Alan Greenspan: Iraq war largely about oil

[Mr Skeptic]

That's useful. Not sure about the morality of it, but hey, we take over a country, we're entitled to some loot, right? That's how it's always been done anyhow.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, here's some exerpts from the article I was referencing. Like I said, I have a lot of respect for this media source as they seem quite genuine to their committment to objective strategic interpretation, without value judgement, of the world's nations. I've read several articles of theirs and I always walk away with too much to think about. Their knowledge base is impressive, whether or not you agree with their assessment.

 

From Net Assessment: United States (December 31, 2007) They make their money off of membership, so this link is probably worthless. A friend of mine has access and he prints articles for me, otherwise I'd subscribe.

 

The basic global situation can be described simply. The US has overwhelming power. It is using that power to try to prevent the emergence of any competing powers. The rest of the world is seeking to limit and contain the US. Between constant American intrusions and constant attempts to contain American power, the world appears to be disorderly and dangerous. It might well be dangerous, but is has far more logic and order than it might appear.

 

The latest American policy actions began after 9/11. Al Qaeda posed two challenges to the US. The first was the threat of follow-on attacks, potentially including limited nuclear attacks. The second and more strategic threat was Al Qaeda's overall goal, which was to recreate an Islamic caliphate. Put in an American context, al Qaeda wanted to create a transnational "Islamic" state that, by definition, would in the long run be able to threaten US power.

 

The American response was complex. Its immediate goal was the destruction of al Qaeda. Its longer term goal was the disruption of the Islamic world. The two missions overlapped but were not identical. The first involved a direct assault against al Qaeda's command-and-control facilities: the invasion of Afghanistan. The second was an intrustion into the Islamic world designed to disrupt it without interfering with the flow of oil from the region.

 

The US has achieved its two major goals. First, Al Qaeda has been sufficiently disrupted that is has not mounted a successful operation in the US since 9/11. Second, any possibility of an integrated Islamic multinational state - always an unlikely scenario - has been made even more unlikely by disruptive and destabilizing American strategies. In the end, the US did not need to create a stable nation in Iraq, it simply had to use Iraq to disrupt the Islamic world. The US did not need to win, it needed the Islamic world to lose.

 

So, the theme here seems to be keeping the groups fractured. I guess Saddam was doing that too, but not nearly at the same intensity.

 

And of course, none of this acceptable to me. I understand the tendency to want to secure global hegemony, but I'm one of those that fears that pursuing that goal - in that way - has the very likely potential of polarizing a competing power into existence that otherwise may not have. AND, a competing power created out of need to counter the intrusive US will most surely be a hostile one to the US.

 

Anyway, I said I'd follow up with a better explanation on the 'fracture' theory, so here it is. Just food for thought, if nothing else.

[iNow]

Interestingly (after reading the quotes from the assessment shared by ParanoiA), I am realizing that it's the US which has become fractured as a result of Iraq... hmmm.... I'll need to think about this for a bit to fully wrap my head around what I'm saying.

[ParanoiA]

Interestingly (after reading the quotes from the assessment shared by ParanoiA), I am realizing that it's the US which has become fractured as a result of Iraq... hmmm.... I'll need to think about this for a bit to fully wrap my head around what I'm saying.

 

Yeah, interesting point there. Damn good really, because that's exactly where we're at: divided. We fractured them creating a moral dilemma that has fractured us. Too bad we won't learn that lesson. Or is that too pessimistic?

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA's reference describes the US as having overwhelming force. This is a bit ironic bearing in mind the ongoing list of military failures the US has instigated.

 

The Korean stalemate. Viet Nam. Bay of Pigs. Somalia. And today's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue with resultant loss of life on both sides, and no sign of 'victory' any time soon.

 

It is as if the US military and US administration are retarded children unable to learn any lessons from the past.

[iNow]

Alan Greenspan obviously hasn't looked at the actual arguments waging in the Bush administration between participants in the decision to go to war

<...>

And maybe he could also read up on how correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

His insider status means nothing when it comes to Iraq.

