[SimeyTheLimey]

I hesitate to do this. These kinds of threads are usually a trademark of another member. However, we seem to be once again falling into a familiar pattern. This doesn't pertain to everyone. But it holds enough to seriously affect the debate.

1. Some piece of good news happens in Iraq, or in the war on terror generally.

2. The pro-war side is happy about it, and says so (not always with subtlety).

3. The anti-war side grudgingly admits that the news is good.

4. About 12-24 hours later, the anti-war side goes on the counteroffensive. And I do mean offensive.

5. Personal attacks start. For example, yesterday it included homophobic remarks.

6. Someone starts trying to reignite debate the issue of the invasion all over again. I guess anything to change the subject.

7. The whole thing devolves into a vicious flame war.

What seems to be so transparent is that for the anti-war side, good news in Iraq is for them unmitigated bad news. Hence the need to undermine it once the shock of the good news has worn off. That is why I have come to fear good news in Iraq at least as far as Macnn goes. It always seems to be followed 12-24 hours later by a tidal wave of bile from the other side -- much of it directed personally.

Now, I know that the pro-war side has its share of obnoxious posters. I know I am guilty as well, and I am sure that there is some pattern of behavior that the other side can see and which (not unreasonably) they will point out. I just wonder if the anti-war side is aware that they do this? Do they realize how shrill they become after every piece of good news?

[thunderous_funker]

Wow. Suddenly the personal animosity between you and VooDoo is an important object lession about the lounge as a whole and the "anti-war" crowd in general?

Holy Straussian exoteric reading, Batman.

Hey, if it makes you feel batter I think Voodoo's comments on whether or not your personal life jives with your voting record are stupid and ugly.

You've expressed your own reservations about the nature of a future trail "involving" Iraqis rather than being by Iraqis.

Some of us have also lamented that a trial on Saddam's crimes probably won't extend to Western political leaders who should be facing charges for their own complicity.

Don't you think this thread is an over-reaction?

[eklipse]

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hesitate to do this. These kinds of threads are usually a trademark of another member. However, we seem to be once again falling into a familiar pattern. This doesn't pertain to everyone. But it holds enough to seriously affect the debate.

1. Some piece of good news happens in Iraq, or in the war on terror generally.

2. The pro-war side is happy about it, and says so (not always with subtlety).

3. The anti-war side grudgingly admits that the news is good.

It's frustrating for me when everyone gets divided into "sides" by comments like this. Can't I be an individual? "I am on no one's side, because no one is on my side"

4. About 12-24 hours later, the anti-war side goes on the counteroffensive. And I do mean offensive.

5. Personal attacks start. For example, yesterday it included homophobic remarks.

That incident was certainly unfortunate, but I have never attacked you, and on one occasion have defended you. Also, again I say I am not on a side.

6. Someone starts trying to reignite debate the issue of the invasion all over again. I guess anything to change the subject.

Spacefreak is the one who brought up the pre-war justification issue, actually (I believe that's the specific example you refer to). I was just addressing his post.

7. The whole thing devolves into a vicious flame war.

That's a shame. I try to keep a level head in here, and I always learn a lot from many of you.

What seems to be so transparent is that for the anti-war side, good news in Iraq is for them unmitigated bad news. Hence the need to undermine it once the shock of the good news has worn off.

Well, there is certainly not nearly enough good news in the world these days, but I think where you and I differ is that I think this whole war is bad news. Iraq is out from under Hussein's yoke, and that is indeed good news. I still think it's a crying shame that there is so much wreckage of trust, morality and democratic ideals strewn along the path to that good news - and yes, that does take much of the savour from the "good news" for me.

My honest reaction.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by eklipse:

LOL. That's a new one.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hesitate to do this. These kinds of threads are usually a trademark of another member. However, we seem to be once again falling into a familiar pattern. This doesn't pertain to everyone. But it holds enough to seriously affect the debate.

1. Some piece of good news happens in Iraq, or in the war on terror generally.

Here you seem to imply that Iraq is part of the war on terror, instead of a side-show. Interesting.

