My previous post featured my impressions of the Little Green Footballs community's interest and attitude toward the conduct of UK Marines and sailors regarding their surrender/abduction/capture, their captivity and the circumstances surrounding their release.
To my surprise one "Nomenovum" --presumably from the LGF community-- left a comment to which I have chosen to reply in this post. I've copied most (but not all) of his comments here and responded accordingly to his statements and the points raised. The few omissions from his original text are simply for the sake of space--his full original comment is maintained in the orignal post comments of Are the British Now "The French"?
I'm afraid this posted ia a bit disjointed and rambling, but that's because of the source material--its more more coherent from "Do you remeber what happened..." (about one screen scroll)....
So here goes....
Nomenovum: "Ah! The old "chickenhawk" calumny. It always works. It is the zenith of cheap red herrings."
I assume you are equating “chickenhawk” to the phrase “The Fighting 101 Keyboarders”. And wouldn't the nadir of cheap red herrings be more apropos? But I digress....
“The fact of the matter is, you have no evidence that the LGF posters are cowards; however, we have plenty of hard evidence that the UK sailors and Marines are.
I didn’t write that “the LGF posters are cowards”.
But you can reasonably argue that I called a sizeable contingent of LGF commenters “cowards” without actually using the term.
No doubt there are some regulars to LGF who are in the military, some who have served and can speak with a degree of authority on aspects of the military that I, who has never served, and other LGF regulars who have never served, cannot.
And the same holds true of those blogs where the commenters consensus is that there’s nothing noble left in the Iraq occupation or “strategy”, or “mission”.
What really irks me is that there seem to be so many commenters on LGF that are so adamant in demanding that the US military keep fighting in Iraq because of what? Because of terrorists? Because the US aren’t quitters? Those seem to be the general arguments.
These arguments however ignore how totally half-arsed this Iraq adventure is. If this really is all about defending the US and the world against a global threat—as in WWII—then why aren’t we all getting drafted, if it's that important? Why isn’t industry mobilized? Why isn’t Bush burning the midnight oil instead of lounging around his fake ranch two months out of the year?
There were all kinds of reasons why the US went into Iraq and it had damn-all to do with the threat of “terrorism” as was claimed.
But this is the argument than many LGF commenters seem to cling to: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here!”.
Well, with the world’s most powerful military fighting them over there, we don’t seem to be making much progress do we?
Let ‘em come over here! We should have the home-ground advantage and 300 million privately owned guns. Then we can all sacrifice for the great cause and take pride in it rather than put the entire responsibility for our nation’s and the worlds salvation on 100,000 regular troops and 50,000 dedicated part-timers from the National Guard. Right?
"I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as you cannot imagine why someone like me or an LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces of the United States.."
Well thanks for the “intelligent” compliment, but if that’s how I appear it would be more due to a combination of experience, study, inquisition and the use of logic rather than an accidental excess of neurons.
But to answer what you “find hard to believe”;
I can easily imagine why “someone like you” or a regular LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces—because so many commenters a) don’t use the military vernacular and expressions that appear on actual milblogs and other published accounts from serving soldiers and b) because so many commenters demonstrate such spectacular ignorance of basic military functions and protocols. And so few exhibit any knowledge of military history, which is something that any soldier is encouraged to at least be aware of and that one would expect the ordinary trooper to at least have a natural interest in--or so I assume.
Do you remember what happened when US Marines in Lebanon were attacked with a truck bomb?
Nothing happened, except that President Reagan pulled them out of there immediately.
Shouldn’t they have stormed out of the compound guns blazing? Why didn’t they? Because they were cowards? NO!
It’s because to have done so would have been futile and it wasn’t part of their mission.
Mission discipline is an essential demand of the military—apparently you and your “go down with guns blazing” buddies don’t seem to know that—and that’s another indicator that so many of the LGF commenters are just ignorant war-junkies baying for blood and sacrifice from the comfort of their own homes.
To quote the great General Patton (not known for being a liberal) “the idea is not to die for your country, it’s to get the other poor bastard to die for his!”—but apparently a lot of LGF commenters wouldn’t agree. They seem to want to continue the war and have the soldiers die so to preserve their own freedom to not do the same.
"It simply defies logic to think that a non-military man calling a Marine a coward makes the accuser himself a coward"
So, for a civilian to call a Marine a coward would make the civilian a coward because the civilian doesn’t intentionally risk his life, whereas the Marine does?
So a civilian is in no position to question a Marine’s heroism and call him a coward because the civilian isn’t willing to do what a Marine does, right? And therefore the civilian would be a coward in accusing a Marine of being a coward; so who would want to call attention to their own cowardice, right?
Well, as a plethora of LGF commenters who certainly don’t appear to me to be serving military (for reasons I’ve already explained—style, ignorance and probability being major factors, not to mention having the time during the day to comment) and that the majority of the comments I read (about 100 out of the 600-plus) described the captured British personnel as cowards and thought they should have started a firefight from their dinghy even though they were outgunned........we must then both agree that some of the LGF commenters would in all probability be the exact self accusing cowards you identify—non-military calling Marines cowards.
And yet your logic, apparently, dictates otherwise—all those calling the British Marines cowards must therefore be military men, and therefore no LGF civilian commenter has cried “coward” because logically they simply wouldn’t. Hmmmm… fascinating!
But enough of tortured logic , let’s move on
"But never mind. You seem to have forgotten that it is the job of a Marine (or sailor or soldier) to be brave in the face of danger, to resist coercion, and not to lie about their country when faced with the prospect of incarceration by mad Iranians. "
Really? Where the hell is all that written down? Are you quoting from any official manual?
What if a Marine or sailor or soldier is faced with the “prospect of incarceration” by mad Syrians, or North Koreans?
What if the Iranians or Syrians or North Koreans are reasonable instead of mad?
And it seems you are saying (because this is all about the Iranians capturing British military personnel) that the Brits “lied about their country” at the “prospect of incarceration”.
Gosh! Were you there when this happened? Did the Brits tell the “Mad Iranians” that Britain was actually a philosophical construct in the 8th dimension and was ruled by peaceful jellyfish as soon as the mad Iranians warned them that they might be taken prisoner? I'm guessing they didn't.
Lied about their country?!!! Really! Where do you get this stuff from? Oh, let me guess....
It is my understanding (through years of actual study of military matters and having talked to actual POW’s and a variety of experienced officers (rather than just masturbating to the Military Channel on cable) that a Prisoner of War is expected to do his or her best to a) survive, b) assist fellow captives to survive, and then if possible, c) to confound and annoy the enemy whilst in captivity.
What YOU have forgotten, or rather IGNORED is that the UK ISN”T AT WAR WITH IRAN! NEITHER IS THE US! ERGO the Brits WEREN’T POWS! ERGO the Geneva Conventions you so misguidedly quote DON’T APPLY! Despite the involvement of military personnel the issue was an international, civil, diplomatic and legal issue, NOT a military one.
Furthermore you also forget or ignore that these Marines and sailors are given RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and that what military personnel are supposed to do above all is FOLLOW ORDERS!
Their orders were to search ships for “contraband” and it is highly unlikely that such a patrol, especially in this area would be given license to engage in “free-fire” when challenged.
For the Brits to have fired before they were fired upon, given that they WEREN’T AT WAR, would have been a violation of their ROE and and a damn good excuse for the Iranians to respond in kind and then-some and the whole thing could have literally blown-up—which is exactly what a bunch of the dimwits at LGF were keen to see happen.
If only the Brits had panicked, we could have had another war! Fantastic! Just what this country and the world needs!
I don’t contest your negative opinion (and those of so many others I read on LGF) out of a blind devotion to my fellow Brits, but because I have an appreciation of such matters that you apparently don’t.