<...>

Perhaps he's trying to deflect the history books from giving him a bad accounting for his mistakes leading to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

 

 

So what I'm suggesting is that Greenspan, who was not involved in this policy decision, is simply extrapolating his own opinion. In other words, he's simply saying "Well of course it's about oil, oil is what drives the economy, what else could it be about?"

 

Yes. Alan Greenspan. That silly demented politically biased old man. What crazy eccentric and luny whackiness will he spout next?

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

[Pangloss]

Former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger was convinced TWA 800 was downed by surface-to-air missiles, but I had no reason to believe him either. I do appreciate your including my quotes, saving me from having to repeat myself. That was a polite thing to do.

 

You keep saying you're not a partisan and complaining when you get treated like one. Then you post something that's clearly an outsider's opinion without any causative basis whatsoever (something you constantly harp on when your opponents do it), but call it evidence. I don't get that, but ok.

 

Let me know when you come up with something more substantive.

[iNow]

Former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger was convinced TWA 800 was downed by surface-to-air missiles, but I had no reason to believe him either. I do appreciate your including my quotes, saving me from having to repeat myself. That was a polite thing to do.

 

You keep saying you're not a partisan and complaining when you get treated like one. Then you post something that's clearly an outsider's opinion without any causative basis whatsoever (something you constantly harp on when your opponents do it), but call it evidence. I don't get that, but ok.

 

Let me know when you come up with something more substantive.

 

I really don't understand sometimes how you're still a moderator here. I was challenging your attempts to discredit him and change the topic to one of credibility instead of focussing on the substance and accuracy of his statements.

[ParanoiA]

I really don't understand sometimes how you're still a moderator here. I was challenging your attempts to discredit him and change the topic to one of credibility instead of focussing on the substance and accuracy of his statements.

 

He's still a moderator here because he's got thicker skin than you, me or most of us on here and he lets you thrash him publicly over and over again for the most pedantic shit. That takes good character to leave those posts up when he could very easily, and very justifiably take them down. Technically, they're offenses. But I happen to know that he goes out of his way to be lax around here with the way we express ourselves and I personally, appreciate it. But it comes with a price. He gets to be pricky also.

 

Sometimes I wonder if you're subconsciously confusing his moderation duties with his right to an opinion. We all practice rhetoric and we're all a bunch of opinionated pricks, yet you seem to have a hard-on for Pangloss about it.

 

I hope this doesn't make you mad, you know I have a lot of respect for you. I agree with you here that he's being flippant and dismissive about someone closer to the administration that the rest of us.

[iNow]

I thoroughly appreciate your post, paranoia. You are quite right on a number of fronts. I do have an issue with Pangloss, and I do expect more of him. I don't believe he is not entitled to his opinion, I just disagree profoundly with how he expresses it.

 

Never once have I countered a point made by pangloss by telling him he's just a right wing nutjob. I explain WHY I disagree, and also WHY I hold the position I do.

 

He's burned a bridge with me by simply labelling me a "leftie" or a "liberal" or a "lock step Democrat" in more than 80% of his challenges to positions I've shared here. I see it as intellectual weak, and he's lost a lot of my respect for him as a result.

 

Either way, that's off topic.

 

In this thread, I already stated specifically why I made the post I did. He was repeatedly attempting to discredit Greenspan, negate the relevance of his comments due his supposed position (or lack thereof) in the inner circle, and to change the topic to one of credibility.

 

It's the same thing as arguing my points which I spent time and effort articulating clearly by simply calling me a "leftie." It's intellecutally weak, and I have no stomach for it.

[foodchain]

Economics is a mortal thing to nations as easy to see. The U.S managed to with the cold war without going to war, mostly due to the economy of the U.S.S.R, or former that is.