2. The pro-war side is happy about it, and says so (not always with subtlety).

3. The anti-war side grudgingly admits that the news is good.

4. About 12-24 hours later, the anti-war side goes on the counteroffensive. And I do mean offensive.

The only way for equilibrium to be restored is if there is a force in the opposite direction.

We wouldn't want you chickenhawks to get too carried away, or you might lose touch with reality completely.

5. Personal attacks start. For example, yesterday it included homophobic remarks.

Doesn't that violate you're prediction, though? Seems too early to fit your pattern. In all fairness, both sides let fly with the personal attacks. It's some people's defense mechanism to being challenged. Sometimes the insults goes over the line, at others they give people a chance to vent.

6. Someone starts trying to reignite debate the issue of the invasion all over again. I guess anything to change the subject.

You and typoon are the ones who brought up "Evidence of an Al-Qaeda connection." Seeing as how that goes to the heart of justifying the act of invasion, it would seem that you brought that one on your own head, wouldn't it?

7. The whole thing devolves into a vicious flame war.

You forgot:
8. Rinse (ban dead boy, again)
10. Repeat

What seems to be so transparent is that for the anti-war side, good news in Iraq is for them unmitigated bad news.

Now that's just plain not true (well, voodoo excepted ). From my point of view, the good news generally isn't so great, because all of the bad news overshadows it, and I fell it my duty to remind those celebrating the little things to keep their eye on the big picture.

Hence the need to undermine it once the shock of the good news has worn off. That is why I have come to fear good news in Iraq at least as far as Macnn goes. It always seems to be followed 12-24 hours later by a tidal wave of bile from the other side -- much of it directed personally.

You know, I find short hiatuses of 24-48 hours to be quite useful in maintaining one's sanity. That way, you don't need the long hiatuses as often.

Just saying that sometimes it best to just walk away, let people vent, and come back when heads are cooler.

Now, I know that the pro-war side has its share of obnoxious posters. I know I am guilty as well, and I am sure that there is some pattern of behavior that the other side can see and which (not unreasonably) they will point out. I just wonder if the anti-war side is aware that they do this? Do they realize how shrill they become after every piece of good news?

That's your imagination. You're applying a stereotype that has been successfully stuck to liberals to us.

When I read your posts, I don't imagine you lisping and limp-wrist hunt and pecking your way to a post. I would expect the same courtesy.

Though I must admit that the voice I assign you in my head is dominated by your military background and the fact that you're a lawyer in training living in DC. They're stereotypes, to be sure, but less looked down upon, so I don't catch them as readily.

Oh, well. You're staying gruff and wiley, whether you like it or not.

BlackGriffen

p.s. The use of the term chickenhawks is meant to counterbalance the whole peacenik thing. The only way to be pro-war and get out of the chickenhawk label is to be ex or current military (Simey and Mister Elf come to mind). Past service in the hooligan navy or national guard doesn't count if it was only to get out of service in the big four during a major conflict.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hesitate to do this. These kinds of threads are usually a trademark of another member. ...

I hate to say this but you're right: Starting threads like this do sound like another member and, at the risk of insulting you, they smack of a childish inability to accept the fact that there will always be others in this life that do not share, intimately, one's point of view. It really isn't necessary and is almost certainly guaranteed to not only increase the amount of fighting and polarisation here but it also will definitely not help to actually get others to understand one's point of view and arguments.

[theolein]

Ayelbourne, BlackGriffen: I posted in Lerkfish's version of this that one can do the fish on a baited line act a bit too well...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by theolein:
Ayelbourne, BlackGriffen: I posted in Lerkfish's version of this that one can do the fish on a baited line act a bit too well...

But who's trolling whom? I tend to think that the Pol/War Lounge is more like that Spy vs. Spy comic from Madd Magazine than fishing....



BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
but it also will definitely not help to actually get others to understand one's point of view and arguments.

And the likelyhood of that anyway is . . . ?

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the likelyhood of that anyway is . . . ?

So why not make it worse? Now what kind of an attitude is that? There's a thing called trying, you know?