I grew up with terrorism, thanks to the IRA and intransigence from the UDA and the British Government. I got to see some of bloody results first-hand.
My father was held prisoner of the PLO for two days but they let him go, and he negotiated the release of prisoners on B.O.A.C VC10 (G-ASGN) at Dawson’s field in Amman in 1970—look it up, the first triple-hijacking.
Was my father a coward for not wrestling a gun from one of his captors and starting a fight? Are you calling my father a coward? He saved people’s lives by being smart and sticking to his mission objectives.
I was in Beirut in the late summer of 1974 and saw the Syrian tanks lined up just yards from me on the border, waiting, and watched as the Palestinian fedayeen took potshots at the Israeli RF-4 Phantoms otherwise unchallenged roaring overhead at 500 feet, photographing the city in preparation for the coming war, and I had to dodge a couple of firefights that opened up on the streets of Beirut between gangs of Phalangists and Palestinians, before the shit really hit the fan in 1975.
Face it:
Afghanistan was pitched as a surgical strike against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and as strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country to deny a haven to terrorists and serve as a model to the region.
Well. Bin Laden is still at large, Al Qaeda still functions, the Taliban have returned, there is no functioning democracy and no stability—after five years.
Iraq was pitched as a surgical strike against Hussein and against Al Qaeda, and as an even more important strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country, to deny a haven and possible support to terrorists and to serve as a model to the region.
Well, Hussein’s now dead, the country is leaderless and there’s no-one power to bargain-with, threaten or cajole.
The “government” can’t govern, the US invasion and occupation has attracted terrorists and encouraged radical Islamists all over the world, the US hasn’t won any hearts and minds and it has made no tangible progress; thousands of Iraqis have been incarcerated without real evidence, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US for sure, hundreds of thousands have been killed overall by local factions—what is there to show for all this, four years, nearly 3300 US dead and $600 billion spent? Where indeed is the good news?
And you and the LGF regulars have your panties in a bunch because a handful of British military had the sense not to trigger another war, one that the same people who “managed” the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters are now itching to wage and that you support? How many wars do you want to lose? Do you really think they’ll finally get it right with Iran?
"Nice twist, though, making this episode another opportunity to bash the United States. The country must have done you great wrong. I am curious to know why you haven’t taken up Aeneas’s suggestion."
Nope, I’ve had a quite decent time here in the US. But which United States are your referring to? The one that does include me, born of American parents, lived-here over half my life? Or the one that excludes me, the one that fits only your view of what Americans are and what America should be? Apparently you have exclusive rights to criticize? You should read the Constitution and the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams—you know the guys who defined modern Democracy and this nation?
"The evidence is quite persuasive that most, if not all, of these fifteen are cowards. They certainly shamed Great Britain. They embarrassed themselves and their comrades. They made me embarrassed for them. You should be embarrassed to have such pitiful men fighting for your native land. It was shameful. It does no good to call their critics cowards themselves because it does nothing to change the evidence before your eyes."
See the evidence before your eyes and save your embarrassment for yourself, for your ignorant support of a policy that has corrupted a once great military and that has abused American troops in equipment, in their mission, in the care of the wounded and in honoring the dead of two wars concurrent wars with no improvement in the political, social or military conditions on the ground, and for your ignorance–fueled denigration of these allies who didn’t sacrifice themselves to the bloodthirsty, xenophobic, jingoistic, hegemonistic ambitions you seem to think is America’s “manifest destiny”.
The British embraced that notion and over 400 years created the world’s greatest empire, which took only 50 years and two major wars to collapse. Things move a lot faster these days. Think about it.
Oh and should any US troops have the misfortune of being captured, why don't you teach a lesson to the cowardly limeys and demand that the US troops recieve the same treatment from their captoirs that the US offers its captives--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypothermic manipulation, sexual humilation, all that good stuff--you know, so you have something to be really proud of?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
80 comments:
Fifth:
No I am not from the “LGF community.”
“I’m afraid this posted ia a bit disjointed and rambling, but that's because of the source material--its more more coherent from "Do you remeber what happened..." (about one screen scroll)....”
I am not sure what you mean by this disjointed and obviously slapped together jibe.
You are wrong in your suggestion that I use the word, “nadir.” It would not be more appropriate than “zenith” when writing of “cheap” red herrings. The “chickenhawk” red herring is considered by hardcore anti-war types as their BEST ad hominem rhetoric. Avoid making a fool of yourself when trying to make a fool of me.
“I didn’t write that “the LGF posters are cowards”.
Yes you did, when you said, “But open war is what the fighting 101st want—not that they themselves will serve, nor that they expect to suffer the consequences. As they sit behind their keyboards they accuse others of cowardice and desertion, not recognizing their own..” Does your phrase “not recognizing their own” refer to their “keyboards” instead of their “cowardice and desertion [sic]”?
“What really irks me is that there seem to be so many commenters on LGF that are so adamant in demanding that the US military keep fighting in Iraq because of what? Because of terrorists? Because the US aren’t quitters? Those seem to be the general arguments. [Etc., etc., Bush’s “fake ranch,” LGF saying we are fighting them over there …, etc.]”
Fifth Estate, I was talking about men shaming their uniforms, not about Iraq. My comment dealt only with this single issue, not whether the war in Iraq should be supported. Is this an attempt by you at another red herring?
“I can easily imagine why “someone like you” or a regular LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces—because so many commenters a) don’t use the military vernacular and expressions that appear on actual milblogs and other published accounts from serving soldiers and b) because so many commenters demonstrate such spectacular ignorance of basic military functions and protocols. And so few exhibit any knowledge of military history ….”
You missed the meaning of my statement. I meant to say that there are many reasons why a purported chickenhawk may not be in the military (age, physical condition, etc.) that have nothing to do with a lack of bravery. I am not talking about evidence that they’re in the military. Let’s take it as a given that they are not. Shall we? You need not be in the military either to (a) support a war or (b) criticize a war. This is elementary logic. Do you need to be an artist in order to criticize art?
“Mission discipline is an essential demand of the military—apparently you and your “go down with guns blazing” buddies don’t seem to know that—and that’s another indicator that so many of the LGF commenters are just ignorant war-junkies baying for blood and sacrifice from the comfort of their own home.”
Mission discipline IS important, I agree, but I was not talking about that. Let’s assume that the 15 were obeying orders to surrender to the Iranians. That still doesn’t excuse their behavior after their capture. It was this behavior that I was criticizing. Moreover, I see you are again accusing LGFers of being chickenhawks (“baying for blood … from the comfort of … home”). And more chickenhawk accusations with this: “They seem to want to continue the war and have the soldiers die so to preserve their own freedom to not do the same.” Fifth, this is the way it is in a representative republican democracy. The civilians, through their elected officials, declare war, and soldiers necessarily have to fight it. Don’t forget, Fifth, soldiers do tend to die in wars. I cannot be a soldier at this point in my life. Why should that fact stop be from supporting war? You seem perilously close to saying war should only be declared and supported by the military. There are a number of Latin American strong men who might agree with this; I don’t.
And there is this, “[W]e must then both agree that some of the LGF commenters would in all probability be the exact self accusing cowards you identify—non-military calling Marines cowards. And yet your logic, apparently, dictates otherwise—all those calling the British Marines cowards must therefore be military men, and therefore no LGF civilian commenter has cried “coward” because logically they simply wouldn’t. Hmmmm… fascinating!”
Fifth, I don’t understand what you are trying to say here at all. I may be me, but it makes absolutely no sense. The simple point is that the sailors and marine’s documented conduct was shameful and embarrassing. It came across as cowardly. You seem to imply that that opinion reflects the opinion of cowards who don’t serve in the military. I believe this thinking represents tortured logic. That. Is. It. (By the way, what do you think of those who are or were in the military and who have condemned the actions of these 15 sailors and marines?)
