Doug,

I am making general points here about liberal ‘anti-war’ attitudes and policies, as exemplified, for example, by the Democratic Party. These politics have ensured the continuation and escalation of a criminal war, which is opposed by the majority of the population. Individual personalities are of no interest to me except by way of example.

You will find the majority of inflammatory, personalist language in the post preceding the one you have quoted.

Balak - 27 May 2008 12:28 PM

Mckenzie and erasmus are not racists or warmongers, instead their sublime transcendence of petty squabbling ‘for’ and ‘against’ is a good reflection of the politics that opens the door for outright racists like Hitchens and Harris.

Your inflammatory rhetoric about people having to pick sides is quite the phrasing used by George Bush and the neo-cons.  Simply put, if we were to apply your drum banging perspective even handedly, we would also be justifying the “western imperialists” that you so despise.  Your refusal to accept the fact that global economics are far more global than a simplistic view of a US overseer and an third world who’s oppression is exclusively from the outside is indicative of your willingness to write of entire populations and cultures as villain.  This is indicative of cultural prejudice.  It is also bigotry.

So Balak.  What really are you doing to oppose the Iraq War?  Not much I assume.

You are most certainly warmongering.

The third world is oppressed from both the outside AND the inside.  The same can be said of the US, which also suffers immeasurably from the same laissez-faire economic practices that are jeopardizing global stability.  Given the current global situation, and the tendency of certain uncivilized persons to respond to militancy with further militancy, the future looks rather grim for all parties.

Balak - 27 May 2008 12:28 PM

But certainly the historians of the future will be careful to maintain the crucial distinction between the racist warmongers and those who were merely ‘good Germans’.

Are you suggesting that all Germans are to blame for the holocaust?  And how about the German Jews who were themselves victims of the holocaust?  You seem to have no problem writing off all persons who refuse to wage your private war as the enemy.  Is this temperament, itself, not fascism?

Erasmusinfinity, let’s try to scale back the rhetoric and recriminations in this thread. It will be more productive to discuss the issues at hand.

Your inflammatory rhetoric about people having to pick sides is quite the phrasing used by George Bush and the neo-cons.  Simply put, if we were to apply your drum banging perspective even handedly, we would also be justifying the “western imperialists” that you so despise.  Your refusal to accept the fact that global economics are far more global than a simplistic view of a US overseer and an third world who’s oppression is exclusively from the outside is indicative of your willingness to write of entire populations and cultures as villain.  This is indicative of cultural prejudice.  It is also bigotry.

I don’t pick sides, but simply want U.S imperialism to be judged by the same standards that apply to others. In this light, and in view of its historical role in nurturing religious fanatacism as a weapon against secularist and leftist forces in the Islamic world, the scale of Washington’s criminality dwarfs that of the Islamic reactionaries by many orders of magnitude.

So Balak.  What really are you doing to oppose the Iraq War?  Not much I assume. You are most certainly warmongering.

I think a good place to start is calling things by their right names. ‘Warmongering’ is definitely misapplied here.

The third world is oppressed from both the outside AND the inside.  The same can be said of the US, which also suffers immeasurably from the same laissez-faire economic practices that are jeopardizing global stability.  Given the current global situation, and the tendency of certain uncivilized persons to respond to militancy with further militancy, the future looks rather grim for all parties.

More liberal pap.

The U.S. ruling class supports, arms and reenforces the capitalist rulers of its neo-colonies. This reflects not ‘laissez-faire economic practices’ but the international economic division of labor imposed by imperialism (i.e.  capitalism in its contemporary form). This is the primary source of oppression for the exploited and impoverished majorities in both North America and the third world. Liberal handwringing over ‘militancy vs. militancy’ obscures the material interests of imperialism behind a cloud of Pecksniffian moralism.

Are you suggesting that all Germans are to blame for the holocaust?  And how about the German Jews who were themselves victims of the holocaust?  You seem to have no problem writing off all persons who refuse to wage your private war as the enemy.  Is this temperament, itself, not fascism?

