you to find a thread started by AUP to complain about another poster. Who then is the aggrieved party?

Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here??
Tricky you are supposed to be a skeptic that would mean your debates with Edge is just a matter of opinion.
AUP’s ability to make same accusations over and over even after others have refuted them proves he is an out right liar that is the problem most of us have with him.

[davefoc]

Baker said:
I have to disagree I got the same impression that renata got that he thinks Holocaust was overdone look at the comments he made in this thread.
I stand corrected. I was confused about the thread that the statement at issue was posted.

AUP said:
I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone. because of the holocaust, you can't criticise Israel. etc. And if you read my threads, you will also find I am accused of being anti-american. now, there are many fine, upstanding WASPS in the US as well

Baker, for better or worse, I do not find anything that AUP has said as anti-Jew or anti-semitic. The notion that the holocaust has been overdone in some ways is shared by a great many people. This doesn't mean that they don't sympathize enormously with the people that experienced it and it doesn't mean that they don't think it happened.

I have read through your other AUP quotes and the links.

I will tell you that I have come to like and respect a great many of the posters that are engaged in this conversation and I feel in some ways isolated from them on this issue because I just don't see where they are coming from. Perhaps it is because I share some of AUP's views on these issues and the resulting biases are closing my eyes to the truth. But if there is a more sincere, less racist person on this forum than AUP I haven't seen him.

I agree with Renata and others that he on occasion has engaged in some sarcasm and attacks that seemed counterproductive. OTOH it seems like people have made some pretty unjustified attacks against him at times. Anyway, I'm not going to think about this for awhile. Maybe with a clearer head I will understand your points better tomorrow.

Also, I'm waiting for that pro-Israel thread AUP, I know there's one in you just dieing to get out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baker


Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here??
Tricky you are supposed to be a skeptic that would mean your debates with Edge is just a matter of opinion.
AUP’s ability to make same accusations over and over even after others have refuted them proves he is an out right liar that is the problem most of us have with him.
AUP has provided credible support for his points, as have you. Edge has never done any such thing. To compare AUP with Edge reduces your own credibility, Baker. Please reconsider.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I have to disagree I got the same impression that renata got that he thinks Holocaust was overdone look at the comments he made in this thread.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464





The reference to big nosed jews was a sarcastic reference to my 'anti-semitism', pointing out that although I don't feel too tolerant to the extremist Jews, the moderate majority, who seem to get routinely hijacked by the extremists, were trying to get out of the endless blackmail they are subject to. Conservative Jews formed a political party, that let them hold conservative views, while totally rejecting any deals with the extremists to get into power. A notion the other major parties would do well to consider.

I think I have already stated about 5 times that the word overdone was not appropriate. Hijacked, used immorally, yes. The holocaust stands as one of the great tragedies of history. The point I was arguing was, how is it being treated today?

As for myself, I think that I have already stated that the US is the most powerful country in the world. No matter what country that is, it is going to be in the spotlight. The USSR used to have equal billing, I think, now it's adventurism is pretty well confined to interests close to home, and it's days as a superpower are well and truly over.

I suppose I also hope for something better from the US. For a country that has so much going for it, that has given so much to the world, I can't see that it needs to indulge in the grubby politics that are regularly tarnishing it's image.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

AUP has provided credible support for his points, as have you. Edge has never done any such thing. To compare AUP with Edge reduces your own credibility, Baker. Please reconsider.

I can play guitar much better than him, too.

[shuize]

AUP is harmless for the most part. But after participating in a discussion with him about North Korea, I also came to the conclusion that he is forever anti-American. That discussion concerned North Korea's announcement that it had never kept its bargain with the US to stop producing nuclear weapons in exchange for fuel and a planned reactor to be built later. True to form, AUP managed to argue that the current nuclear crisis was of course America's fault for not building the reactor before the North Koreans broke their agreement.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shuize
AUP is harmless for the most part. But after participating in a discussion with him about North Korea, I also came to the conclusion that he is forever anti-American. That discussion concerned North Korea's announcement that it had never kept its bargain with the US to stop producing nuclear weapons in exchange for fuel and a planned reactor to be built later. True to form, AUP managed to argue that the current nuclear crisis was of course America's fault for not building the reactor before the North Koreans broke their agreement.