“What YOU have forgotten, or rather IGNORED is that the UK ISN”T AT WAR WITH IRAN! … ERGO the Brits WEREN’T POWS! ERGO the Geneva Conventions you so misguidedly quote DON’T APPLY!”
I didn’t quote the GC – misguidedly or otherwise. Whether the UK was at war or not, their post-capture behavior was reprehensible. Besides, isn’t the kidnapping of the sailors and marines an act of war (the Britons were in international waters)? Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians, Fifth.
“Despite the involvement of military personnel the issue was an international, civil, diplomatic and legal issue …”
True.
“NOT a military one.”
Not true. The Iranian military seized military personnel of the UK military. The UK was within her right to respond with force. They opted not to. That’s fine … but the sailor and marine’s post-capture actions still stank.
“… would have been a violation of their ROE and and a damn good excuse for the Iranians to respond in kind and then-some and the whole thing could have literally blown-up ….”
Perhaps, but that doesn’t excuse their post capture behavior.
“I grew up with terrorism, thanks to the IRA.”
Good for you, but how does this does help your argument? I was in New York on 9-11-2001 and I think these 15 acted shamefully. Is that last sentence any more persuasive to you? I don’t think it should be.
“Afghanistan was pitched as a surgical strike against Bin Laden [… etc., etc, ad nauseam.]”
More red herrings. These paragraphs are not on point, Fifth.
“The British embraced that notion and over 400 years created the world’s greatest empire, which took only 50 years and two major wars to collapse. Things move a lot faster these days. Think about it.”
More blah blah, Fifth. If I am a “jingoist,” that still doesn’t change the fact that I think they behaved badly as members of the armed forces. Plus, you have now engaged in more ad hominem.
“Oh and should any US troops have the misfortune of being captured, why don't you teach a lesson to the cowardly limeys and demand that the US troops recieve the same treatment from their captoirs that the US offers its captives--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypothermic manipulation, sexual humilation, all that good stuff--you know, so you have something to be really proud of?”
There is no logic there at all, Fifth. Your implication is that the Iranians treated the Britons more humanely that the US would in similar circumstances. Right? Well, how is this, in any way, an argument that these 15 military personnel behaved in a non-cowardly way? Don’t think about that question too hard, Fifth, because the answer is, “It’s not.” If anything, it is acknowledgment that the 15 were a bunch of sissies for betraying and embarrassing their country all because they were given cheap suits and tea.
I expect soldiers to be able to take extreme punishment before they crack. You make not like to hear it but THAT’S THEIR JOB.
have YOU ever served in the military?
if so, were you ever kidnapped and held prisoner?
if not, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP because you have NO IDEA WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH, you jingoistic self-righteous myopic supercilious hebetudinous sophophobic cretin.
Do you kiss your daughter with that mouth?
Did you bother to read what I wrote?
Did you ever go to school and learn how to construct a basic argument?
Brit, sir, I believe the term Novocainumb is grasping for is:
"Oh shit! I've been sussed!"
Or as I would say to him, "Oooooh, BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN!
By the way, Novocainumb, how come you took apart this lengthy post with a ranty diatribe of your own, yet managed to miss a key and crucial element: the Beirut cowardice of Reagan?
Where was youse on dat one, hah?
Carl,
I am not sure you really want a response -- with congenital sarcasm it's always hard to tell -- but I'll answer anyway.
Reagan was wrong in his response to the bombing and killing of the Marines.
Nevertheless, your question is not relevant to the topic at hand. Perhaps you want to ask me whether I thought the Marines acted cowardly?
To make your sarcastic question relevant, you should ask, "Do you think the UK government's rules of engagement vis-à-vis Iran and its decision not to resist the kidnapping of its military personnel were mistakes like Reagan's decision to withdraw from Lebanon after the killing by Hezbollah of hundreds of Marines in their barracks? My answer to that is “yes”; though a good comparison is hard to make because in the case of Reagan, Hezbollah is a stateless terrorist group, whereas Iran is a nation, a member of the UN, and a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Of course, even this is further complicated by the fact that Hezbollah is a creation of and is largely operated by Iran. (Seeing a pattern here? It does appear as though Iran considers itself to be a war with us, pace Fifth’s protestations to the contrary.)
And even then, Reagan made a political decision to retreat. It was the wrong decision in my opinion. Who knows if it was cowardly on his part? But the US Marines in question did not shame themselves as these UK sailors and marines did ... because the US Marines were not captured and then used for propaganda purposes. They were murdered. You people keep missing my point here: I am calling the UK sailors and marines’ post-capture actions shameful. Any orders from their superiors not to resist capture, I do not fault them for. Capisce?
why do you assume that i have a daughter? and i think i used my words very judiciously.
Your name implies you have a daughter because it says "Teaghan's Mom"; that is, it implies that you are the mother of Teaghan. I believe Teaghan is a girl's name. Therefore, I concluded that you have a daughter. Hard to believe I'd make such a leap. Right?
Since when does a "judicial" use of words include, "SHUT THE FUCK UP"? (Caps in the original.)
You ASSumed incorrectly.
And judicial is a subjective term, therefore in my opinion, I believe and stand by what I said. In the same manner as you do bloviating your nonsense.
I "ASSsumed" incorrectly?
You are a piece of work, not Teaghan's mom. What else is your reader to assume?
Judicial connotes wisdom, good sense, and intelligence. It is not a subjective term. It is objective. "SHUT THE FUCK UP" (caps in the original) may be what you "believe and stand by" but judicial it ain't. It's hysterical and screeching.
"Did you bother to read what I wrote?"
So it goes.
Nomennovum said...
"It's hysterical and screeching."
you ought to know, oh jejune one.
*shakes head*
ay carumba! you're such a diva!!!
"The “chickenhawk” red herring is considered by hardcore anti-war types as their BEST ad hominem rhetoric."
i never got the memo.
converse accident, bub. look, if you're going to play at "intellectual", you'll have to avoid that kind of logical fallacy.
KEvron
"Besides, isn’t the kidnapping of the sailors and marines an act of war"
is it? apparently, no one told the brits. no matter: 5th should still be held accountable.
"(the Britons were in international waters)"
obviously, this is the very point of contention. i doubt your say-so will resolve the issue, i'm sorry to say.
"Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians, Fifth."
marvelous; you've followed one red herring with another. and you, so ostensibly averse to the tactic. tisk.
KEvron
Kevron,
You'll have to explain to me how my saying, "The “chickenhawk” red herring is considered by hardcore anti-war types as their BEST ad hominem rhetoric," is an example of the logical fallacy of converse accident. It may be clear to you but it is not to me.
Furthermore, you'll have to explain how my statement in response to Fifth's contention that the UK and Iran were not belligerents, "Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians, Fifth," is a red herring.
Forgive me if your say-so is not sufficient.
Not Teaghan's mom:
"you ought to know, oh jejune one.
"*shakes head*
"ay carumba! you're such a diva!!!"
People who overuse their SAT words (see your earlier post for a truly laughable example of this) tend to have a great need to prove something.
In your case, Not a Mom, the need to prove to the reader that you are not a hysterical, potty-mouthed idiot -- your tu quoque not withstanding.
The pathological desire to point out the idiosyncracies of others and to poke fun at and belittle the opinions of others is also an example of "a great need to prove something."
