Both the Left and the Right think the other side is being 'duped'

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

If you ever decide to stop sneering at people who don't share your ignorance, you might want to take up reading, or befriend someone who can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if you were smart enough to understand my post we wouldn't have so many of these issues. Perhaps if you could sense written sarcasm when it smacks you across the face, you would not look so ignorant right now.

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. Kosovo isn't a "state," but a UN protectorate within the state of Serbia and Montenegro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

Normally you make pretty good posts. You back up your ideas with some semblence of competence. This is not one of those cases. I really expected more out of you.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Devastating.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not aware of our little circle of conservative masochists here? They get a kick out of being slapped around with facts. Which they ignore, and get slapped around some more.

Just watch jaxmike's response to Alger's points. Have the camera ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

What response? He didn't even understand my post. He basically argued what I argued, then had the ignorance to announce that Kosovo was not a "State". Meanwhile, if you look at what I wrote in context, you would CLEARLY understand that I was referring to Kosovo being swallowed up by the United States, if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris,

You are correct on the origins of modern neo-conservativism. That said, I think Jax's basic point was that the policies that brought us into the Vietnam war had much to do with the Democratic presidents. Your explanation of the origins of neoconservatism really does nothing to argue the point that Jax was trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Jax's basic point was that the policies that brought us into the Vietnam war had much to do with the Democratic presidents. Your explanation of the origins of neoconservatism really does nothing to argue the point that Jax was trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]
He sarcastically distinguished the Vietnam presidents from today's neocons and I pointed out why this distinction had no substance because the latter were the followers and political descendants of the former. Your focus on their different party affiliations is another distinction without a difference.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?:

[/ QUOTE ]
Under this defintion the British in India or the Soviets in Eastern Europe were't "imperialists" because the territorial boundries of the alleged imperialists remained unchanged, an absurdity. "Imperialism" is when a dominating state aggressively extends its political control over a subservient state. It doesn't require redrawing boundries.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?:

[/ QUOTE ]
Under this defintion the British in India or the Soviets in Eastern Europe were't "imperialists" because the territorial boundries of the alleged imperialists remained unchanged, an absurdity. "Imperialism" is when a dominating state aggressively extends its political control over a subservient state. It doesn't require redrawing boundries.

[/ QUOTE ]

India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Jax's basic point was that the policies that brought us into the Vietnam war had much to do with the Democratic presidents. Your explanation of the origins of neoconservatism really does nothing to argue the point that Jax was trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]
He sarcastically distinguished the Vietnam presidents from today's neocons and I pointed out why this distinction had no substance because the latter were the followers and political descendants of the former. Your focus on their different party affiliations is another distinction without a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

How thick are you? You REALLY don't get it do you?

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"if we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?:

[/ QUOTE ]
Under this defintion the British in India or the Soviets in Eastern Europe were't "imperialists" because the territorial boundries of the alleged imperialists remained unchanged, an absurdity. "Imperialism" is when a dominating state aggressively extends its political control over a subservient state. It doesn't require redrawing boundries.

[/ QUOTE ]

India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo, sir. So you see his point, then?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
India was part of the British Empire. The Eastern Bloc were puppet governments under the almost complete control of the Soviet Union.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the point !

Boundaries were not changed for Great Britain. The borders of the USSR metropolis were not moved forward. Expanding the borders is NOT necessary in an imperialist endeavor.

Which is precisely the point that you missed when you wrote "If we are so imperialistic, why haven't we expanded our territory more?"

If we were putting on cartons of milk every point in the 2+2 forums that you MISSED we'd run out of milk. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kosovo isn't a "state," but a UN protectorate within the state of Serbia and Montenegro.

[/ QUOTE ]


Normally you make pretty good posts. You back up your ideas with some semblence of competence. This is not one of those cases. I really expected more out of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright. What part about Kosovo did you not understand?

Because what was stated about Kosovo is a (very simple) fact. You wrote "Kosovo is a state" which is false.

No biggie, as long as you don't make a fuss when people correct your mistakes.