What is funny is that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of one of the companies that sold the Nuclear Reactor to North Korea while Clinton was in office. Doh!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tricky

I realize that you cannot make links to the posts he deleted, but could you link the "resumed" flames?. I know AUP is a bit impetuous, but he does back off (as his post shows). I don't read every thread, so if I am wrong in defending him, I would like to know where.

If he has actually flamed you, Renata, then he is an idiot of the first water, and does not deserve to show his face in public.


Tricky.

Now you don't play fair yourself :) In fact you tend to AUP ;)

Let's face it and admit it. Unique's comments hurt people very often. This doesn't make him bad or evil of course at least not as evil as the evil Israelis he describes... but it creates strong feelings....

So listen to what I have decided to do. Every time AUP hits below the belt I will kick him on the face.

Fair enough don't you think?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

AUP has provided credible support for his points, as have you. Edge has never done any such thing. To compare AUP with Edge reduces your own credibility, Baker. Please reconsider.

If AUP has provided credible support for his points is quite questionable.
I was referring to your comment “Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here. Each person presents their links, evidence and viewpoints. What any of us accept as "facts" depends largely on what we accept as reliable sources.”
You appear to be saying what we us accept as facts and evidence depends on or own personal view you could say the same about what Edge considers evidence.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


If AUP has provided credible support for his points is quite questionable.
I was referring to your comment “Facts" are an extremely elusive quality here. Each person presents their links, evidence and viewpoints. What any of us accept as "facts" depends largely on what we accept as reliable sources.”
You appear to be saying what we us accept as facts and evidence depends on or own personal view you could say the same about what Edge considers evidence.

I think the important word in this case is 'here', that is, in the realm of politics. We can get all kinds of scientific facts that can be reproduced and proven independently all around the world. Proving that Arafat is a terrorist or a freedom fighter is always going to be impossible.

[jj]

Originally posted by Sundog


[de-lurk]

No, I am annoyed at neo-Americans like yourself who don't recognize that dissenting voices are essential, and who won't be satisfied until you've run EVERYONE off who disagrees with you.

[lurk]

Well, speaking as an American who's been told to STFU (no, I can't explain that on the board :D ) far too many times lately when pointing out that some statements, actions, and laws passed by my government are completely traitorous according to the US constitution, I tend to agree with you, they'd like to run us all off.

I would say 'where is jedi twit when you need an example' but I also know the idea 'be careful what you wish for'.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by BillyTK
It's a curious logic that those of us who are critical of US policy must be so because we are envious of the US

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'd say it would be a false premise. But, the thread starter made no such claim. What you've created here is a straw-man.

It's not a strawman, as I'm not suggesting that Skeptic did make such a claim. I'm making a general observation about the way anti-amercanism is often construed as simple envy, both from Skeptic's accusation that envy is the basis of AUP's position, and from other comments made in this forum; for instance, here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13915&perpage=40&pagenumber=1). If I am guilty of a logical fallacy it's of the hasty generalisation variety, as I don't really have the inclination comb through the forum to find every single instance which supports my case :p :D

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think the important word in this case is 'here', that is, in the realm of politics. We can get all kinds of scientific facts that can be reproduced and proven independently all around the world. Proving that Arafat is a terrorist or a freedom fighter is always going to be impossible.

What you should be saying is there are scientific facts and there is propaganda you obviously wish for they’re to be no proof of right or wrong to counter any criticism against your claims.
There or clear facts and evidence behind every issue.
I notice most anti-Israel advocates try’s to use the notion that there are no right or wrong just opinions to blind us of the obvious facts.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Sundog

No, I am annoyed at neo-Americans like yourself who don't recognize that dissenting voices are essential, and who won't be satisfied until you've run EVERYONE off who disagrees with you.


So what you are saying is any criticism of your views means we are running you off?