Since you cannot understand sarcasm and the ironic use of certain vernacular to exaggerate sarcasm, I will simply leave you with this: "Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation." (S. Morris Engel)
"The pathological desire to point out the idiosyncracies of others and to poke fun at and belittle the opinions of others is also an example of 'a great need to prove something.'" -- Teaghan's Mom (not really)
Indeed. You are obviously explaining the reasons for all of the attacks on my comments, such as calling me "novocainnumb," "jingoistic," "self-righteous," "myopic," "supercilious," "hebetudinous," "sophophobic," and "cretin." Right?
And thanks for the definition of "tu quoque," no one's mother, but for whose benefit did you provide it? You committed the tu quoque fallacy, I pointed it out to you that you used it, and you give us the definition. Uh ... good work. You're Google skills are excellent. Should I alert the media?
One more thing, please don't ASSsume (as you put it) than I am such an idiot as to believe that your "SHUT THE FUCK UP" (caps in the original) was meant to be a "sarcastic and ironic use of the vernacular." For sarcasm, see KEvron and Carl.* I doubt you know what irony is, but "SHUT THE FUCK UP" (caps in the original) followed by, "because you have NO IDEA WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH, you jingoistic self-righteous myopic supercilious hebetudinous sophophobic cretin" (caps also in the original) is not that either. It is barking mad, spittle-spewing invective.
Be careful, I may have to sart calling you names here, Teagan's Mom (meant ironically, natch), like "liar."
__________
* For incoherence, see Parklife.
Nomenovum….
“I expect soldiers to be able to take extreme punishment before they crack. You may not like to hear it but THAT’S THEIR JOB.”
So despite not being at war, they should have engaged in battle and taken at least a few losses before surrendering, and or/they should have submitted to torture before allowing themselves to be used for Iranian propaganda. Then they would have been heroes.
It is not the JOB of a soldier to get himself killed or captured for no tactical or strategic purpose—the soldier is expected to fight and possibly die FOR a tactical or strategic purpose. The purpose of fighting and dying in this instance was entirely absent.
When AT WAR a captured soldier is duty-bound, and expected to give only their name rank and serial number, and to deny the enemy information that would provide advantage to the enemy. They can expect to be pressured and possibly tortured for such information and should do their best to resist.
What information do you suppose these Marines and sailors would have had that would have been worth being tortured for? They were simply inspecting ships for contraband. The Iranians could have tortured them anyway, just to be complete bastards—just like the US has done at Guantanmo, Abu Ghraib and in Afghanistan (read the Toguda report amongst others for that). The Iranians had nothing to gain from physically torturing them.
But according to many of the LGFcomments I read, this situation was a great excuse to go to war with Iran.
If the British reacted with force then the Iranians might counter attack and then the US taskforces could move in (as a NATO ally, even) and everyone who thought invading Iraq was a great idea and thinks Syria should be bombed and thinks Iran should be attacked would have the war they so desire, because for them war is the answer to everything apparently.
But the British didn’t oblige, so the thread moved on to fate of the captives. Their exposure on TV was inevitable, so if they had been obviously tortured then that would be another great excuse to go to war. But they all looked physically okay So, thanks to those cowardly Limeys who faile dto get themselves killed and then were too sissified to get tortured properly so a bunch of keyboarders could get their jollies from another war.
And thus we return to your sentiment that they should have been tortured, because that’s their JOB!
Brilliant!
“For incoherence, see Parklife” (not in all caps in the original)
Do I have to spell everything out for you? Just where were you in 1969, Nomomentum? In a cave? In Pakistan?
“Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates”
The sailors were going to attack with what? Red Herrings?
You’re confusing excessive amounts of testosterone for logic. You beg for attention with all your rightwing postings. The only thing that gets you off more than calling for war is getting us to respond to you.
This vampire is in need of a self-reflection.
And I was worried the name calling would start.
Anyway, Nomomentum, you should get back to scribbling out another piece of work.
Fifth,
I am considering taking back one of my comments to you. Your appear not to be so intelligent after all.
This latest comment of yours is nothing but a rehash of your original post. Why repeat yourself? All you have shown is that you did not read what I wrote.
By the way, you are misguided if you think that a soldier need not resist giving his captors anything other than his "name, rank, and serial number" unless his country “is at WAR.” If you think it's OK for a soldier to abase himself over the flimsy excuses that this country's leadership hasn't declared war and, besides, he might be tortured, then you have a different definition of soldiering than most soldiers or other people do. What Iran did was commit a belligerent act. The Britons were captured by an unfriendly nation (Iran’s actions speak to their unfriendly nation status) outside that nation’s territorial waters. That is illegal. Are you trying to say the Iranians were acting like the Red Cross in doing what they did? The 15 were duty bound to act as soldiers ought to act in such circumstances. Even if the 15 were captured in Iranian waters (but nobody but one or two of your readers seriously believes that), then it would have been the British that committed a belligerent act, and still the soldiers code of conduct would have applied – name rank and serial number. Why? Because, in either case, Iran and Great Britain were not engaging in a tea party. This seems to be a difficult concept for you, Fifth.
"It is not the JOB of a soldier to get himself killed or captured for no tactical or strategic purpose—the soldier is expected to fight and possibly die FOR a tactical or strategic purpose," say you.
You use "tactical" and "strategic" as if you know what you're talking about. Please, stop it. It is not these soldiers’ jobs to determine whether and how to fight based on what they themselves believe is "strategic." That's for their superiors to decide -- the generals, admirals, and political leaders. So, when captured, the soldier doesn't ask himself whether his nation has legally "declared war" on his captors (how will he in fact know this in prison anyway?) before shaming himself and his country by lying about his location when captured, by smiling for the propagandists’ cameras, by shaking his captors' hands on TV, by wearing their clothes, and by accepting their
demeaning gifts.
Further, it is not the “job” of a soldier to assess the "strategic" value or diplomatic consequences of fighting to resist capture. He follows orders. That is all he must do. That is what he is required to do. But you must have missed my numerous comments on laying fault for their surrender, Fifth. I never blamed the 15 sailors and marines for the decision to surrender. I assume they were ordered not to resist. I blame the British government for that order. But for what happened after their capture, I do blame the 15.
There, I said it for -- what -- the fifth time, Fifth? How many more times do you want to do this dance?
As for the rest of your comment, it positively stinks of red herrings and irrelevancies. What the hell does "Guantanmo [sic], Abu Ghraib and ... Afghanistan" have to do with anything I've said? Why are you so obsessed with constantly throwing this irrelevant crud in my face? Why do you want me to comment on it? It has no impact on what I am saying. My comments on it will neither strengthen nor weaken my arguments that the sailors and marines' post-capture behavior was reprehensible. What is with this fixation of yours?
Finally, I never said a soldier’s job is to “be tortured,” Fifth. I said it’s his job to be soldierly – that is to follow his code of conduct. In this case, the code of conduct dealing with his capture – which every child knows – means minimal cooperation when captured. The job of a soldier is to be a brave fighting man. We didn’t see much of that from these 15 after they were captured.
Nomennovum: “Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates”
Parklife: "The sailors were going to attack with what? Red Herrings?"
Nomennovum: I said "Britain," not the 15 sailors and marines who were captured. "Britain." See? You quoted it right there. "Please learn to make elementary distinctions. And please stop confusing your vanity for intelligence.
You incredible array of illiterates cannot seem to wrap you minds around the fact that I have not once criticized -- and do not now criticize -- the 15 sailors and marines for failing to resist their capture. Are you people allergic to plain English?
Parklife: "Just where were you in 1969, Nomomentum? In a cave? In Pakistan? I mean, ... er ... yes I guess I am allergic to plain English."
Nomennovum said... "I never blamed the 15 sailors and marines for the decision to surrender."
but just a few comments before that, Nomennovum said, "... the 15 were a bunch of sissies for betraying and embarrassing their country all because they were given cheap suits and tea."
that smacks of implicit and explicit blame.