 

So why Iraq over Iran if the war truly is about defeating terrorism and emplacing democracy? Iran to me seems a far more realistic threat in regards to the realities of terrorism then Iraq ever did, Saddam was a nutcase, but for however he treated his people, which is probably as bad as the current war is effecting such, then whatever that guys name is in Iran is a bit worse. Iran is closer to nuclear weapon technology then Iraq, has more connections to terrorist organizations, preaches genocide/mass murder and global dominance by really a single nation? Personally even if the U.S is the evil empire I would still rather suffer such rule then anything by Iran, ever.

 

Also you can look at say some nations in Africa and wonder how diversion of resources from the Iraq war could have realistically stopped genocides from occurring and other acts of ethnic cleansing we define people like Hitler for, yet nothing done really. I would say that’s because of economics. I think Clinton was hated really for the use of U.S forces in say Bosnia simply because the U.S really did not win anything there of value save ending or aiding in the end really of such things, then of course during the black hawk down incident the last thing they will tell you is all the republicans were talking about pointless wars killing our service people, yet there really is no difference to modern political thought from the right that preaches the need to establish such long term in our history with the Iraq war, go figure.

 

So in short yes, oil is power because it simply just is. It offers a more tangible reward for a conflict, rather then having this war in Iran, which was labeled by Dubya as an axis of evil nation btw, you can have it in far more oil rich nation. I also sadly wonder if its because they thought it would be easier to change the people of Iraq then the people of Iran, but to be honest I don’t find much acts of caring going on with Iraq, save for prolonged deleterious warfare with no end in site.

[Pangloss]

In this thread, I already stated specifically why I made the post I did. He was repeatedly attempting to discredit Greenspan, negate the relevance of his comments due his supposed position (or lack thereof) in the inner circle, and to change the topic to one of credibility.

 

It's the same thing as arguing my points which I spent time and effort articulating clearly by simply calling me a "leftie." It's intellecutally weak, and I have no stomach for it.

 

I don't understand why you wouldn't see that as relevant. If you're going to tell me that I need to listen to what Alan Greenspan says about the root cause of the Iraqi war because he was a high government official and believes that the decision was about oil, then surely it's reasonable to raise the fact that he wasn't part of that decision and had no knowledge of how that decision came about.

 

If you were on the other side of the issue then you would be raising that point, which is why I sometimes accuse you of partisanship.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

His points remain valid and accurate.

[jryan]

His points remain valid and accurate.

 

And your evaluation amounts to "His opinion matches mine."

 

His is simply "The US uses oil, Iraq has Oil, therefor the war was about oil".

 

So please explain to me how, if the war was about oil, that immediately turning the control of the Iraqi oil over to the Iraqi government and paying market prices for the oil was part of the master plan?

 

If oil was the goal, it could have been done much cheaper by lifting sanctions and buying the oil from Saddam (see: France, Russia, Germany).

[iNow]

And your evaluation amounts to "His opinion matches mine."

 

His is simply "The US uses oil, Iraq has Oil, therefor the war was about oil".

 

So please explain to me how, if the war was about oil, that immediately turning the control of the Iraqi oil over to the Iraqi government and paying market prices for the oil was part of the master plan?

Have you bothered actually reading the thread before posting in it? This has been covered.

 

 

If oil was the goal, it could have been done much cheaper by lifting sanctions and buying the oil from Saddam (see: France, Russia, Germany).

It's too bad you're not in charge. Many trillions of dollars and thousands of lives could have been saved had you been at the proverbial table when this all was going down.

 

 

 

Btw - Pangloss, sorry for my vitriol earlier. I could have made my points without being such a jerk.

[jryan]

Have you bothered actually reading the thread before posting in it? This has been covered.

 

Yes, I have read the thread, and it and logic supporting your claim is conspiculously missing..

 

 

It's too bad you're not in charge. Many trillions of dollars and thousands of lives could have been saved had you been at the proverbial table when this all was going down.

 

That is circular logic. You have to accept that the war was about oil before the evidence that the war was about oil starts to make sense. Of course, I guess you could always fall back on "Har! Bush is so stupid that he started a war to take Iraq's oil and then didn't take it!"