[lil'babykitten]

Perhaps a few people need reminding of a few things...

Originally stated by Demonhood
You are certainly not your damned khakis. You are not the all-knowing, all-seeing ruler of the world. You are not a unique snowflake. Snowflakes can't type.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
But who's trolling whom? I tend to think that the Pol/War Lounge is more like that Spy vs. Spy comic from Madd Magazine than fishing....

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
6. Someone starts trying to reignite debate the issue of the invasion all over again.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

And that will be my only entry into this thread..............

[Zimphire]

YEs the Bush HATERS HATE it when he is right.

Venomously hate it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
YEs the Bush HATERS HATE it when he is right.

Venomously hate it.

Yesyes. We LOVE Bush; we just hate his words, and deeds.

Yesyes.

Venomously.

-s*

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by theolein:
I hate to say this but you're right: Starting threads like this do sound like another member and, at the risk of insulting you, they smack of a childish inability to accept the fact that there will always be others in this life that do not share, intimately, one's point of view. It really isn't necessary and is almost certainly guaranteed to not only increase the amount of fighting and polarisation here but it also will definitely not help to actually get others to understand one's point of view and arguments.

don't sweat it. We all know I do the heavy intellectual lifting around this joint, which is why I would have posted this topic eventually. Now that Simey is hanging around, I can take a breather from the continual enlightenment I always provide.

[Spliffdaddy]

Never say never.

My opinion of a few things has changed since I've been here.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

Keep trying. If your point is a solid one - people will (at least) listen.

[Nicko]

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Never say never.

My opinion of a few things has changed since I've been here.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

Keep trying. If your point is a solid one - people will (at least) listen.

This deserves repeating!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
don't sweat it. We all know I do the heavy intellectual lifting around this joint, which is why I would have posted this topic eventually. Now that Simey is hanging around, I can take a breather from the continual enlightenment I always provide.

This deserves repeating!

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now, I know that the pro-war side has its share of obnoxious posters. I know I am guilty as well, and I am sure that there is some pattern of behavior that the other side can see and which (not unreasonably) they will point out. I just wonder if the anti-war side is aware that they do this? Do they realize how shrill they become after every piece of good news?

Whomever you're referring to certainly does not speak for all of us.

PS: your characterization of MacNN as pro-war and anti-war is a false binary, which flattens important subtlies between rather varied viewpoints. Not usually your style to be so coarse, IMO.

PPS: it's important to diferentiate anti-Americanism from critiques of this administration. That is, just because voodoo is from that all-too-familiar European finishing school called "L'Ecole les Americans sont Barbarians" doesn't mean we should talk about it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
Whomever you're referring to certainly does not speak for all of us.

PS: your characterization of MacNN as pro-war and anti-war is a false binary, which flattens important subtlies between rather varied viewpoints. Not usually your style to be so coarse, IMO.

PPS: it's important to diferentiate anti-Americanism from critiques of this administration. That is, just because voodoo is from that all-too-familiar European finishing school called "L'Ecole les Americans sont Barbarians" doesn't mean we should talk about it.

I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clearer. I did say '[t]his doesn't pertain to everyone. But it holds enough to seriously affect the debate." It wasn't my intention to put everyone into one camp or the other even though my "anti-war" language might have given that impression (for which I apologize). Basically, I was talking about a shrill extreme who seem to set much of the tone by their volume, if not their content.

I also intentionally kept it vague bacause I didn't want to be seen as attacking specific individuals. It was more of a general comment. Voodoo was the exception, but I wrote him off long ago.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Timo:
'PPS: it's important to diferentiate anti-Americanism from critiques of this administration. That is, just because voodoo is from that all-too-familiar European finishing school called "L'Ecole les Americans sont Barbarians" doesn't mean we should talk about it.

LOL

I graduated with honours. /joke

Anyway since this is apperently a bashing thread about me I think we should just report it and get it over with.

[gorgonzola]

I don't really see how this is a bashing thread about voodoo (at all), but in either case this thread isn't going anywhere...