You're a lost cause, Teaghan's Mom (not really; just being ironic).
Despite all I've written, are you still still utterly unable to distinguish between the the circumstances in the two quotes? Why don't you try?
Hint: The first talked about actions they took LEADING UP TO their surrender -- where I don't fault them. The second talked about actions they took AFTER their surrender -- where I do fault them.
Are all of you completely , totally, and utterly unable to make distinctions?
I do declare, reading through these posts, some of you come across as profoundly dense. (I am sure Teaghan's Mom [no actually I'm not a mom ... or Teaghan's not a girl, so she's not my daughter ... I'm not sure which] is still Googling "distinction.") The rest of you are either stuck in some adolescent dream-world where debate consists of sarcastic insults and obscure personal inside jokes or are so wrapped up in your "Nomennovum is just a typical jingoistic neo con warmonger" hate-fest that you cannot concede one simple point: Yes it is arguable that these 15 guys did violate some military code of conduct when they were held captive and embarrassed themselves and their country.
Why do you insist on bringing American xenophobia and jingoism (not to mention American stupidity and obesity), rightwing idiocy, and conservative warmongering into it? I understand Aeneas's personal devils, but the rest of you: Do you hate your country or its people so much that everything ... absolutely everything ... in the end is about the misdeeds of America? I mean look at 5th Estate's numerous attempts to bring Abu Ghraib into the picture, or Aeneas's totally gratuitous hate-filled jibe about the US being good only for Canadian golfers and little more, or Fifth’s (and others) attempts to compare this event to the Reagan-era Hezbollah attack on the Marines in Lebanon as an example of American cowardice. Why must every attempt by some American to say that some non-American did something that was bad be countered with not only a "America quoque" but also "America is worse"? America tortures its captives (or it's alleged and therefore we believe it). Iran doesn't (at least maybe in this recent case and therefore in general). America acted cowardly with respect to Lebanon. But the UK sailors did not (because the UK is not at war). The United States offered its military to Britain (its ally) in order to help resolve the issue, if they wanted it. The British declined. Instead of saying, "America is a good ally to offer help," you say, "Here's more proof of the stupid Americans trying to star a war. Etc.
This issue is not about the US and its “bloodthirsty, xenophobic, jingoistic, hegemonistic ambitions,” as 5th Estate says, or its decline as a superpower (although 5th alleges it really isn’t one the way Britain, Rome, or Spain was – whatever that means, unless he means “empire” instead of “superpower”). If you want to excuse cowardice – fine. But excuse me for thinking that you only defend the military when they either act in a non-military manner* or when you can use their deaths to score some easy anti-war, anti-US points. If you want to celebrate it when it’s against the West and deny Iran’s criminal culpability, then forgive me for thinking you hate more than just me or ChimpyBushMcHitlerburton.
_________
* Because, look, we all know you really don’t like the military. They are, after all, war mongers and xenophobes – not to mention southern, ill-educated, and dumb.
wow- fifth- you must have struck a nerve if you snagged a troll. good job!!
"It may be clear to you but it is not to me."
obduracy is a tough cross to bear. i'll tell you what: you prove to me that anti-war types actually do consider "chickenhawk" to be their BEST ad hominem rhetoric, and i'll concede the point.
"Furthermore, you'll have to explain...."
"besides", for starters, "/iranians" for the big finish. i may be willing to excuse the second offense if you can provide proof that the scope of the brits' mission included "attacking" iranians. and before you decide to pass the responsibility onto me, let me remind you that it was your claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
you didn't miss 5th's point about roe, did you?
"Forgive me if your say-so is not sufficient."
you can lead an elephant to water, but you can't make him think....
KEvron
Nomennovum
Time to wrap this up.
My original post, triggered by common LGF comments regarding the capture, treatment and conduct of the British military personnel was about the commonly expressed sentiment that because the British didn’t fight, despite the military and political practicalities of the situation, and in addition were not then tortured, the opportunity for a “moral” excuse to go to war with Iran was lost. The impression I got was that these service personnel were in the perfect position to serve what many LGF regulars perceive as US interests, which they seem to define as bombing the crap out of every Islamic or Communist nation, regardless.
I found this attitude to be similar to their annoyance with the French who opposed US plans to invade Iraq, which earned them the title of “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and a host of juvenile name-calling predicated on pure jingoism.
So then you show up, contest my assertions (fair enough, comments are a forum after all) but you take my comments personally; from your second paragraph:
“You have no evidence that the LGF posters are cowards; however, we have plenty of hard evidence that the UK sailors and Marines are.
Followed by…
“I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as you cannot imagine why someone like me or an LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces of the United States.”
Seems pretty clear that you chose to identify with LGF as a whole (the ones I accuse of being cowards themselves) and chose to be wholeheartedly their champion, feeling personally attacked by association—and it was you who insisted on the association, not me.
You concluded your initial comment to me with
“Nice twist, though, making this episode another opportunity to bash the United States. The country must have done you great wrong. I am curious to know why you haven’t taken up Aeneas’s suggestion.”
Apparently you think renaming of French Fries to Freedom Fries and not eating Brie is an example of American superiority, and that US allies aren’t allowed to function independently of the US, militarily or politically? Don’t bother answering that.
You think I’m full of shit, I think you are full of shit and so does every other commenter here. This is going nowhere.
Thanks to all my friends and allies who have made this exchange so entertaining.
And to you Nomennovum I’m done with you:
majority rules....at this blog, in the UK, in Manhattan and the US ...
...so fuck-off.
*wipes tear from eye*
*stands up and applauds*
BRAVO, 5th, BRAVO!!!!!!
i'm so proud!
5th.. "You cant stop him. You can only hope to contain him."
5th Estate,
Why do you continue to insist on bringing extraneous matters? Freedom fries and Brie cheese? Oh, I know: it's part and parcel of the bete noir of the left.
(That question, obviously given your "being done with" me, is rhetorical.)
Funny, I thought is was pretty clear I didn't "identify with LGF as a whole," as I mentioned them with regard to the specific issues I identified. Admit it, Fifth. You're making things up so you can tear down what you perceive to be my argument. (Now what's that rhetorical device called again?) I have time and time again told you exactly what my point is. Should I do so again? Well, why not? It's your bandwidth. Feel free to ignore it for the fifth or sixth time though: ... Nah! Forget it. I know you cannot grasp was my points were.
But your last sentence! Really! Well said, Fifth Estate. So typical of the left. The brilliant left in stark contrast to the troglodytes of right! Sheer genius! Both you and "Teaghan's" "Mom" are absolutely scintillating in your rhetorical skills. The rapier-like way you wield that word, "fuck," is truly amazing to behold. What a way to punctuate your fabrications of what I say ... with mindless, childish, stupid and needless profanity.
As Teaghan's (I'm lying) Mom (yup; another lie ... perhaps) says: "BRAVO!"
Betmo,
Troll? Maybe. But better behaved and apparently smarter than anyone else here.
Teaghan's Mom (TM):
You're just not very sharp. Are you?
I'm so sorry.
Kevron,
I really can't be bothered trying to figure out you childish sarcastic prose, and I have no desire to comb through this thread again.
Except I do understand one thing. I have a feeling I'm just about done here, but perhaps you would point out where I said or even implied that "the SCOPE of the brits' [sic] MISSION included "attacking" iranians [sic]. [Emphasis added]" Careful; it's not the same thing as saying the British were entitled to fight back against the Iranians' attempts to unlawfully kidnap their military personnel.
Parklife, you seem to be incapable of making sense.
Good bye.
Oh my god.. that was hilarious.
