Donkeys and elephants
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did you actually read the Padhoretz article?

[/ QUOTE ] (It's Podhoretz, for crying out loud.) Yes, I did. Why do you need to remind me? I am not too fond of crap.

[ QUOTE ]
It basically says that a multitude of intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ] I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that the admin. acts on foreign policy based on what is good for Israel and not the US, which is complete insanity.

[/ QUOTE ] Not foreign policy in general and not the whole foreign policy. Of course, not!

But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[ QUOTE ]
You ... fail to acknowledge the extremely close relationship the US has had with Israel through many other administrations, Democrat and Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, don't you worry. I am not pinning that to Bush or even the GOP exclusively at all! The blind, fanatical, irresponsible support of Israel by the United States was given for a solid fifty years and more. This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Yeah, the libs were privy to the same manufactured intelligence that the White House was.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in my first response, i gave THREE examples, which is all i have/had the time or inclination to do... but, you're beggining to understand, so i'll give it one more shot:

Bush's detractors are NOT claiming that he was lying EVERY TIME he made a statement about WMD in iraq; Rather, they accuse the administration of making SPECIFIC statements that they knew to be untrue... here's half-decent link on the subject: here...

An example from the link provided:
[ QUOTE ]
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

and the evidence that seems to indicate that this is a lie:

[ QUOTE ]
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

above is a cited quote, making a specific claim, and a cited peice of evidence disproving that claim. now, that site is guilty of some of the same things that your submission is- see if you can see what's a legit peice of evidence and what's misleading fluff...

SO:

only an idiot would dispute that Saddam did at one time have WMDs, nuclear aspirations, and so on... he USED 'em on the kurds, for example, a fact which is beyond (reasonable) debate. Clinton was telling the truth in '98 (not about his cigar fetish, of course), hell, Bush told the truth about a lot of iraq's shenanigans, but when it came time to find a way to convince the public and the congress that an invasion was justified... there are definitly... irregularities:

Uranium from Niger...
Aluminum tubes...
...and other claims that had been DISPROVED at the time that bush& co. made them.

wheras, ALL of the quotes YOUR submission provided contained NO specifics... other than Bill Clinton's, which was citing iraqi ADMISSIONS. there is a HUGE difference that SHOULD be obvious.... my point:

In order to avoid being a tool of the propagandists and reckless partisans that would rather lead ignorant sheep than have an educated electorate, one must be able to see through the kind of manipulative psudeo-logic that the decievers rely upon to lower the level of discourse and decieve the uninformed. don't be a sheep, be a shepard.

Re: Donkeys and elephants
 

Norman Podhoretz. There you go. I know how to spell his name but thanks for pointing that out for me. You are awesome.

If you read the article correctly, you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed. He didn't lie or mislead the people. He acted on intelligence that so far has been proven incorrect (not all of it; see the uranium in Niger claim) I don't know how you don't think the intelligence was convincing. Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq. The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again. But forgive me for straying into this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for having an open mind. I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased. I read the article and came to the conclusion that the intelligence was faulty, bush as of now has been wrong about wmds being in iraq, but he did not purposely mislead the american people. multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions. but i must be delusional. theres no way i just have a different opinion based on credited information. You disagree yet you probably have credible info to support your position.

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3. 2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez. Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel. Also, you say Sharon spat in the US face by rejecting the roadmap, yet you say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

Since it is on my mind, where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel. I suppose you wouldnt mind.

[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

Re: Donkeys and elephants
 

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well you basically answered your own question, the US was close to WWIII if the Soviets decided to intervene against Israel in the Yom Kippur, that's why the US pushed so hard for a ceasefire. As for the Egyptian troops in the Sinai, Israel tried and tried to take them out for good but couldn't and decided to accept the ceasefire, along with a mutual withdraw from the front lines.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.


