Rynocerous
Blue Belt
Yeah, I know, that is why I posted that originally to make the point that it is nothing new.
Cheers,
Ryan
Cheers,
Ryan
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #23
So, to recap:
1. We dislike the UN because it promotes, "one-worldism," and we have been looking for reasons to justify that dislike. Now that we've found a corruption scandal, we've found reasons.
2. We are only interested in: a) Annan's participation; b) France and Germany's participation; c) the retrospective justification of our current little war in Iraq; d) one last kick in Clinton's ribs. We are not interested in: a) the Bush government's complicity, if any; b) the wackoism and patent bias of the newspaper we're relying on for facts, if any; c) the way that even 21 billion don't add up to much against the present costs of the Iraq War (100 billion and climbing; twice, already, what Bush swore it'd cost altogether); d) Enron, Bechtel, etc. That is, only UN corruption and screwups matter. Everything else is just ordinary business.
3. We see no connection whatsoever between this issue and, say, the continuing export of American wealth, technology, and jobs to countries like COMMUNIST CHINA (caps, to underline what one would think would be an ideological problem of massive proportions), despite the fact that the same push to make money and blow off the consequences drives both events.
4. We are not interested in the equally-good evidence that UN sanctions were working, and we just didn't want to stand around and look wimpy, any more than we wanted to stand around and let those namby-pamby UN weapons inspectors--who, remember, TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT ON THE MONEY--tell us that we had no good reason to invade.
5. We are not willing to consider the extent to which these arguments rely upon creating straw men--in this case, the ridiculous notion that guys on the Left were too stupid, too ideological, too whatever, to realize that some of the UN was run by crooks. Or that We Just Don't Realize That Saddam Hussein Was a Bad Man.
6. Hey, how do we know that Hussein had WMDs? We kept all the receipts. Don't you find it at least a little sleazy that our government, especially under Reagan, propper this guy up, sold him weapons, provided various forms of support, all so we could Get Back at Iran? But hey, THAT strategy really paid off with peace in the region and decreased American involvement, didn't it?
1. We dislike the UN because it promotes, "one-worldism," and we have been looking for reasons to justify that dislike. Now that we've found a corruption scandal, we've found reasons.
2. We are only interested in: a) Annan's participation; b) France and Germany's participation; c) the retrospective justification of our current little war in Iraq; d) one last kick in Clinton's ribs. We are not interested in: a) the Bush government's complicity, if any; b) the wackoism and patent bias of the newspaper we're relying on for facts, if any; c) the way that even 21 billion don't add up to much against the present costs of the Iraq War (100 billion and climbing; twice, already, what Bush swore it'd cost altogether); d) Enron, Bechtel, etc. That is, only UN corruption and screwups matter. Everything else is just ordinary business.
3. We see no connection whatsoever between this issue and, say, the continuing export of American wealth, technology, and jobs to countries like COMMUNIST CHINA (caps, to underline what one would think would be an ideological problem of massive proportions), despite the fact that the same push to make money and blow off the consequences drives both events.
4. We are not interested in the equally-good evidence that UN sanctions were working, and we just didn't want to stand around and look wimpy, any more than we wanted to stand around and let those namby-pamby UN weapons inspectors--who, remember, TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT ON THE MONEY--tell us that we had no good reason to invade.
5. We are not willing to consider the extent to which these arguments rely upon creating straw men--in this case, the ridiculous notion that guys on the Left were too stupid, too ideological, too whatever, to realize that some of the UN was run by crooks. Or that We Just Don't Realize That Saddam Hussein Was a Bad Man.
6. Hey, how do we know that Hussein had WMDs? We kept all the receipts. Don't you find it at least a little sleazy that our government, especially under Reagan, propper this guy up, sold him weapons, provided various forms of support, all so we could Get Back at Iran? But hey, THAT strategy really paid off with peace in the region and decreased American involvement, didn't it?
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Yes, but I cannot be blamed for the sins of my Father.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
I always thought that one of the reasons our forefathers came to this country was exactly that reason...regardless of your countries or your ancestors past you could make a clean start here.
Apparently there is always a way to blame somebody for something...
Apparently there is always a way to blame somebody for something...
Rynocerous
Blue Belt
OH of course! You will always have your scapegoat. You can sit here and point your finger and yell blame at an individual until you are blue in the face. The fact is that it doesn't change the fact that what's done is done. If we make a mistake we need to brush it off, and continue on.
Cheers,
Ryan
Cheers,
Ryan
OP
PeachMonkey
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #27
Rynocerous said:
So much for learning from history, and all that sort of elitist unAmerican claptrap. That's not what we came over here for! Let's just blissfully brush off our mistakes and continue on.