“I really can't be bothered trying to figure out you childish sarcastic prose”
Wow.. can he figure anything out? And “Childish”? Give me a break. This is somebody who bases their adult reality on some “military code” they remember as a child.
“I have a feeling I'm just about done here”
Golly.. What could have given him that impression?
"What could have given him that impression?"
Boredom.
"it's not the same thing as saying the British were entitled to fight back against the Iranians' attempts to unlawfully kidnap their military personnel."
you're absolutely right, and thank you for yet another red herring. sheds light on your disinclination to peruse this thread, for if you were to do so, you'd have to concede that you said "Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians". 5th has pointed out, those british sailors were charged with seeking contraband. we do not know if their mission mandate (and mandates do change from mission to mission) gave them permission to open fire on the iranian navy. now, if you're going to try to shift your meaning from the fifteen sailors involved in the issue at hand to british command, then you're going to have to start all over again with your new approach.
so long, mandatumnoventus. good luck living with yourself....
KEvron
Try to understand what a red herring is, Kevron, and try to read what I right the first time. If you can't do that, try to read what I write the second time. Try not to insist I write the same thing a third time. This is why I am getting bored. Why do you insist I explain the context of my statement a third time? Are you that dense, or do you think you can just get away with accusing me of using red herrings when it's your friend Fifth who is constantly dragging them about in order to prove to himself I am some sort of caricature of a right-winger by bringing up Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, my imagined use of the term “freedom fries,” and my purported refusal to eat brie cheese?
Context, Kevron. Context. The context of my statement shows clearly it was not a read herring. I was responding the Fifth's statement that the sailors and marines could do no more than they did because the two counties were not at war. My response was that what the Iranians did was an act of war.
This is what I said to YOU long ago with regard to this very same issue:
"Furthermore, you'll have to explain how my statement in response to Fifth's contention that the UK and Iran were not belligerents, "Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians, Fifth," is a red herring." Please start with my original comment in Fifth’s first post and then read through both of these threads at least one more time before you comment on this issue again.
Tell you what also, Kevron. Explain to me what you think a red herring is. I am not convinced you know.
"Good luck living" with myself? Are you serious? What is that supposed to mean? That is about the most asinine sentence I have read in a while. Really, what's your deal, Kevron? Are you such a sociopath you think that anyone who disagrees with you is --- what? -- some sort of monster? Or are your rhetorical skills so weak that that is the best you can come up with as a parting shot? Either way, you strike me as a pathetic loser who cooks in his mind up the most insipid tripe and then tries to pass it off as profound.
"Good luck living with yourself." That statement of yours is so awfully banal that you’ll have to excuse me if I giggle as I back away from you. Talk about a cartoon. I hope you're embarrassed.
then GO AWAY already. you've said 'ta-ta' to us peasants a half dozen times thus far, but still, you stay, you read and you comment. if we are such imbeciles, why do you persist? if you believe that you are so much more intelligent than us, why do you keep coming back? you are a sad sick masochist, and end up sounding silly rather than profound.
by the way - if you had been polite, i would hve explained the origin of my moniker. since you are a verbal fool in search of a village, i am keeping that story to myself.
“I have a feeling I'm just about done here”
hmm... Boredom? I'm pretty sure it was the "fuck-off" comment. haha.. Nomomentum, still acting like a child.
oh.. btw..
"I do declare"
haha.. who says that? Are you the Queen of England? Or just a queen in England... haha
"This is why I am getting bored."
ah, yes. boredom would explain your continued dialogue with me, one in which you've become increasingly verbose.
"My response was that what the Iranians did was an act of war."
i see you like to change your wording when called upon to recount. no, you said "“Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/iranians”, and therein lies your stinky fishes; substituting "britain" for "fifteen british sailors" was a despearte act, indeed. whatever britain's subsequent rights in the matter, the subject of this discussion, from 5th's previous post to this one, has been the actions (or inaction, as the case were) of fifteen british sailors while on patrol, and not british command nor the whole of england.
also, by inserting "/iranians" into the scope of their mission parameters, regardless of the fact that you cannot say for certain what those parameters encompassed, you've attempted to surreptitiously change the scope of the discussion. 5th says "roe"; you say "britain's rights".
just how thick are you? do you understand the term "rules of engagement"? do you understand that fifteen sailors charged with searching for contraband are not in any position whatsoever to determine what should be considered an act of war? that these decisions are made by high command, not field operatives?
"you strike me as a pathetic loser who cooks in his mind up the most insipid tripe and then tries to pass it off as profound."
ah! the signature fright-winger characteristic: projection!
the minute 5th referred to "roe", you had lost this argument. "pathetic" has been your persistance in that defeat.
KEvron
As I said before, nomennovum--
"I’m done with you: majority rules, at this blog, in the UK, in Manhattan and the US ..so fuck-off."
So...fuck-off.
It's the opposite of "bring it on"
Fuck-off.
Teaghan's Mom (shhhh ... it's a secret):
"[I]f you had been polite ... "
That's a good one. You seem to have forgotten your first post to me:
"SHUT THE FUCK UP because you have NO IDEA WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH, you jingoistic self-righteous myopic supercilious hebetudinous sophophobic cretin."
My first post on this site, on the other hand, was quite polite, IMO.
Fifth, "fuck off" is NOT the opposite of "bring it on. But I understand your need to get in another ring-wing stereotype. Here's a clue: I am not Bush.
Kevron, sorry but I didn't read your response. As I hinted earlier, I am too bored with you kids now. Again, sorry.
Parklife, "ha ha" to you too iddums.
KEvron,
Well now I read you're last post (I have some spare time, it seems). I just wanted to confirm that you didn't read my responses to Fifth's feeble attempts to claim, "Gotcha." As I expected, you cannot grasp the simple fact that I never blamed the 15 for failing to resist capture -- for that I blamed their government and their silly "ROE." This is so clear in all of my comments that I cannot believe I am writing about it again for -- what? -- the fourth, five, sixth time. Little boys, please learn to read. I suggest (again) you start with my very first post on the previous post and then go from there.
KEvron, I do understand your need to claim I am "desperate" and that I "lost" the argument, but, really, you DO have to stretch my words a little too far to get where you want to go. I generally choose my words very carefully words and I am well aware of their meaning when I use them. I can tell the difference between "Britain erred in not fighting the Iranians" and "the fifteen sailors and marines were cowards for not resisting their capture by the Iranians." Each and every one of my comments made this distinction clear, but to fill your own needs, each and every one of you have refused to see that.
I suspect your issue is not reading comprehension. I suspect you have a psychological need to see me the way you wish to see me and to catch me in some logical fallacy in order to "defeat" me. In other words, you wish to make me into a caricature so that you can point to me and say, "Hey! Here's a typical stupid hypocritical, and mendacious chickenhawk right-winger! See how we tore him to shreds!" Sorry I won't comply. I am not stupid (usually). Pace Meaghan's Mom's epithets, I embrace learning (it's possible I am better educated than anyone here; I am certainly politer); Pace Fifth's imaginations, I eat Brie cheese and don't call French fries "freedom fries (no one does; don't you know that?); I never claimed "mission accomplished" after the overthrow of Saddam (neither did Bush; that was a banner erected by the sailors on the ship Bush spoke on; and I think they were referring to the specific task they just accomplished, not the Iraq war); etc. (getting bored again).
Even if I am a chickenhawk and even if I originally said the 15 acted cowardly by not resisting their capture (which I did not), it still doesn't alter the strength of my argument that the 15 acted cowardly AFTER their capture. As a matter of fact, if I AM a coward, is not my argument strengthened? After all, it takes one to know one.
Since the original "fuck-off" comment... 9 additional posts and 2 deleted posts. Awesome.