[/ QUOTE ]

An act of pure agression against Egypt with a flimsy pretext of the nationalized canal to give Israel, UK and France an excuse to take out Nasser. We objected (imagine: juuust as we get ready to harshly condemn the Soviets for intervening in Hungary, our western allies do the same to Egypt) and demanded they withdraw and yes that was our least pro-Israel moment.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was very unlikely to be an accident considering how distinctly different looking the Liberty was from anything Egypt owned, with the attack occuring in broad daylight. It was possibly a deliberate attack on the local US intelliegence ship to cover Israel continuted offensive in Syria. Israel had refused international declared ceasefire AFTER all the Arab states had accepted it, prefering to continue their sucessful invasion. Many US officials eventually admitted that they did not buy the Israeli explaination, but at the time most were just happy it wasn't the Soviets.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

True the creation of Israel proved extremely distabalizing in the Middle East. Still, it was the consistently pro-Israel US which supplied Israel with massive guns and millions in cash for decades when it should have opted for an even-handed and pro-peace approach. Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, and many others saw a very strong Israel as necissary to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. There were unforunantly two small prices to pay for this service: a) continuing war, and terrible instability in the Middle East for 50 years, b) the recent rise of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the Middle East (partial credit).

Re: Donkeys and elephants
 

First, twowords, I commend you on the civility of your post.

The two examples I gave were very brief and I agree wtih most of what you said. Just to clarify my point in bringing them up; I bring them up only to refute cyrus' claim that the us will follow israel no matter what by showing two examples where the US got what it wanted out of Israel. I would challenge your claim that Israel could not destroy the Egyptian army but that is not important for this thread (If you havent read it, check out "Crisis" by Henry Kissinger). I also would argue about the war in the Suez but not in this thread. if you want, we could debate it in another thread if you're up for it.

The Liberty incident also could be its own thread, but I will state that the possible negative consequences of attacking a US ship far outweigh any positives on Israel's part. Also please note that the torpedoing of the Liberty occured after the Liberty opened fire on Israel ships. To be fair, Israeli aircrafts dropped napam and shot at the ship before. Ten US commissions and three Israeli ones all concluded that it was an accident. I just can't find a good enough reason as to why Israel would do this that doesn't stretch into conspiracy theories.

Your final point that the US should have been more even handed in its approach to the conflict. First, in the context of the Cold War, this couldn't happen. Second, the US did not supply Israel with weapons until 1968, with a few exceptions. Third, having a democracy in the Middle East is good for America. It was in our best interest to support Israel. Otherwise we wouldnt do it. I believe it is morally right to support Israel and that the removal of Israel would not stablilize the relationship between the US and the middle east. when governments call for the destruction of israel, they generally preface it with calls for the death to america.

Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ... the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.

[/ QUOTE ]You realize, I hope, that you just answered your own question! World War III was to nobody's interest. Each of the two superpowers assisted its proxy in the region - but the Soviets were, shall we say, a little timid about it!

On the other hand, if Israel were not to receive massive assistance in matériel and intelligence from the United States, it would quite possibly not have been able to withstand the Egyptian blitz. Have you read the history of that war, at all, or are we wasting our time here ?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you referring to Suez, 1956 ?

Because, if you are, this was the ONLY time that the United States put the squeeze on Israel! But examine this closer: This squeeze was not directed at Israel, per se, but at the British-French initiative against Gamal Nasser of Egypt who had seized the canal. The United States was saying to those two that they were not supposed to make geostrategic moves any more without Washington’s blessings! And Israel was caught in it.

If you are referring to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal, during the Yom Kippur War, this was done because there was no strategic advantage for Israel in staying there. If you were to read some time the relevant literature (Zionist, Israeli, historical), you'd see that Israel's primary political/military objective has been to neutralize the threat from Egypt.

This was eventually accomplished by (a) not hitting Egypt with a disproportionate blow in Yom Kippur, and (b) exchanging Sinai for a treaty.

[ QUOTE ]
Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today.

[ QUOTE ]
Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America.

[/ QUOTE ] Israel had not "planned" the attack beforehand, I did not say that. Israel saw the American ship spying on its military movements and sank it without thinking twice about it! Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. Israel knew it would get away with it. Israel did get away with it.

www.USSLiberty.org

[ QUOTE ]
You say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

[/ QUOTE ] What Arab government is that, please ? I challenge you to produce one head of government in the Arab world who has said such a thing. Go ahead.

(To save you from a gaffe : Afghanis and Persians are not Arabs.)

[ QUOTE ]
To say we should remove our support for Israel to appease the Arab world is insane and morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands.

But this will not happen. And permanent, solid peace will not come. Only an uneasy, nervous, murderous, unproductive, divisive "peace" will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Iraq, Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the article correctly [?!], you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed.

