Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Glenn Greenwald: US pro-democratic propaganda in the Middle East has been lies all along


Over at RaceForIran, Richard Steven Hack posted a link to a Salon article by Glen Greenwald. I'm quoting the first two and then the last paragraphs of it. In the body is an example of the New York Times euphemistically encouraging US opposition to Egyptian policy being set by Egyptian voters. It is an extremely well written piece about US policy in the Middle East.
Media coverage of the Arab Spring somehow depicted the U.S. as sympathetic to and supportive of the democratic protesters notwithstanding the nation’s decades-long financial and military support for most of the targeted despots. That’s because a central staple of American domestic propaganda about its foreign policy is that the nation is “pro-democracy” — that’s the banner under which Americans wars are typically prettified — even though “democracy” in this regard really means “a government which serves American interests regardless of how their power is acquired,” while “despot” means “a government which defies American orders even if they’re democratically elected.”

It’s always preferable when pretenses of this sort are dropped — the ugly truth is better than pretty lies — and the events in the Arab world have forced the explicit relinquishment of this pro-democracy conceit. That’s because one of the prime aims of America’s support for Arab dictators has been to ensure that the actual views and beliefs of those nations’ populations remain suppressed, because those views are often so antithetical to the perceived national interests of the U.S. government. The last thing the U.S. government has wanted (or wants now) is actual democracy in the Arab world, in large part because democracy will enable the populations’ beliefs — driven by high levels of anti-American sentiment and opposition to Israeli actions – to be empowered rather than ignored.

...

The Post explains that Iran has now “opened six new missions there — in Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia — and has expanded embassies in Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela”; Iran’s President, the article informs us, is now embarking on a trip to Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua. Other than Cuba, all of those nations are governed by democratically elected leaders. But many of them periodically defy American dictates and act against American interests; they are thus magically transformed into “despots.” By contrast, try to find any high-level American official using such a term to describe, say, America’s close friends ruling Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. That is what is meant by “democracy” and “freedom” and “despots” when used in establishment American foreign policy discussions.
There is not much I could add to the piece itself. I strongly suggest reading it in full. Instead I'll try to place Greenwald in context of the US policy opinion spectrum.

Greenwald is part of the anti-colonialist fringe of the US political spectrum. The pro-colonialist mainstream right and the pro-colonialist mainstream left of the US political spectrum are united in their pursuit of the policies as well as the deceptions in support of those policies that Greenwald describes. Barack Obama is far closer to George W. Bush than he is to Glenn Greenwald. Juan Cole and MJ Rosenberg are far closer to Jeffrey Goldberg and Caroline Glick than they are to Greenwald.

To a person outside of the US pro-colonialist mainstream, Obama, Bush, Cole, Rosenberg, Goldberg and Glick are not substantially different from each other in their agendas, their objectives or their methods. The United States is a far more profoundly colonialist - and also profoundly racist - country than anyone with limited experience with the country might guess.

36 comments:

Dermot Moloney said...

"Juan Cole and MJ Rosenberg are far closer to Jeffrey Goldberg and Caroline Glick than they are to Greenwald."

I believe even glen greenwald would disagree with this, as a whole juan cole and he have very similar views whereas its clear juan cole and jeffery goldberg are not exactly fans of one another.

Glen and juan went in different directions in the case of the libyan war, however the available evidence shows that juan was on the right side and glen was in the wrong ( after reading his piece its slightly ironic  considering if glen had his way libyas path to democracy would be far more difficult)

Lidia said...

DM is fond of repeating liberal imperialist propaganda as fact. I am NOT going to refute his(?) assertion that "Cole was right about Libya", but one could get a taste of Cole being right by looking into info from Libya (very scarce now, unlike during the "revolution" aka NATO bombing). If one see something democracy-like, or at least "path to democracy", please let me know :(

Of course, not all imperialist are the same. As I have pointed before, Bush and Obama are different. For ex, Bush tried, but still did not hold American citizen without trial (even a kangaroo one) in military jail. Obama just signed LAW which permits it. Bush also did not openly claimed the right to assassinate USA citizens. Obama has  murdered two of them. In short, Cole is different form Goldberg too, I just have no much interest to look into such difference while they both for non-Palestinians having right to settler on Palestinian land after ethnic cleansing natives.