And 4 of them have been from you, Parklife.
Is that also "awesome"?
Nomennovum said...
Carl,
I am not sure you really want a response -- with congenital sarcasm it's always hard to tell -- but I'll answer anyway.
Reagan was wrong in his response to the bombing and killing of the Marines.
So, in other words, Reagan acted cowardly?
Not "intelligently" (altho a: I can't see how you'd know and more important, b: I can't see how HE would know). Not "prudently". Not "realizing there was nothing to gain and much to lose".
You believe he acted wrongly.
It must be nice to live in a rose-coloured glasses world where might always makes right and only the strong survive.
We saw what happened to that theory during World War II. Eventually, enough of the world has enough and kicks the living crap out of bullies.
The Brits did the smart thing, and I for one applaud them.
You, on the other hand...well, let's just say I hope your hands are never near The Button.
Parklife said...
“I have a feeling I'm just about done here”
Golly.. What could have given him {Novocainumb] that impression?
Um, the pan drippings?
Carl,
Regarding Reagan's actions, you asked, "So, in other words, Reagan acted cowardly?"
I see you also have the reading comprehension skills that the others here have. In the very same comment where you got that quote I said, "Who knows if it was cowardly on his part?"
As in "I don't know." I said Reagan was wrong ... as in your enemy always takes advantage of perceived weaknesses. Bin Laden certainly drew the lesson that the US could be attacked without serious repercussions. He even cited the Marines in Lebanon and the US troops in Somalia.
You see no downside to retreat for the UK and the US (you “applaud” the British action). You think the US is today's Nazi Germany, a world bully ("We saw what happened to that theory during World War II. Eventually, enough of the world has enough and kicks the living crap out of bullies.") I think this is deranged thinking. It is also reprehensible thinking. It simultaneously insults the United States and minimizes the evil of Nazi Germany. The lesson I draw from World War II is that appeasement and surrender in the face of an implacable foe only invites further aggression. The sooner you confront a threat the better.
You say you fear my hand on “The Button,” but again forgot to read what I wrote: “The UK was within her rights to respond with force. They opted not to. That’s fine … but the sailors and marines’ post-capture actions still stank.” In my opinion, what Iran did was an act of war. That doesn’t mean the UK ought to start hurling nukes at Iran. It means the British navy should have used force to prevent their personnel from being illegally kidnapped. I do not believe that would lead to some wider, all-out war with Iran. Indeed, I believe it would have likely told the Iranians that the West is not easily cowed. It would have helped avert a war that I fear is coming – a much bigger war than it would otherwise be if the West would show a little backbone. When Iran attacked some tankers (including US tankers) in the Persian Gulf and threatened to shut down the shipping lanes in the Gulf in the late 1980’s, Reagan sunk a number of Iranian navy ships and destroyed a couple of Iranian oil platforms. No larger war erupted. As a matter of fact, the Iranians became much more pacific after that. I bet you didn’t even hear about it. So, why act like Neville Chamberlain? What would it take for you to respond?
“It must be nice to live in a rose-coloured [sic unless you’re HM Subject living in NY] glasses world where might always makes right and only the strong survive.” That’s the first time I ever heard of anyone who believes that might makes right being accused of looking at the world through rose colored glasses! There are two problems with this inapt phrase, Carl. One, I do not look at the world through rose colored glasses. I think I see it quite clearly. The world is made up of some nasty regimes who would like nothing more than to cause trouble for us. We have seen that first hand here in New York. I know human nature. I know the limitations of power. I also know the limitations of diplomacy. I am skeptical but not cynical. Two, I do not believe might makes right. I believe, however, that the free nations of the world who are mighty have an obligation to use that power when necessary, and that their governments have an obligation to protect their citizens and their interests. Call it, “might compels us to do right.”
“Is that also "awesome"?”
Your memory is fading…. A recap…
5th Estate: And to you Nomennovum (that would be you, remember) I’m done with you… ...so fuck-off. - 9:17 PM
Nomennovum: Good bye. - 1:02 PM
Nomennovum: Boredom. - 2:35 PM
Nomennovum: excuse me if I giggle – 4:25 PM
5th Estate: Fuck-off. – 11:27 PM
Nomennovum: I am a chickenhawk – 10:00 AM
Me!: Awesome. - 10:40 AM
Nomennovum: Is that also "awesome"? – 1:16 PM
Hmm… Yes.. Well.. more like.. awww some.. people just never get it.
Yet still you cannot resist commenting one more time, Parklife.
If you really wanted me to shut up, you would be less inclined to respond to me.
Nice selection of a quotation, "I am a chickenhawk." I take it you are a journalist ... in addition to being an all around creep.
"you cannot resist"
Hello... You're the one asked to leave.
Nomennovum said...
Carl,
Regarding Reagan's actions, you asked, "So, in other words, Reagan acted cowardly?"
I see you also have the reading comprehension skills that the others here have. In the very same comment where you got that quote I said, "Who knows if it was cowardly on his part?"
As in "I don't know." I said Reagan was wrong ... as in your enemy always takes advantage of perceived weaknesses.
So you disagree with yourself...I see.
Novocainumb, as an old UESer, let me give you a piece of advice.
Move. You're disgracing my hometown now. Prolificy is not proficiency and the more you write, the more you prove that point.
So in your little world, Carl, saying, "Reagan was wrong in his actions" is the same as saying "Reagan was cowardly in his actions."
And saying further that I don't know if Reagan's actions were cowardly means that I disagree with my statement that Reagan was wrong.
Got it. Like everything I've read here ... sheer genius.
I find it hard to believe that you people are so determined to read, see, and understand only what you want that you are willing to assert the most absurd things.
Carl, it is you that is the embarrassment. It is your reasoning skills that are disgraceful. You come across as absolutely deranged. I am glad you are not in my neighborhood anymore; I'd likely end up mumbling to you as I passed quickly by, "Sorry, I don't have any change."
You are still in the UES, are you?
"for that I blamed their government and their silly 'ROE.'"
yes, those blasted "roe". had they not been bogged down with parameters and directives, we could have enjoyed a bit of fire fight. but noooo!! we got stuck with some boring ol' diplomatic resolution to the crisis. hard to get any good highlights for the evening news from that.
"I do understand your need"
i, however, am confounded at your need to defend a vociferous group of abrasive cowards ("101st fighting keyboardists"! wow!) with whom you claim no association. i'm further mystified at your obvious need to see soldiers die in a situation that, clearly, could have been (and was, you know) resolved otherwise. how do you live with your bloodthirsty self?
"I generally choose my words very carefully"
ah, then you're aware of your passive/aggresive tendencies. good.
"Each and every one of my comments made this distinction clear"
no, you haven't. you've intentionally blurred definitions. this can be attributed two causes: either your papd, or just part of the game.
"I suspect your issue"
*yawn*
thanks for the long distance diagnosis, dr. frist.
"which I did not"
that would explain "Besides...."
"the 15 acted cowardly AFTER their capture."
still playing(?) at obtuse, eh? i guess you missed the part where 5th explained to you that iran and gb are not at war with one another. "cowardice", wrt to the military, is a charge leveled only when applicable. "name, rank and serial" are not the obligatory response in this instance.
unless, of course, those sailors were up to something other than their stated mission, in which case we'd have to dispense with the notion of "international waters" altogether.
in case you've forgotten, here is the passage which highlights your complete failure in this argument:
"Whether the UK was at war or not, their post-capture behavior was reprehensible. Besides, isn’t the kidnapping of the sailors and marines an act of war (the Britons were in international waters)? Britain WAS within her rights to attack the pirates/Iranians, Fifth."
the first sentence was just plain stoopid, and the second a red herring. but "pirates/iranians"! i just loved that!
good luck living with yourself, biggusdickus. give the little green snotballs a kiss for me, would you? and lay off the fallacies....