[/ QUOTE ]But the point is incorrect ! British intelligence was arm-twisted into producing something that the spooks felt uncomfortable with. Czech intelligence faked the Niger connection. Italian intelligence amplified the Czech fabrications. Russian intelligence was a joke. And the CIA did a patently, obviously lousy job!

Everybody was falling all over themselves to please Washington, to the point that some intellignece agencies started murdering in cold blood innocent immigrants in their country and labeling them "terrorists", just to appear pro-war in the eyes of Washington.

And you mean to tell me that you were not onto the lies as soon as you witnessed the wretched performance of Colin Powell in the U.N. ?? Come on, you're supposed to be a poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] The policy of permanent sanctions (no terms defined for lifting it) and bombing Iraq was wrong -- and it was a bi-partisan wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ] Chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, are in a wholly different class than nucular weapons. It was the threat of the latter that ostensibly led us into war. (Remember, Saddam was supposed to present a "clear and present danger"...)

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ] There have been only two "high level" reports on the fiasco that I'm aware of: One was the U.S. Congress investigation, which was a bi-partisan compromise, though quite damning even for that. And the Lord Butler report in Britain, which everyone and his butler found to be a Blair whitewash.

What else you got ?..

[ QUOTE ]
I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased.

[/ QUOTE ]Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[ QUOTE ]
Where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ] I hereby condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Happy ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Iraq, Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my arguement in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct

Re: Iraq, Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then reply to my arguement in this thread:


[/ QUOTE ]


You're arguments were given a precursory credit then shot down. I showed how your logic could be used to justify non-military action with better results. I also gave a preliminary report on why your orignial premise is off. It surprises me that your linking others to that thread. I figured that once you read my last response, you couldn't come with a counter argument so you 1) were trying to develop one 2) were strongly considering reversing your position 3) quit thinking and cursed how some people can be so stupid.

By the way, if you come up with a counter argument to anything that I say, I will always seek to either shed light on its flaws or admit that you were right. I'm not afraid to change my mind. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong many times again. There ain't nothing wrong with reconsidering your position. I hope that we are all open enough to agree on that.

Re: Israel
 

You said, Cyrus, that the US never did anything that didn't follow and help Israel. I simply pointed out two instances where the US pressured Israel to do what it wanted. Now, this is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done. The US did put pressure on Israel not to let the Egyptian army starve. Are you denying that the Egyptain army wouldn't have starved if the US didnt pressure Israel to give them food and water? In fact, the US put tremendous pressure on Israel to not destroy the trapped army, even threatening to support a UN resolution calling for US to pull back. I am not arguing that Israel would have been better for destroying the third army or not. I am simply using this as an exampple of US pressure on Israel. Can you admit that you were wrong when you stated otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you are completely missing my point. I do not deny that Israel was responsible for the concessions and not the US. But the US pressured Israel to opt for this plan. They did not just tell Israel that whatever they wanted to do and they would support them. This is what you claimed, and this is the point I am refuting.

I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords, so just look at that.

I attempted through the internet to find evidence to back my claim that Arab governments openly called for the destruction of the US but couldnt find it. Until I come across evidence, I will state that I was wrong for saying that. But I still believe that many Arab governments do wish for the destruction of the US and its values. Also, will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century and not for Palestinian and other Arab countries to get into the 21st century? I'll do you one better. How about Arab countries and the Palestinian government get into the 18th century? Even the 17th century would be better than now.

More Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done.

[/ QUOTE ]You did not read carefully the text. I did not claim that America never tried to put some pressure on Israel (the latest example of such "pressure" was the Bush Roadmap, which is now a dead duck).

Just so that you understand very clearly: The United States HAS tried to apply some (very mild, very discreet) pressure on Israel. This has happened, by the way, in peripheral, secondary matters. The only times that I know where serious pressure has been applied was in 1956, but this was pressure applied to Britain and France, as I explained, and Israel found itself caught in the fray -- and the Yom Kippur War, whereby the United States pressured Israel to withdraw from the west bank of the Suez canal. However, this was something that Israel would have done in any case! This is the point : Israel seems to oblige the U.S. but it does so ONLY when this is convenient for Israel! If you think that this amounts to succumbing to pressure, be my guest.