“Collective guilt” was the argument used by the allied powers, centrally the U.S., to justify the rapid reintegration of the former Nazi state apparatus to run post-war West Germany. Since everyone was guilty - no one was. Thus the bourgeoisie of Hiroshima could absolve the bourgeoisie of Auschwitz in preparation for an anticipated war against the USSR.

Balak - 28 May 2008 10:05 AM

I don’t pick sides, but simply want U.S imperialism to be judged by the same standards that apply to others.

Then why do you criticize me for not picking sides?  I also think that the US should be subject to the same standards that apply to others.  I also believe that there is a military-industrial complex in the United States and that it is responsible for vast and immoral carnage.  I think that you are utterly mistaken if you think that it is any way loyal to America or anything particularly American.  I have given you some reasons why I think what I do.  You have not considered or presented arguments against any of them.  Instead, you have dismissed them with name calling and slurs such as “liberal pap.”

I am sorry Doug, but I think that I have demonstrated an EXCESSIVE decency of restraint with Balak.

Balak - 28 May 2008 10:05 AM

I think a good place to start is calling things by their right names. ‘Warmongering’ is definitely misapplied here.

I have been under the impression, throughout this thread, that you seem to be in favor of some sort of physical violence as a perceived form of resistance.  I do think that encouraging such behavior would be quite accurately termed as “warmongering.” As I said before, it is in the nature of such aggression to escalate in an uncivilized manner.  If you disagree, perhaps you could try presenting me a reason without calling me a name.

Balak - 28 May 2008 10:05 AM

“Collective guilt” was the argument used by the allied powers, centrally the U.S., to justify the rapid reintegration of the former Nazi state apparatus to run post-war West Germany. Since everyone was guilty - no one was. Thus the bourgeoisie of Hiroshima could absolve the bourgeoisie of Auschwitz in preparation for an anticipated war against the USSR.

Do you accept this notion of collective guilt?  I do not.

erasmusinfinity - 28 May 2008 01:16 PM

Balak - 28 May 2008 10:05 AM

I don’t pick sides, but simply want U.S imperialism to be judged by the same standards that apply to others.

I also think that the US should be subject to the same standards that apply to others.

No you don’t, in describing Bush’s criminal actions, you use the word “misguided”, and in judging the retaliation, you use terror. Furthermore, you speak of muslims/arabs as if every single one of them was a confirmed criminal. I haven’t been muslim or arab in decades, and I still socially get treated like one more often than not due to the spread of your type of mentality.  Something to marinate in for a while.

First the invaders/occupiers should get out. Then the liberal sages in the imperialist centres can pass their almighty judgments over the surviving population (if that’s what turns them on).

Until then, their moral pronouncements are merely providing so much ‘humanist’ cover for the new crusade.

Balak - 29 May 2008 11:59 AM

First the invaders/occupiers should get out. Then the liberal sages in the imperialist centres can pass their almighty judgments over the surviving population (if that’s what turns them on).

Until then, their moral pronouncements are merely providing so much ‘humanist’ cover for the new crusade.

  you crack me up, I loove the terminology you use. I don’t think they should get out, at least not until they rebuild what they destroyed with the money they made off the oil they stole. Iraq was one of the most advanced arab/muslim countries. These “democracy installers” have turned it into desolate waste land.

Daisy - 29 May 2008 11:54 AM

you use the word “misguided”, and in judging the retaliation, you use terror.

They are both misguided and they are both terror.

Daisy - 29 May 2008 11:54 AM

Furthermore, you speak of muslims/arabs as if every single one of them was a confirmed criminal.

I do not.  That is your assumption about me.  You also assume a great deal about my ethnic and cultural background.

erasmusinfinity - 30 May 2008 08:00 PM

They are both misguided and they are both terror.

that’s more digestible. thank you.

I do not.  That is your assumption about me.  You also assume a great deal about my ethnic and cultural background.

Beside your take on the muslim question, I have nothing but admiration for the rest of you. And I apologize I really shouldn’t stand against you on this since that tends to make me come across as if I have anything to share with the muslims and I don’t. As humanist I am against persecuting people based to their origins regardless of who the hell they are, origins they did not pick.