it's not enough that dubya has to do a little wag-the-dog here to distract us from the corporate crime and the fact the war on terra-ism isn't exactly turning out like he'd planned, but now we have to go shoot at children? even though the threat is vastly overstated and the whole thing's about oil anyway, and then when we're done there, off we go to conquer some more places in the Name of Democracy which is just silly since we're more and more sounding like Hitler's Germany in the early thirties?
can we please not do this?
"personal attacks = bad. generalizations = bad. condescension = bad. namecalling = ok, fine, i'll let that one slide"
whatever, Dodd. that statement was relating to having personal arguements on the web. things directed at other people.
last i checked it was still ok to get pissed off at the government and spew some generalized frustration in their general direction. the attack on Iraq we have in the works is incredibly fucking stupid. my opinion. didn't get into details. still stand by the opinion.
I agree that it's incredibly fucking stupid. I don't blame the rest of the world for hating us because of our greed for oil (which is what it almost all boils down to).
But then again I'm not rich, don't drive an SUV, and don't commute 50 miles each way to work from the suburbs, so what do I know? (HAH! how's that for a generalization.)
but Dodd, am just in no *mood* for this. none at all.
so i'll be sticking with my generalizations, k? i just felt like venting.
i am more tired than i've ever been of arguing about things, about anything.
Fair enough.
I think perhaps I should have elucidated my quotation of you back to you.... As a libertarian-leaning type of fellow, isolationism is my default setting. Despite that, some very cogent arguments in favour of going to war with Iraq have swayed me to lean toward supporting it. Were you take make an argument against, you might find me (and many others) quite amenable to it.
But you did not make an argument. You called it "incredibly f*kcing stupid" and accused the President of engineering it to distract the populace from corporate scandals [something he scarcely needs to do since a) the vast majority of the malfeasance occured during his predecessor's term of office, b) few voters apart from his partisan opposition see him as responsible and c) the attack that prompted such thinking, and the planning for this particular course of action, all began well before corporate scandals became a subject of daily news coverage].
You also repeat the frequently made (but rarely supported) charge that it's "all about oil." Well, that may well be a factor - we rarely seem to get too worked up about African backwaters with few resources and even more intractable human rights problems. But, again, making comparisons between the President and Hitler hardly qualifies as an argument.
Of course we all have the right to make generalized complaints. Hell, it's your web page. But, to this reader, you're above invoking Hitler to make a point. If you're opposed, live up to your own standards: Make the case for your position rather than simply making ad hominem attacks. Those of us who read your stuff because we respect your voice and your viewpoint (even if we don't always agree with it) will most certainly take it to heart.