You know, it is a little tiresome when I am arguing on the basis of what Menachem Begin, David Ben-Gurion or Moshe Dayan have said and done (as a matter of historical records) and I am confronted by people who effectively dispute what the Israeli leadership itself explicitly was supporting! Please understand this : Israel's numero uno concern, militarily and politically, has been Egypt, not Jordan, not Libya, not Iraq, not Lebanon, not Saudi Arabia. Alright?

This is why they withdrew from the Suez west bank. In order to open the way for an eventual peace agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords.

[/ QUOTE ] Debate it as much as you like and with whomever you like : I gave you the testimony of the survivors of the attack against the ship! Are you going to claim you know what happened better than the American shipmen who were there ?

The U.S.S. Liberty website

[ QUOTE ]
I still believe that many Arab governments wish for the destruction of the US.

[/ QUOTE ] I knew about wishful thinking. This must be something else.

[ QUOTE ]
Will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]You think it is necessary? Why can't you automatically assume that I disagree with and condemn what the Iranian president stated? But I already obliged you here.

[ QUOTE ]
Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. A country that is based on principles such as Israel's, and a country with pretensions to "western values" and "democratic principles" at that, is an anachronism, a throw-back to the nationalism of the 19th century.

The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my argument in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

Re: More Israel
 

[/ QUOTE ] The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

Re: More Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any)

If I critisize the American government or even America itself, am I anti-American? (the latter part of that rhetorical question is some nice food for thought)

Re: More Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any)

[/ QUOTE ]

He is equating Jews with the Israelis, but is not suggesting Jews are guilty of Israeli crimes? Which is it? I am confused.

Secondly, Israel is a secular state with a secular government. It is not a theocratic state, nor is it anti-democratic like Cyrus implied.

Honored
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

And it's not just me saying this...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you think it is anti-semitic to support the position that Israel may have won the military battles but is losing its soul ?

Well, if that's the case, I am joining an illustrious group of Jewish anti-semites!..

Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my argument in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be that you simply are unable to grasp where the war in Iraq fits in the greater strategic scheme of things. Forest and trees type of stuff.

Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 

Even the Brit opinion writers of the London Times realize that the title of this thread is true.

You don't have to be an amnesiac to be a democrat, buddy, but it helps

Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 

Another good analysis:
The Big Lie Democrats

Excerpt:

"Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not? The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so."

Israel\'s religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is a secular state with a secular government.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "official" state religion in Israel, but, as the Jewish state, Israel's de facto state religion is Judaism.

I trust we are not going to debate this.

(Note: Having a state religion, either de facto or de jure, is a different matter than religious tolerance. Israel gets very high marks for its tolerance of non-Judaic religions.)

Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 

" Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors "

Must have been watching different news.. I thought it was the US who was not prepared to give the weapons inspectors more time, against the wishes of the UN.

Ah well. another history revision, I guess.

Regarding th OP: "If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs"... YES!

Re: More Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This right here is the crux of our debate. You said the above, Cyrus, and I showed how it was incorrect. Of course Israel acted in its own interest in many ways in these two examples I gave, but they still illustrate how your statement is incorrect. Let me again say that Israel acted in its best interest in the Yom Kippur War. But they were still pressurized heavily by the US gov't (see Kissinger's "Crisis") The Suez War further proves you wrong. I admitted when I was wrong about saying that Arab govt's openly called for the destruction of the US. Can you at least say you are wrong here?

[ QUOTE ]
This is the point : Israel seems to oblige the U.S. but it does so ONLY when this is convenient for Israel! If you think that this amounts to succumbing to pressure, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those bastards! I can't believe Israel would act in its own interests. Also, the Suez War was an instance where it wasn't in Israels best interest to withdraw but did so from US pressure.

[ QUOTE ]
Please understand this : Israel's numero uno concern, militarily and politically, has been Egypt, not Jordan, not Libya, not Iraq, not Lebanon, not Saudi Arabia. Alright?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it wasn't. I do not deny what Israeli leaders said. You continue to miss my point. Lets just say that the USc was to pressure some other country to do something. Lets not include what the even was, who the other country was, or the motives of that country. Any logical person would agree that the US pressured that country. You said the US never did this to Israel. You said the US always followed Israel no matter what. I showed they didnt. If you could simply acknowledge this, then we could maybe see eye to eye on some other aspects.