[iNow]

Which claim?

[jryan]

Which claim?

 

"His points remain valid and accurate."

[Pangloss]

I think you guys both need to work on being okay with dissenting opinions and differing interpretations of what the facts mean and how they should affect political decision-making. I let that particular comment from iNow go because that's a perfectly valid way to look at it. It's simply a point of view I happen not to share. But why repeat myself?

 

And Jryan, you can beat yourself up about it, but in the end this is a predominantly left-of-center board, because that's where the scientific community is right now. But it's also a very realistic and responsive-to-evidence mind set that if you learn how to work with it can be very rewarding to communicate with. But you can't bludgeon it and you can't spin it. The very thing you find so frustrating about those GW discussions is the thing we actually like about this place.

 

And to be blunt, I think you're stumbling over some pretty obvious preconceived ideological spin that don't seem to survive the cold light of reality. I'm not going to let people insult you over it, but you're putting it right out there and people are reading it, so it's not exactly hidden. You might as well throw quotes around half your posts and attribute them directly to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. It's pretty obvious, guy.

 

My advice: Go to discussion boards to listen and learn first, and speak later. If you go in thinking you're going to convince people that you're right and they're wrong, you're always going to lose.

[Phi for All]

Extremely well said, Pangloss. While we value a diversity of opinions here at SFN (after all, if we all agreed on everything, all but one of us is unnecessary), too often we apply logic a bit too much where opinion should give more leeway. It can come off as a desire to suppress a certain point of view and I think all here would agree that arguing a fine point shouldn't be shouting down that point.

[jryan]

I think you guys both need to work on being okay with dissenting opinions and differing interpretations of what the facts mean and how they should affect political decision-making. I let that particular comment from iNow go because that's a perfectly valid way to look at it. It's simply a point of view I happen not to share. But why repeat myself?

 

And Jryan, you can beat yourself up about it, but in the end this is a predominantly left-of-center board, because that's where the scientific community is right now. But it's also a very realistic and responsive-to-evidence mind set that if you learn how to work with it can be very rewarding to communicate with. But you can't bludgeon it and you can't spin it. The very thing you find so frustrating about those GW discussions is the thing we actually like about this place.

 

And to be blunt, I think you're stumbling over some pretty obvious preconceived ideological spin that don't seem to survive the cold light of reality. I'm not going to let people insult you over it, but you're putting it right out there and people are reading it, so it's not exactly hidden. You might as well throw quotes around half your posts and attribute them directly to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. It's pretty obvious, guy.

 

My advice: Go to discussion boards to listen and learn first, and speak later. If you go in thinking you're going to convince people that you're right and they're wrong, you're always going to lose.

 

 

You could not be more wrong about my affiliation with O'Reily and Limbaugh, but what is the point of arguing that point when the majority here will always assume they know better what I read, watch or listen to, and the admins glad hand themselves over such bogus assertions.

 

As for trying to convince people they are wrong, what the hell does this board do then? What a strange thing to say on a supposed science centered board. I state my piece, you state your piece.

 

What do you think those people who don't agree with the majority are supposed to do, anyway? Post things they don't believe so they can fit in? I try and have discussions, and I have had several good discussions with some people on this board. I have no problem with people who disagree with me so long as they are civil about it. But certain trolls on this board can't seem to cope with disagreement without pulling out personal attacks.

 

Your view of how a poster should approach this message board is what has made this board as insular and partisan as it is, not the state of science (as you want to believe). Science has no bias. What you have here is a breeding ground for partisanship that you fool yourself into believing must be.

 

Yes, this board is very left biased, and therefor the political thread will have a heavy left bias. But don't kid yourself into believing that the consesus on a biased board amounts to anything approaching "the cold light of day".

 

I have always been of the opinion that, given the naturally broken sociology of the internet, that you do yourself no favors by ever hanging out for long in places that agree with you. The regulars in such places tend to have a very territorial instinct when it comes to their reality, and for all the self made consensus, they really never learn anything and show disdain for contrary views. This board is no different.

