Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Liberals interested in civil conversation: please watch this, then come back with your comments: www.youtube.com...

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suppose you're trying to infer that it is wrong for Lebanon to defend itself against Israel's invasion too.

Just because you can find one nut that supports your side of the story, doesn't mean squat! Big deal. Women and children are dying because the Bushies and Israelis think they're doing the world a big favor.

Anonymous said...

That sure sounds like someone who was glued to his television for the 60 Minutes interview with the president of Iran (obviously, your hero).

Tracy said...

It's hard to even take the first comment seriously. If people are really that devoid of rational thought, they should seriously consider a stay at a reputable mental health facility. A combination of drugs and limited access to network news might do them some good or at least keep them from harming themselves and others.

Jim Aitkins said...

To the person who wrote, "I suppose you're trying to infer that it is wrong for Lebanon to defend itself against Israel's invasion too...": what are you talking about?? Is this is your idea of civil conversation?

Come on, I meant it when I invited a civil conversation. I am asking you to take that interview seriously, at least for a moment; at least for the sake of discussion. Please respond to what was actually said, not what you think I am "inferring" by asking you to watch it.

Are there any "anti war" folks out there who can debate the issue with actual arguments?? [please no conservative replies to the rhetorical question]

Conservative readers: notice how this individual insists that anyone who supports our "side of the story" is a nut. More on that another time.

Jim Aitkins said...

To Anonymous:
You call me a twit and then embarrass yourself with this whopper: "Lebanon has every right to defend itself against invaders."

1) Israel was attacked
2) Israel was attacked by a terrorist group sponsored by Syria and Iran
3) This terrorist group is based in Lebanon
4) In defense of its soveriegn territory and the civilians it has a duty to protect, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) engaged its attackers wherever they were, taking out supply lines and escape routes as they did so, in order to stop the attacks
5) The terrorists who attacked Israel had been preparing this latest campaign for at least six years; preparations that included building underground weapons storehouses and bunkers UNDER schools, hospitals, and homes ALL OVER southern Lebanon, including Beruit

If a terror group within Canada began shooting rockets into towns & cities in the U.S., the Americans would respond exactly the same way Israel did. So, to say that Lebanon has a right to defend itself is a bit of a disconnect from how this whole thing came down. Israel has a right to defend itself. Does it not?

The Bush, Cheney, Rumfeld stuff doesn't even warrant a response because there is nothing there. There never was. You guys hate Bush and everyone in his administration. Clinton was okay for doing the same thing, but you never want to talk about that. Hence, we are at an impasse on the topic of Bush because all we get from you guys is emotional rants about how they love war, oil, etc. You love MoveOn.org, but you can't seem to move on past that bloken record. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, but you have to provide some kind of substance; some actual facts rather than theory and opinion.

You have zero evidence that the woman in the video is saying what I want her to say. I asked you to respond to what she said. This is the second time you have refused to do so. For the third time I am asking you to tell me exactly what this woman said that you find factually incorrect.

Yes, we know you are adept at name-calling. Congratualtions for that. Moving on to the meat of the matter, what can you give us that has some actual substance to it?

Challenging us with bad reports from Iraq, you appear committed to the idea that there are no good reports with Iraq. My friend, I am not going to be made to prove a negative. I say that Iraq is emphatically not the quagmire that you claim it is. You demand that we prove it isn't a quangmire. No, it doesn't work that way. You need to take an honest look at all the good that is in fact happening in Iraq and tell us why Iraq IS a quangmire. Leave all your Bush-is-a-war-monger theorizong out of it. Be a proud American just for a moment. Look in your mind's eye at the millions of Iraqis that love and appreciate all of us Americans for liberating them; giving them the ability to vote for the first time; knowing that the rape rooms are closed; knowing that vast unmarked graves are no longer being filled with "enemies of Suddam", etc, etc.

No, we do not terrorize the civilians and terrorize thier women and children. You do not have to believe our enemies when they claim such things. We are better than than that. Yes, there have been a limited number of extremely regretable incidents involving some bad apples from our side, but they are being dealt with properly. But unlike our enemies, the indiscriminant killing of innocents is not our standard practice.

There is zero evidence to support the notion that "since we dropped the bombs on Japan [our MO is to] to make the civilians suffer as much as we can so that the army has to hide or give up." Back up that argument or, when you don't, we will consider it taken back.

There were WMD's in Iraq. Not even a debatable point, but we will do so if you like.

Additionally, there were - and I say WERE, because there no longer ARE - turture facilities, rape rooms, and mass graves being filled by the thousands. Neither are these debatable facts that we are nonetheless more than willing to debate if you wish.

My friend, you do not need to call us names. We aren't your enemies. We may disagree, but we can figure things out through open lines of communication, debate, dialogue, discussion, etc. Let's keep this going.