And, by the way, I am SURE Obama and Bush do not like each other very much. A big deal for Pakistan people murdered by drones of Bush and Obama, I am sure. 

Arnold Evans said...

First, you're responding to a very minor point in the post.  It's almost as if you just want something, anything, to argue about.  If that's the case, I really shouldn't be indulging you.

Second, on the one hand, you and I are two people who cannot speak for Glen.  On the other, even if Glen were to disagree, he could be wrong.

Obama and Bush aren't fans of each other either. They are still closer to each other and to you than they are to me, or it seems from especially the Greenwald article I quote, to Glen.  Both Obama and Bush, along with Cole and Goldberg, subscribe to this "protect Egypt from democracy" deception that Greenwald describes.

About Libya, 1) according to the only poll I've seen, more Arabs by far believe the intervention was not worth the cost.

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-brookings-poll-of-some-arab.html

2) to this day we do not know if Gadhafi could have won a fair election in Libya.  His strongest support was in Libya's biggest cities.  The US rejected every proposal for overseen elections that would have determined that.

We do know that tens of thousands of Libyans are dead, far more than anywhere that the regime put down the opposition.  We know that cities were put under siege that didn't have to be.

We also have to stop beating around the bush if I'm going to engage you.

Yes or no.

If you believed that democracy in Egypt would result in the country being as anti-Israel as Iran is, would you favor that outcome?

If somehow you come up with a way to evade that question, I have nothing more to say to you.

Lidia said...

Arnold, is it not funny when sometimes we use almost the same words independently for arguments. Are you sure you are not me after all :)? 

Arnold Evans said...

I've learned a lot from your comments.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Second, on the one hand, you and I are two people who cannot speak for Glen."

Glen himself has stated that he has respect for juan cole and finds his arguments well reasoned whereas his pieces on jeffery goldberg are quite insulting.

"according to the only poll I've seen, more Arabs by far believe the intervention was not worth the cost"

This isnt really surprising, regardless of how those affected by the intervention feel those in the surrounding areas seem to be against it, for example polling in afghanistan shows that most afghans see the 2001 intervention as right yet those around them see it as wrong.

As for the libyans themselves the only available poll taken in the country has quite positive results with most seeing the country going in the right direction and it shows strong support for those involved in the overthrow of gaddafi. Sadly it is only a partial poll and it will be intersting to see what a nation wide poll shows. Also usually i would be slightly sceptical of an org callled the iri however they have in the past published critical polls involving iraq.

"His strongest support was in Libya's biggest cities."

:/ Really? You honestly think this? The truth is that his relations with the largest cities such as mistrata and benghazi was quite poor, even in triploi the people in many working class neighbourhoods overthrew his rule before the rebels entered the city which then was taken quite quickly.


"Yes or no.

If you believed that democracy in Egypt would result
in the country being as anti-Israel as Iran is, would you favor that
outcome?"

I support the country following the will of the egyptian people, if that is their will i feel they have the right for it to come about, i personally would like to see egyptians change their stance on a number of isssues such as being more forceful about the state of gaza, as for becoming as bad i hope not but if that is what they want they should have it.


"If somehow you come up with a way to evade that question, I have nothing more to say to you. "

That would break my heart, out of curiosity if a US intervention improved the welfare of those involved would you support it?

Dermot Moloney said...

Ha! The blind leading the blind

Dermot Moloney said...

"but one could get a taste of Cole being right by looking into info from Libya"

The idea that things have gone terribly and that cole is avoiding them doesnt really hold out considering their isnt anything majorly wrong happening in libya whereas they are many major events going on in the oppressive state of syria right now wniohich would attract a great deal of attention, also he mentioned libya not so long ago in a post.

"A big deal for Pakistan people murdered by drones of Bush and Obama, I am sure."

Murdered? This is debatable for wikileaks has shown that the pakistani government has allowed the us to make such strikes, also these are aimed at those who are engaged in hostilities with the us, afghan and pakistan states and people. Some are unsure as to whether they are wrong or whether they are justified under the grounds of self defence, again it is a debatable issue.

What those in the region affected by the drones feel is uncertain, one poll showed that most supported the attacks while another showed the opposite.

