Well, you have now attributed shame, naivete, failure to believe the right
persons, vague generalizations, obtuseness, and a failure to be
reasonable to me (I may have missed some in this long list). That is what
I call ad feminem argument. I said nothing about whether your statements
were factual or not, only that they could be said of any nation. Certainly
the US has its history of lying. An administration that puts John
Poindexter in charge of anything is not too concerned with lies--his are on
record and not disputed. But that is a comparatively trivial example.
This reiteration of name calling does not make your point any more
exclusive to France.
Date sent: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:20:09 -0800
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Harm Tron v2.0b2r7" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Where is Tiresias when we need him/her?
To: [log in to unmask]
>From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Where is Tiresias when we need him/her?
>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:24:24 -0500
>If your point is that there are fools in France, who is to say it is
>impossible? If your point is that France has made mistakes and/or done
>terrible things, who would say it is impossible? If your point is that
>many French people believe foolish books, again, who would think this
>And how is this different from the fact that every country has fools,
>makes mistakes, does terrible things, and has masses of people who read
>foolish books? I'm sure you know anyone could list the same for America.
(ill remark that none of my claims have been rebutted--not that they could
be, of course, but its fascinating to notice how one can always parry
facts w/ vague generalizations)
i hope prof gish is purposefully being obtuse here. nobody can argue any
which nation of the world is perfectly blameless, but whatever faults or
obsessions we are plagued with are nowhere near the order of magnitude
french have clearly exhibited in the past year.
its simply inconcievable that you could, in this day & age, have a
presidential candidate with a documented nazi-sympathizer past, much
one who gets almost a fifth of the vote on account of overt xenophobic
rhetoric. i mean, what was pat buchanans percentage in the last election,
so of course its not "just aimless name calling," and shame on you for
resorting to that kind of a dimissive tactic when you have not bothered to
confront any of the facts ive documented: first of all, they are all
factually true, and second of all, they are perfectly relevant to the
a political argument does not exist in vacuo, much less one as complex &
truly global as potential war on iraq. if we are to be reasonable we must
take into consideration the credibility of the parties involved--not that
any nation or administration can claim saintlyhood--but rather what recent
facts show about the policies of said nation/govt. at the very worst, one
could say the bush administration is infatuated with its military and
economic hegemony, and is willing to put it to use in order to stamp out
oppressive regimes around the world, collateral damage be damned.
its not saintly, but its not devious either.
on the other hand, france has supported an interminable list of
dictatorial african regimes, offered saddam hussein billions in lucrative
oil contracts, bullied its former colonions by landing troops within their
borders w/o as much as bothering to ask for permition, bullied recent
additions to the EU because they, in chirac's words, "have missed a great
opportunity to shut up," not to mention standing by as ethnic massacre
committed in rhwanda.
comment est ce qu'on dit, 'dipshit' en francais?
>The only arguments that would be worth making are arguments about the
>issue, not about who makes them. If you have proof that the Bush
>administration knows better than France, by all means bring it forward.
>I'm sure the world is waiting.
what youre saying is, it makes absolutely no difference whether its a
convicted felon or just a regular guy, no better or worse than anybody
else, asking you to take a leap of faith. thats insane. im not insisting
that the bush/blair administrations DO have definitive proof at all, but,
all things equal, whom do you believe? out of two very bad choices (war vs
saddam in power for an indeterminate amount of time) which do you choose?
im no fan of this whole mess myself, really; im anxious about what appears
to be a ground campaign, which will mean relatively large casualties, as
well as long-term financial commitment to iraq despite gross budget
deficit et all, but its simply mind-boggling to witness the kind of
ideological bias some, apparently, cannot help but deploy.
regardless, i think we all realize this is just a mailing list and no
positions will be changed because of html paragraphs flying left & right,
so i will recuse myself from all talk of iraq, france, or ot matters in
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*