[ QUOTE ]
Debate it as much as you like and with whomever you like : I gave you the testimony of the survivors of the attack against the ship! Are you going to claim you know what happened better than the American shipmen who were there ?

[/ QUOTE ]

After Israeli airplanes fired on the USS LIberty, two torpedo boats approached. The Liberty then fired on the boats, which they had every right to do. Then torpedo boats then fired on the ship. I do not simply dismiss the testimony of the survivors, but I would not expect them to say anything but that it was deliberate since they lost many friends. However, an objective look at the tragedy along with 13 total commissions on the incident shows that it was an accident. Given that it was during the six day war, is it not possible that this was the case? Also what logical and supported reason is there for Israel to do this?

[ QUOTE ]
A country that is based on principles such as Israel's, and a country with pretensions to "western values" and "democratic principles" at that, is an anachronism, a throw-back to the nationalism of the 19th century.

The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel was established as a Jewish state because of the need for a homeland and the survival of the jewish people. You seem to think that this shouldnt have happened. I want you to look up some of the more famous Israeli Supreme Court decisions. I think you might change your opinion that Israel does not act as a western country. Apparently, the Jews are not part of the civilized world, everyone. Cyrus just opened all our eyes. They are still barbarians living in the 18th century and we should thorw our support behing the muslims, who are living in the future!

Yet more Israel
 

Oh you like country music too, huh? Let's dance.

"Israel acted in its best interest in the Yom Kippur War. But they were still pressurized heavily by the US gov't."

What did I say different?

The US "pressurized" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. Israel's best interests coincided with what Washington wanted. And Washington knew that. And Jerusalem knew that. They both come out spit 'n shine! Whaht do you find impossible to understand exactly?

I did not say "Washington nevr presses Israel". I said that Washington will never pressure Israel to do something against Israel's interests! The AIPAC has quite a pit bull's hold on American policies and administrations to allow for anything different.

"The Suez War further proves you wrong."

No, the 1956 war actually proves my point! The Americans "pressurized" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Britain and France inn that war; Israel's "pressurization" was a collateral effect -- the first and only time that Israel was obliged to step back on account of Washington's orders. (You have some ways to catch up on yer History!)

"I do not simply dismiss the testimony of the survivors [of the USS Liberty] , but I would not expect them to say anything but that it was deliberate since they lost many friends."

Fair point. But the facts are on the survivorts' side. Why do you think there has never been a serious inverstigation (a total shame, this) by the United States? This doesn't just smell cover-up, it stinks to high heaven.

"An objective look at the tragedy along with 13 total commissions on the incident shows that it was an accident. Given that it was during the six day war, is it not possible that this was the case? Also what logical and supported reason is there for Israel to do this?

Israeli warplanes fired at the hapless ship USS Liberty not once or twice but repeatedly and from close range. The ship was no spy ship. She was not hiding her identity. On the contrary, it was flying her flags and showing off her colors for all to see. Especially so on account of the nearby war going on!

The USS Liberty survivors and whose who assist them in their efforts did not just whine and complain and cry black tears for the lost ones. They have assembled meticulously the sequence of events (link) whereby the war crime perpetrated on June 8, 1967 becomes blatantly obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
...At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing "a US Navy cargo type ship," just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings "GTR-5".
(Source : IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-678:
"The [Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft] patrol’s mission was to detect ship movements before vessels could enter coastal radar detection range.
...
Meanwhile, the "Nord" plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and [at 1050 hours local time] the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at [Israel] Air Command. The observer reported spotting the marking GTR-5 on the ship’s side. Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the reference was to an intelligence ship named "Liberty".")

[/ QUOTE ]

"Israel was established as a Jewish state because of the need for a homeland and the survival of the jewish people."

At some point in time, Israelis have to acknowledge that what for them was a historical moment of salvation and national joy, was also a catastrophe for the local inhabitants of the place. Until now, Israel has acted like an apartheid state, by denying the self-proclaimed national identity of those locals, denying them basic rights in the place who live (for those who still live in Israel), denying to those who left the right to return home, denying that these people even exist! Israel has engaged in systematic acts of barbarity against the locals for five decades; it has also won all the wars it waged against its enemies; it stands, as it always stood more powerfully militarily than all the Arab front-line states combined!