 

Would it be fair to say that this supposedly science minded board is really no better than I would expect to find in an O'Reily or LImbaugh forum? It appears that it is not. All it is is bias from the other side of the aisle.

 

For a while I felt that even though the majority here was decidedly left, that there were some that were at least fair in their application of their bias with regard to dissenting views. I think I may have been a bit over reaching in that estimate. Where I thought there would be room for dissent I get "shut up and read what we write.".

 

No thanks.

[iNow]

I have always been of the opinion that, given the naturally broken sociology of the internet, that you do yourself no favors by ever hanging out for long in places that agree with you. The regulars in such places tend to have a very territorial instinct when it comes to their reality,

That's actually a very insightful comment, and I think that point is a valid one.

 

 

... and for all the self made consensus, they really never learn anything and show disdain for contrary views.

This, however, doesn't follow. While there may be a predisposition towards "territoriality" of worldview, most members and readers here will, in fact, alter their positions if the arguments being made are reasonable and supported.

 

In other words, we DO learn, and we do change. I've had my mind changed on a number of issues when it was shown logically and well articulated, even when I was on the polar opposite of the issue at the start.

 

 

Would it be fair to say that this supposedly science minded board is really no better than I would expect to find in an O'Reily or LImbaugh forum? It appears that it is not. All it is is bias from the other side of the aisle.

For someone who opened their post discussing the need for civility and a lack of personal attack, you're not exactly leading by example. You referred to members of this board as "trolls," and now you move on to equate the discussions here as "no better than O'Reilly or Limbaugh?"

 

If you don't intend this as a personal attack, then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but it's certainly burdened with logical fallacies if nothing else.

 

 

 

For a while I felt that even though the majority here was decidedly left, that there were some that were at least fair in their application of their bias with regard to dissenting views. I think I may have been a bit over reaching in that estimate.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

 

 

Where I thought there would be room for dissent I get "shut up and read what we write.".

 

No thanks.

 

Jyran, the issue is how frequently you seem to misrepresent others position, how frequently you read more into their words than what they are actually saying, and how frequently you pick fights based on arguments your "opponent" never even made.

 

You've done this to me repeatedly, where you assumed something from my post which simply wasn't there, and then went on to barade me like a "naive child," to borrow your own words.

 

I can appreciate the challenges of being in the minority on a position, especially on a board such as this where members are articulate and intellectual, but I suggest you follow your own advice above, start realizing that there are some gray areas in the positions of others, and do everything you can to understand the position of someone else before you lambaste it.

 

Make your arguments. You're clearly a bright fellow, and whining like you've done above only hurts your position. Argue the issue, not the reaction.

[Pangloss]

As for trying to convince people they are wrong, what the hell does this board do then? What a strange thing to say on a supposed science centered board. I state my piece, you state your piece.

 

Really? That's interesting, because I came here to listen to what other people had to say. I already know what I think, what I don't know is what you think.

 

I'm certainly not here to listen to myself talk! (Contrary to popular opinion!!!)

 

 

What do you think those people who don't agree with the majority are supposed to do, anyway? Post things they don't believe so they can fit in? I try and have discussions, and I have had several good discussions with some people on this board. I have no problem with people who disagree with me so long as they are civil about it. But certain trolls on this board can't seem to cope with disagreement without pulling out personal attacks.

 

Well again, I realize it may not seem that way to you at the moment, but I don't approve of personal attacks, and I'm doing everything in my power to stop and prevent them. Sometimes I'm less successful at that than I would like to be, and I've even been known to participate now and then. But that is my intent -- I want this to be an hospitable place for open discussion.

 

But no, I don't think people who are in the minority should post things they don't believe just so they can fit in. I often find myself stating my opinion and then simply shutting up because repeating myself just to get the last word is a waste of my time and the time of others. I also tell myself that opinions are like a-hole's -- everybody's got one. What's the point of arguing opinions?

