Long Live the Confederation!
Wow. Woooow. You are the absolute master at making people sound like somebody you can put down, just so you can subsequently put them down.
I never said I felt tricked. Where did I say I ever believed a word that came out of GWB/American media/British media/Michael Moore/TAKEYOURPICK? You assume so much. A few people here asked why the world is so anti-America, I simply explain why, and now your at my throat for answering their questions? The world is pissed because the White House likes to go to war based on lies. Whether me/you/he/they believed them at the time is moot.
I'm trying to tell you that if the world is taking itself seriously in beleving any of this instead of understanding that all of the rhetoric and ideology you're spewing is part of a giant political 'doth protest too much' contest on the part of the Amerycan party system, then the worlds opinion is stupid and no intelligent American should be required to respect or feel badly about it.
I think everyone was hoping you'd have some new insight on the topic, given the vaugeness of your original post -- instead you started ranting about Iraq and George Bush looking like an idiot... and there's nothing for us there but a chance to ridicule.
Hell, the irony is I totally agree with what you said, other than your ridiculous pigeonholing of me as some kinda hippie democrat anti-war iraqi student,.
Hehe, there you go again -- that's the foreign bias we've been talking about.
Somehow everyone on the internet has diverged from reality and decided to see the Democrats as some amazing anti-war bastion. That would be the same party who involved the United States in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, the Mexican War and (arguably) the Civil War.
No thinking person would assosciate the Democrats with anti-war sentiments... but everyone on the internet does. Why? Because that's how *politics* works -- the party that's not in power has to disagree with the one that is at every turn. The error you are all making is in thinking that political rhetoric means anything.
Again, I never claimed to be a crusader. Why are you telling me I think I am something I am not? Because it makes you look more intelligent? Not in my eyes. It makes your style of argument weak - if you could stick to the point without jumping on people's backs for fictional reasons then perhaps you'd win some of these debates without them getting heated. (Not that this is heated, but a number of discussions involving you seem to get pretty heated.)
Hurrah, attacking the argument instead of making a point - one of those brilliant neologisms that those who enter into such arguments unarmed on the internet have developed.
First of all, restating the previous posters comments as you see them is an absolutely necessary thing to do in any debate; whether or not you agree with how I believe you've been portrayed is up to you - but there's no getting out of the sheer necessity of such an element in an argument (even when, perhaps as in this case, that such a statement is a rhetorical tool).
Second -- my 'style of argument'? Lets be straight here - one argument in a thousand will end in the other side 'giving up'. A thread like this is all about convincing *other* people that I'm right - and my style of argument is very, very well attuned to doing that. It should be my goal to see such a debate become "heated", because it means that I've argued my point so well that the other party has decided to yell and scream instead of responding.
(As for 'style' and the idea of personal attacks or using someones words to misrepresent them as being negative, I view this as another silly internet trend -- look at any of the great debates of history. How much of your own Milton's Second Defense is dedicated to attacking and demonizing people who've criticized him? The modern 'play fair by this set of strange rules or I'll call you on it!' style of internet debate is an abherration that won't stand the test of time.)
More like the opposite - the world is pissed because America likes to go to war too often, and can (basically, IMO, it's the "and can" portion that unsettles people).
The United States has been the unquestioned world power for half a century or more -- there has never been any question in our lifetimes that the United States can pursue any military goal it wishes.
This is so incredibly vauge, though -- what's "too often"? One more time than everyone else did? Iraq once, okay, Somalia, okay, Kosovo, okay, Afghanistan, okay... IRAQ AGAIN?! NO! TOO MANY! TOO MANY!
Add that to the threats made after 9/11 about "you're either with us or against us". Now, that makes Bush seem idiotic: that's not the way a president should speak in international matters, that's looking for trouble. Even if you think so, you can't say that - it makes countries that are not on the invade list think that by even looking at the US in the wrong way they could get in it.
I disagree on a purely historical level - strong nationalistic speeches are the mark of a very strong presidency: asking not what you can do for your country, a day that shall live in infamy, facing the evil empire, the world can never forget what they did here, etc., etc. All the great speeches are like this -- picking one and suddenly being offended by it is silly, and is wholly the result of it being an issue that the internal political debate in the US focused on.