There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself. It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

Israel is winning its wars, small and big, and losing its Jewish soul.

And it's not just me saying this... link

Re: Yet more Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the myriad Arabs who wish to see it destroyed and every Jew slaughtered.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. It's myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks, and have many times the prejudice and supremacist attitudes (and laws).

If you're claiming that prejudice and supremacism often lead to bloodshed, you are right, but you are ignoring the fact that the Arab states are far more guilty of those things than is Israel. So if you're going to criticize Israel on that basis you ought to commensurately blame the Arab states as well--which would mean MORE, in this case.

It is amazing how a tiny state should draw more criticism for its policies, than do the vast surrounding states, which have policies, attitudes and laws far more worthy of criticism.

Re: Yet more Israel
 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

Re: Yet more Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose that the next person to make this infinitely unoriginal non-post be banned from the internet.

M LOLing
 

[ QUOTE ]
Israel [fears] the myriad Arabs who wish to see it destroyed and every Jew slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ] It is a well know fact that Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation. Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate.

But you knew this already.

[ QUOTE ]
Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks

[/ QUOTE ]
There is once crucial difference: I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty.

Re: Yet more Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,

Please don't muddy Cyrus' arguments with facts and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose that the next person to make this infinitely unoriginal non-post be banned from the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this motion. (Not a shot at you bluffTHIS)

Re: Yet more Israel
 

Trite as my remark was, it was nonetheless very appropriate in this situation.

Re: Yet more Israel
 

It very well might have been, but it's the kind of remark jaxmike would use. I think you're above his level.

Re: Yet more Israel
 

Well there's no way I could ever hope to outdo jaxmike. But he was right occasionally, and Cyrus is wrong a lot.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

This stuff below is so stupid. I mean incredibly stupid. Anyone who really thinks that the Democrats started the war in Iraq should be invited to the intellectual special olympics.

Not to defend Clinton here but it's now pretty clear that the policy of containment through occasional strikes and bombing Saddam's air defenses was extremely effective.

In other words, because of policies started under GHWB and continued by Clinton, Iraq did not pose a major threat.

So in 1998 Democrats and Republicans all looked the intelligence and decided that the Clinton approach made sense. And it worked.

Then Bush took office and we know what happened next. The brain damaged former cocaine addict, drunkard, and draft dodger listened to what his oil executive draft dodging VP had to say, and here we are now.

But anyone who truly thinks that a Democratic or liberal president would have done the same thing Bush did in Iraq is so stupid that they probably should not be allowed to vote. I'll go ask Katharine Harris for some advice on how to disenfranchise them.

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpted from this link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus Cooks Up Another Crock
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is a well know fact that Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation. Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel must be eternally vigilant against those who wish to destroy her, and slaughter the Jews. Her security is not a given, and is potentially quite fragile.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks


[/ QUOTE ]

There is once crucial difference: I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a TOTAL crock. The Arab states get a relative exemption for being backwards, merely because they are backwards? Israel is far more tolerant than they, both by custom and by law, yet Israel gets blamed first because Israel is expected to be better than they? Israel is more of an anachronism than the Arab states? Uh no, Cyrus: this isn't kindergarten; this is the grown-up world. ric.

All who value civil rights, religious freedom, equality of rights for all human beings, must rightly condemn the Arab states FAR MORE than Israel. Yet you claim that Israel irredentism and type of policies are the sort of thing that led to the slaughters in Europe. In reality, Israeli policy is primarily a DEFENSIVE mechanism, and it was the prejudices of the Europeans and Russians that led to the slaughters in Europe. Furthermore the Arab attitudes and Arab laws are far more similar to such bigoted views, than are any Israeli views or policies.

You've got it nearly 100% upside down, Cyrus. Why don't you start holding everyone to the same enlightened standards for a change.

In today's world, the Arab states are the MOST bigoted, MOST unequal, and MOST irrespective of equal civil rights for all persons.