 

So I focus on exposure to evidence, interpretations of that evidence, pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy in certain ideological groups, and so forth. It seems to me to be a much more valuable use of my time than telling somebody they're wrong (not that I don't end up doing that quite a lot, but it isn't my purpose).

 

But that's just how I see it (since you asked). I imagine there are other ways to look at it.

 

 

Your view of how a poster should approach this message board is what has made this board as insular and partisan as it is, not the state of science (as you want to believe). Science has no bias. What you have here is a breeding ground for partisanship that you fool yourself into believing must be.

 

Yes, this board is very left biased, and therefor the political thread will have a heavy left bias.

 

I definitely don't think this sub-forum is a "breeding ground for partisanship". If anything it's the opposite -- more like a clearing house for misconceptions, and if it's a breeding ground for anything it's "finding the middle ground", something I think we actually do pretty well here. That's the legacy I'm trying to accomplish in my tenure here as moderator. Whether I'm successful at that is up to each member to decide.

 

But most of our members who've posted in Politics deliberately and consciously avoid specific familiar ideologies. That's one of the things I like about this board -- it may have a leftie bias, but it's refreshingly receptive to well-constructed (and politely phrased) logic. For me it's the best of all possible words (hence my handle) -- a crop of liberals that actually (usually) acknowledges your point when you're right and they're wrong. Ever try to win an argument at Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org? Are you KIDDING?

 

And the funny thing about your "insular and partisan" comment is that there are a few people here who agree with you -- they think it's too conservative! In fact we probably have more members here who think this board is too conservative than we have members who think it's too liberal. But you know what? The fact that some people think it's too conservative and others think it's too liberal tells me we're probably doing it about right.

 

 

But don't kid yourself into believing that the consesus on a biased board amounts to anything approaching "the cold light of day".

 

My belief that your arguments are being exposed to the "cold light of day" here has nothing to do with board consensus or its generally liberal lean. It has to do with the specific arguments you are exposed to and how you react to them. But I'm not going to harp on this because I feel like I'm kicking you while you're down, which is really not my intent. I was just trying to help you out with a little insight as to why you keep breaking down in these discussions. For you to dismiss it as pure trolling on iNow's part is missing most of the picture.

 

 

I have always been of the opinion that, given the naturally broken sociology of the internet, that you do yourself no favors by ever hanging out for long in places that agree with you. The regulars in such places tend to have a very territorial instinct when it comes to their reality, and for all the self made consensus, they really never learn anything and show disdain for contrary views.

 

I think that's a very insightful comment and it reminds me of why I enjoy reading your posts. I hope you work through this and stick with us.

 

(Edit: Dammit iNow, stop great-minding me!)

[jryan]

THis will be a whole lot of responding...

 

That's actually a very insightful comment, and I think that point is a valid one.

 

This, however, doesn't follow. While there may be a predisposition towards "territoriality" of worldview, most members and readers here will, in fact, alter their positions if the arguments being made are reasonable and supported.

 

You may be able to find a couple examples of this happening, but you shouldn't take that to mean that this is a reasonable board, I will discuss that difference a bit later.. The fact that it has such a strong bias should also not be mistaken to mean that a left-of-center world view is the only reasonable one.

 

Moderate world views are to the right of this board, too.

 

In other words, we DO learn, and we do change. I've had my mind changed on a number of issues when it was shown logically and well articulated, even when I was on the polar opposite of the issue at the start.

 

Learning and changing is not what I would consider a measure of being reasonable. You could just as easily learn and change to a more unreasonable point of view.

 

For someone who opened their post discussing the need for civility and a lack of personal attack, you're not exactly leading by example. You referred to members of this board as "trolls," and now you move on to equate the discussions here as "no better than O'Reilly or Limbaugh?"

 

I could also say that this site is no better than RealClimate.org, or any number of other partisan sites. The difference is you take it as an offense because the politics of the refrenced sites are different than yours. I only mentioned them because Pangloss metioned them.

