>>> Simply because I am not. Unless 1959 is prior to 1981 you are in error...
>>> Your need to have things spelled out letter for letter and obvious lack of >>> insight into a situation as a whole is not my shortcoming. Your refusal to explicitly state assumptions, not atypical for LW demagoguery, IS your shortcoming in a honest, civil, and transparent debate... That is often done to insure circular logic to ensure your prejudices become the conclusions... It is often also the reason the LW cna NOT accept the reality of the GOOD Bush did in Iraq... >>> but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of freedom, the land >>> of liberty and free thought More BS... A better statement is that those opposing America and Human Rights demand perfection from America while ignoring or excusing away worst conduct in others... Why??? Then they do not have to insist the really bad abusers do anything about human rights??? How do you advance Human Rights - by demanding perfection from a few, or by getting the worst abusers to change??? Frankly it the latter which produces greater results... The UN Human Rights Body is an example... Or take the issue of transAtlantic slavery in the 1600's to 1850... Who received most of the slaves??? Do you know??? The US by and by treated their slaves far better than the Caribbean or Brazil.... Is Cuba, Haiti, or Brazil asked for reparations??? Or Saudi Arabia or Iran (both who engaged in slavery in the 1900's... >>> I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are incorrect and my >>> position is formed after a career of 27 years of first hand on site >>> observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed by who in the >>> field known. Debates require STATED assumptions... Second your fact that the US under Reagan was the first to openly ignore a UN Resolution is clearly false... So yes your facts ARE QUESTIONABLE... Sorry to disabuse you of this... On Apr 9, 3:02 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error instead of > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > Simply because I am not. Your need to have things spelled out letter for > letter and obvious lack of insight into a situation as a whole is not my > shortcoming. > > There have absolutely been wrongs on all sides that nis unquestionable... > but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of freedom, the land of > liberty and free thought, the supposed shining example which they export by > force of arms (covert or overt) if you disagree. That is the US. No > government has ever been so hypocritical and no people so blinded by > misinformation as the US. > > No, I do not have a "hard on" for the US as a whole, just it time and time > again failed policy to forcefully indoctrinate the world regardless of their > culture and tradition. \ > > I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are incorrect and my > position is formed after a career of 27 years of first hand on site > observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed by who in the > field known. You get yours from where ?? > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark, the question here is your claimed fact that the US was the first > > to publicly ignore an UN Resolution... On that your are in > > error.... > > > Now you expose your unmentioned predict "The US proclaims itself as a > > shinning example of morality, while China does not, so China does not > > count"... What hogwash... The fact here is the US is by and large > > far more "moral" in it dealings with the world in the rough and tumble > > arena of geopolitical Real Politiks... Now that does not say the US > > is perfect. If it far from it... Yet it is head and shoulders > > better than China in the main. > > > In the main, this line of reasoning seeks to condemn the US for > > everything while excusing away the same or worse behavior in other > > world or regional powers as Russia, China, France, Iran... And that > > is what little mikey used to do more crudely than you.... > > > Here is an example of Russia being "immoral" if you were honest enough > > to apply the same standards to Russia as you demand from the US... > > Equality between nation state, as you demand, also demands equal > > standards in judging them... > > > >>> So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit your own ends and > > continue to do so. > > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error instead of > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > On Apr 9, 10:56 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry but you are wrong. Why is it you see NO difference in publicly > > > espousing to the world the moral right of your cause and presenting your > > > nation as the shining example of all that is right and good in the world > > and > > > China who has never claimed to do anything but protect and expand its > > sphere > > > of influence ??? > > > > Why is it you have a population screaming for more Nuclear power plants > > for > > > production of electricity when that same population wants to deny that > > same > > > right to other equally Sovereign states ?? Is fear they may do that > > > which you already have ?? > > > > Why is it the US can try to invoke the Monroe Doctrine (they are the only > > > signators to this self protecting ideal) yet when nations with EQUAL > > rights > > > to do so elsewhere do just that the US cries most foul ?? > > > > Just what is it that gives you (US) the "right" to intervene and negates > > > that "right" for others on issues they find most offensive ?? > > > > So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit your own ends and > > > continue to do so. > > > > Why ?? > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The second point here is Mark I did NOT twist your words... I claimed > > > > your facts were wrong... You claim that I twisted your words when you > > > > facts were clearly wrong is in fact twisting MY words... > > > > > Mark ask "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who twists the words" > > > > > Subservient mirror "Not you" who was thinking "of course it's you > > > > bub"... > > > > > On Apr 8, 5:12 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you want to quote me do so correctly. It is NOT difficult... > > unlees > > > > your > > > > > point needs to twist the words in order to be made. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > The first to ignore the UN??? Many did so pre 1980... Shall we > > list > > > > > > them, even European nations??? > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had > > > > resigned > > > > > > from > > > > > > > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in > > the > > > > > > outback > > > > > > > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be > > > > made by > > > > > > > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during > > their > > > > > > > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet > > bloc.... > > > > Is > > > > > > the > > > > > > > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > > > > > > > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does > > it > > > > > > make... > > > > > > > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the > > US > > > > > > under > > > > > > > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ > > > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) > > verdict > > > > > > > was rendered for war crimes............ > > > > > > > > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:36 AM, dick thompson < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > What a contortionist you libs are. You think Castro was > > invited > > > > into > > > > > > > > Bolivia when he sent Che there? You think he was invited when > > he > > > > sent > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > people to the other countries? > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert > > move > > > > > > > > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of > > another > > > > (the > > > > > > > > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US > > method > > > > > > > > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 10:42 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You didn't answer my question. Should the US courts indict > > Castro? > > > > If > > > > > > > > he then showed up in NYC to speak at the UN he could then be > > > > arrested. > > > > > > > > Do you support that? > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they > > think > > > > > > > > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > > > > > > > > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 8:33 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So then you would be with the program if the US courts put out > > an > > > > > > > > indictment against Castro or Mugabe or Putin? That would be > > just > > > > > > > > hunky-dory with you? > > > > > > > > > There was a reason that Saddam was tried in the Iraqi courts, > > not > > > > the > > > > > > US > > > > > > > > courts and that reason was the legal one that the Iraqis were > > > > setting > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > a Republic and had jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > How on earth does Spain have any jurisdiction over the US > > > > officials in > > > > > > > > any way, shape or form. In fact how did they have any > > jurisdiction > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > Pinochet for that matter. This is little men playing games and > > > > trying > > > > > > > > to act as if they were big men - just like this rookie > > president we > > > > are > > > > > > > > stuck with now. > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > Someone has to. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 8:31 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://online.wsj.com/video/spanish-court-weighs-charges-against-form. > > .. > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > > > -- > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > -- > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