If you want to start howling about how prejudice and unequal laws and policies lead to bloodshed and evil, you can start right where those things are worst. If the problem in the Middle East is prejudice and unequal treatment, Israel is NOT the main problem; the Arab states are. So stop disproportionately blaming the relative good guys in this scenario, and be willing to call a spade a spade and set the blame for bigotry, and bigoted laws customs and policies, where it most squarely belongs: on the Arab/Muslim states and Arab/Muslim peoples with their horrendously unequal bigoted laws and customs.

Keep at it
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way I could ever hope to outdo jaxmike. But ... Cyrus is wrong a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you are giving it your best shot in the former field, and you're getting nowhere near proving the latter.

But you will swallow anything
 

[ QUOTE ]
Israel must be eternally vigilant against those who wish to destroy her, and slaughter the Jews. Her security is not a given, and is potentially quite fragile.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did I say that Israel should disarm? Did I suggest that Israel should forget about security? Why do you come up with such irrelevancies, then? What purpose do your platitudes serve?

I wrote simply this : " Israel has nothing to fear from either the front-line states or the whole Arab nation [because] Israel is stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. Therefore, the security argument is dead at the starting gate."

The "security argument" is used by fanatical Zionists to justify the many crimes perpetrated by Israel, on an individual and state scale, against the unlucky Palestinian inhabitants of the land. It is still used today, to justify Israel's reluctance to grant even the absolute minimum of statehood for Palestinians, as it has been explicitly provided/dictated by numerous United Nations resolutions and also United States proclamations.

But it's a dead duck.


[ QUOTE ]
Its myriad Arab neighbors are many times more anachronistic throwbacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have I ever once defended the regimes of the Arab states? Why then bring up this non-argument? This is a typical "Yeah-but-you-beat-your-wife" type of diversion.

All I'm saying is that Israel is promoted in the West as being far more advanced than those Arab states, when it is actually worse in its human rights record. Is there a similar to Israel's amount of torture, murder and abuse directed a whole nation that is being waged anywhere in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt or Jordan ? I don't think so.


Once again, I was very explicit: "I would not accept those Arab states as worthy of admittance in the family of western democracies. But Israel has pretensions that "it belongs". I say it is a hundred times more of an anachronism than British Royalty."

[ QUOTE ]
In today's world, the Arab states are the MOST bigoted, MOST unequal, and MOST irrespective of equal civil rights for all persons.

[/ QUOTE ] So, Morocco is worse than China, Egypt is worse than North Korea and Lebanon is worse than Congo.

Is this what you are saying, O Master Of The Inane Hyperbole?

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to start howling about how ... policies lead to bloodshed and evil, you can start right where those things are worst.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, I will.

I will start at the notion whereby a nation is enforced at the heartland of another, with the explicit aim of deporting the local inhabitants and waging war in the most ferocious manner until the ex-inhabitants and their neighboring brethren are subjugated to the will of the newcomers (viz. Zabotinsky et al).

Will this do, O Master Of The Half-Baked Idea?

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Half-Baked In Cyrus\' Kitchen
 

Cyrus, you wrote this: [ QUOTE ]
There is nothing for Israel to fear except itself. It is a living anachronism among western democracies, a throwback to the nationalist, irredentist ideologies of the 19th century which predictably caused so much bloodshed in Europe for a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out, if you're looking to blame ideologies for contributing to things like long European bloodsheds, don't first blame Israeli ideologies--which are mild indeed compared to its neighbors' bigoted laws and customs, and were significantly born of defensive necessity--blame instead those who yet adhere to truly archaic and far more grossly bigoted and unfair laws and customs. Since you're taking aim at the Middle East, and looking for pernicious ideologies, that would rightly mean blaming Israel LAST, not FIRST.

The evils visited upon Europe, especially the Holocaust, sprang from ideologies far more similar to the Arab/Muslim supremacist doctrines of past and present, which are encoded in actual law, than from anything resembling Zionism. Yet you manage to make it sound as if the opposite were true.

Not even half-baked now...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The evils visited upon Europe, especially the Holocaust, sprang from ideologies far more similar to the Arab/Muslim supremacist doctrines of past and present, which are encoded in actual law, than from anything resembling Zionism. Yet you manage to make it sound as if the opposite were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will try to put this as gently and as delicately as possibly: You have no idea what you're talking about!

I would suggest that you start a new thread with this very text, quoted above, as a start. Readers who hold similar views to yours will then be disabused of 'em. (Little hope for you.)