 

So stop and think about that for a second. If you believe that my statement that this site is no better than O'Reilly is an insult, then would you also categorize Pangloss' assertion that my views are no different than O'Reilly's as an insult?

 

My response was to Pangloss' statement that this site has a liberal bias because it is a science forum. I am pointing out tha the two states of being are not as intertwined as that. I also am pointing out that in his attempt to educate this conservative rube he is really not doing anything different than he states he is trying to avoid.

 

If you don't intend this as a personal attack, then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but it's certainly burdened with logical fallacies if nothing else.

 

It was restating the same jab directed back at Pangloss, and on a subject (the liberal bias of this forum) that Pangloss already conceded. You took offense because you find O'Reilly offensive. You probably didn't see Pangloss statement to me as offensive because you have incorrect notion of who I am and where you believe my politics are.

 

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

 

That was not a complaint, nor a whine. That was just some of that learning and changing views that you say goes on all the time here.

 

Jyran, the issue is how frequently you seem to misrepresent others position, how frequently you read more into their words than what they are actually saying, and how frequently you pick fights based on arguments your "opponent" never even made.

 

Would that be in the same way that you and Pangloss have misrepresented my position based on your limited understanding of my politics? Because part of having a discussion is verbalizing what it is we understand about the other sides statements, and letting the other side correct those statements

 

You've done this to me repeatedly, where you assumed something from my post which simply wasn't there, and then went on to barade me like a "naive child," to borrow your own words.

 

If you believe you are the victim on this site when it comes to personal attacks, you may want to actually ask a few admins what the demerrit tallies are. It has been stated before that you lead the league currently in demerrits, and stating that is not an attack on you. You are just well known for your ability to turn snippy with others. If I in turn become snippy with you you may want to consider what came before that.

 

You would do much better in relaxing you condescending tone. It should be noted that although I am in the middle of THIS flame war, you seem to be in the middle of MOST flame wars.

 

I can appreciate the challenges of being in the minority on a position, especially on a board such as this where members are articulate and intellectual, but I suggest you follow your own advice above, start realizing that there are some gray areas in the positions of others, and do everything you can to understand the position of someone else before you lambaste it.

 

And this is a view you accept because it places all blame for a misunderstanding on the guy with whom you disagree. Try saying "You may not understand what I am saying" and then restate it, trying to learn from the other person's interpretation how you can better appeal to how they think while still making your point. You will find it works a lot better than "wow, your ability to misinterpret is unparalleled". All you are saying is that I think differently than you do while putting a pejorative spin on an otherwise obvious and innocent fact.

 

I see you take this road repeatedly, where you find others inability to understand what you write as a failing on their part. The only conclusion to take from this, that I can see, is that you assume that your belief, and you ability to state it, is unassailable. You should expect that, when talking to others who believe different than you, they will process what you say diffrent than you. That is just the way of the world.

 

Make your arguments. You're clearly a bright fellow, and whining like you've done above only hurts your position. Argue the issue, not the reaction.

 

Again, I am not whining at all. I am simply pointing out the frustration I have exibited in the realization that this site is simply as biased as Pangloss points out. The old adage is true: "Anger is born of Optimism"

 

I will read and respond to Pangloss after I take a lunch. I don't feel like mulling this debate over any more over a plate of pulled prok.

[Pangloss]

If you believe that my statement that this site is no better than O'Reilly is an insult, then would you also categorize Pangloss' assertion that my views are no different than O'Reilly's as an insult?

 

I didn't say that. And I really don't think you can construe what I did say as an insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

 

 

Would that be in the same way that you and Pangloss have misrepresented my position based on your limited understanding of my politics?

 

Again, that wasn't my intent and you clearly missed my point. I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole you, I was trying to point out why you may be frustrated, and that reason had nothing to do with your ideological viewpoint, but rather your butting of heads with other people. The specific ideologies involved are just backdrop to that problem.