KEvron
heh! "kidnapping"!
whatta tool....
KEvron
I love it when leftists try to fisk. It always comes across at so laughably pathetic. Good work KEvron. We're clearly talking past one another. Surely, you don't expect a response from me, so why are you beating this dead and rotted horse? Oh, I know why: You wanted to use that phrase, "tool." What are you, sixteen?
Are you absolutely, 100%, sure you don't need help? You keep asking for it.
Parklife,
How did I miss your gem, "Hello... You're the one asked to leave"?
What! You are joking, right? Tell me you are not so idiotic. Tell me you are not so dishonest. Really? Is saying, "Fuck off," the same as asking, "Will you please not post here anymore?" No. It is not. It is not even close. "Fuck off" is a vulgar term for a lot of things, but "I ask you to leave" ain't one of them. Perhaps it would be if I had refused to leave after "being asked to," but that was not the case here. Certainly, everyone's continuing comments to me belies the "you were asked to leave" charge.
Amazing. All I've gotten from you people is nasty comments, adolescent invective, and false and misleading charges of illogic (e.g, Kevron still shows no sign of knowing what a red herring is -- though he shows every sign of ADD and inability to read or understand context).
"We're clearly talking past one another."
this ain't my first bar-b-que. nor yours, either.
fuck off, obtuse one. here's a band-aid.
KEvron
"'Will you please not post here anymore?'"
heh. and plenty of straw man bs!
don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way "off"....
KEvron
Nomennovum said...
So in your little world, Carl, saying, "Reagan was wrong in his actions" is the same as saying "Reagan was cowardly in his actions."
Um. Yea. That's precisely true.
After all, Ronald Reagan, September 28, 1982: "And the Marines are going in there into a situation with a definite understanding as to what we're supposed to do. I believe that we are going to be successful in seeing the other foreign forces leave Lebanon. And then at such time as Lebanon says that they have the situation well in hand, why, we'll depart."
Job not done, he cut and ran. By defintion, that's cowardly.
You say he should have stayed, in other words been steadfast and courageous despite numerous American deaths.
Ergo, you believe Reagan was cowardly.
QED
Boy, you're an idiot...
Troll ass kicked?
Check
*doing troll stomp dance*
Oh...and please note:
Your ass has just been kicked courtesy of Carl, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actor212 Enterprises, a Cayman Islands corporation
Tell your friends, maybe they'll care. I know I sure don't
Carl,
You are one confused human being. MY saying Reagan was wrong is not the same thing as MY saying he was cowardly. It is as simple as that. Why is the English language beyond you. This is not even a matter of faulty logic. It is a lack of basic reading comprehension skills. Where did you go to school?
Why, I didn't even say Reagan was NOT cowardly. I said "I do not know." If I wanted to say, "Regan was cowardly." I would have. If I wanted to say, "Reagan was not cowardly," I would have. But I wanted to say, "I think Reagan was wrong (and I believe explained later why he was wrong). I did not know if he was cowardly." I meant precisely what I wrote. It is 100% clear to any reasoning human being (except you people, apparently) that the two sentences are not mutually exclusive or contradictory in any way. YOU think they are because YOU think he was cowardly. This is faulty reasoning. You cite what you believe is evidence of his cowardice. Good for you. I could cite evidence of his non-cowardice: E.g., the American people wanted the Marines out of Beirut and Washington politics demanded it. I don't like the reason (hence my opinion that he was wrong) but that's life. I can cite examples of his non-cowardice (as a matter of fact I did, with his actions against Iran; and, further, his negotiations with Soviets regarding "star wars; his response to the attempt on his life; his days as a lifeguard where he saved a number of lives; and so on). So there, foolish child. I just "proved" Reagan was not a coward. Therefore, he was brave. As a brave man, therefore, he was incapable of acting cowardly in the Lebanon event. Therefore, his actions there were not cowardly. So I amend my previous statement, creep: "Reagan was wrong concerning his decision to withdraw the Marines from Beirut, but I now know his actions were NOT cowardly." Happy with my reasoning now, Carl?
But I do not see how any of this in any wat impacts my statement that the British marines and sailor acted reprehensibly and appeared cowardly after they were captured by the Iranians.
So, debating point for Carl: ZERO. But thanks for reminding me what a brave man Ronald Reagan was, if not an infallible one.
And save your eight-year-old victory dance, failed actor. It's as premature as you are immature.
P.S.: Don't forget you promised to take
KEvron,
Stop it; you are embarrassing yourself. You have proven that you don't know what a red herring is. Don't go compounding your problems by proving that you don't know what a straw man is.
You still appear to need help, I see. Anything I can do?
Carl,
Oops. My PS got truncated:
P.S.: Don't forget you promised to take me to a NYC recruiting station. Again, where and when? You’re not afraid are you?
I have to say (with what I hope will be my last comment, if you kids could stop responding to me with your juvenilia), reading through these comments only reinforces my belief that leftists are a bunch of knee-jerk, emotional, often-delusional, generally irrational, laugably illogical, and reflexively profane, children. You should all be embarrassed. You should all be doubly embarrassed for being, instead, proud of yourselves. Almost without exception, your posts come across as, by turns, mildly retarded and sociopathic.
And YOU call ME a troll! Read through your sneering rants and mindless invective. Don't you wish you could do better?
...
(I thought not. Too bad for you.)
the 'deleted' comments are a glitch. I've only ever deleted one comment on this blog since I started it, but have has such occur a couple of times.
to nomen....I told you this was going nowhere and told you to fuck-off. but back you came. This blog is not your hang-out, you aren;t making any friends here, so once again, fuck off.
I intend to. Do you intend to ask your friends to stop commenting to me? (I mean, do you intend to tell them, at least vis-a-vis me, to "fuck off"? Or do you expect me not to respond to comments directed to me? I am not talking about comments ABOUT me. I mean direct comments, Fifth Estate. So, you girls and boys can feel free to call me names (I won't respond), but if you are going to ask me questions or accuse me of some imagined logical fallacy, expect answers and rebuttals ... unless Fifth "asks" me not to do even that. Then, by all means consider me fucked and off.
Nice mouth, Fifth. Do YOU have a daughter (son, dog, self-portrait) to kiss with it?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................
Carl,
I'll consider your offer to meet me to introduce me to the NYC military recruiter officially off. I see you're all talk and no action. Coward.
Ignore my last post. I'll comment here no more, regardless of what you say.
Consider it an open invitation to you very brave souls to pile on.
"You still appear to need help, I see."
that obvious, is it?
"Anything I can do?"
aside from fucking off? well, you could drop the logclal fallacies, offenses which you only compound with your passive/aggressive denials....
KEvron
Nomennovum said...
P.S.: Don't forget you promised to take me to a NYC recruiting station. Again, where and when? You’re not afraid are you?
What's the matter, little boy...school field trip got cancelled?
No, coward.
I just knew you'd try to get your last dig in once I left. What a truly pathetic specimen of a man you are, yellowbelly.
Well, sorry Fifth. Truly. I did not want to comment here again, but I simply think the irony – the outrageousness of the insincerity -- is too great: To be called a “chickenhawk” by the likes of Carl, who hasn't the guts to meet me when I called his silly bluff.* Carl you are disgusting. What is it you think you have to fear from me?
__________
* You haven’t forgotten that you said, “I know of a fine recruiting station in your neighborhood. It happens to be my old neighborhood. Perhaps I can walk you over?” I said, “Yes.” Since then, you’ve avoided mentioning your offer. Carl, your offer was accepted. Do you even know what that means?
Post a Comment