It seems however that most of those that are killed are militants.

Lidia said...

"from the polls ive seen most egyptians favor keeping the peace treaty is israel intact.'

One more time DM is claiming something without even ONE proof. 

DM "knowledge" about Egyptians not wanting to do anything about colonial "peace treaty" reminds me strongly about his authority - Cole. Cole last guest pos thttp://www.juancole.com/2012/01/majid-why-america-matters-to-muslims.html
is based on "One thing that is striking about the recent revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain is the absence of any anti-American slogans". Every one who read more than NYT knows it is a BIG FAT LIE (as a matter of fact, the piece is chock full of lies) But still, I wonder, why Cole is so eager to full himself and his faithful readers by this one lier. I guess it is because of this words by this lier : " Sunni Muslims ...also must accommodate themselves to the historical reality of Israel ". I suppose Cole feels he has not enough authority to fool his supporters, he needs the help of native informer. 

Lidia said...

OK, I still have a lot to learn from DM
1) If USA murders some civilians with "permission" by its puppet aka state government, it is NOT a murder. I see. Even Cole has not claimed it. He simply stated it is not a war.
2) One more time (which one? Tenth?) DM claims something supporting it by "polls" without ANY proof. A nice habit.
3) Sure, if Cole does not say there is something horrible in Libya now, it means there is not anything wrong, or at least  "majorly" wrong. I wonder, why Cole (or DM) at least tell us about something good (or at least "majorly" good) in Libya, as  a result of all this NATO bombs. Of course, NATO's mass murder of Libyans was NOT a murder, I know, I know, because it was for Libyans' own good, but where is the good? 

Dermot Moloney said...

One more time DM is claiming something without even ONE proof.

Untrue, ive provided links to my evidence

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE75R1FD20110628

There you go lidia

Also if most egyptians want to support the treaty which recognises israeli will you support their right to this decision?

Dermot Moloney said...

"If USA murders some civilians with "permission" by its puppet aka state government, it is NOT a murder."

I never said that, once more you have been caught making things for you are having difficulty challenging my arguments. The us does not have the right to murder innocent people, it likely however does have the right to attack those who are attacking it and its allies and while doing so it should try to keep civilian deaths to a minimum.

"One more time (which one? Tenth?) DM claims something supporting it by "polls" without ANY proof. A nice habit."

Making up things again, a nasty habit, i have provided polling sources previously.

If you are too lazy to look it up yourself and too ignorant to be already aware of them here you are 

Anti
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/public_opinion_in_pakistan_s_tribal_regions

Pro
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\02\story_2-1-2010_pg3_5

"something good (or at least "majorly" good) in Libya, as  a result of all this NATO bombs."

The overthrow of an oppressive dictator for one lidia.

Arnold Evans said...

If you want attention from me and probably from Lidia, you're going to have to refrain from comments that add nothing but personal attacks.

Arnold Evans said...

It is possible to respect people whom one is not close to on the ideological spectrum I described. Your argument Glen Greenwald seems to get along with X is a waste of typing.

US "intervention" meaning bombing? Absolutely not.  It would be better for the US to remain uninvolved.

If Egyptians vote to keep the peace treaty, I absolutely support whatever the Egyptians vote for but unlike Juan Cole and the US establishment I do not support continuing the subversion the democratic will of the Egyptian people under any pretext.

Are you pretending to be sarcastic about that break your heart thing? Come on. You're here for attention and you're getting it.  I'm not sure how honestly, but at least you answered the question so you're eligible for more attention.

Dermot Moloney said...

Let me rephrase it, one unreliable source taking information from another unreliable source...better.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Your argument Glen Greenwald seems to get along with X is a waste of typing."

Its not a case of persoanally getting on with someone, its the fact that both men ahve stated that they respect each others professional work.

"Absolutely not.  It would be better for the US to remain uninvolved."

Wow!

Im slightly taken back that you would think it is better for the welfare of people to suffer, personally im against that, so whatever option assists to improve the welfare of others, im for it.

I recommend that you get your morals straightened out, peoples welfare is something that should be improved, not made worse for you dont like one of the actiors invloved.

"Are you pretending to be sarcastic"

Who said anything about being pretending.

Arnold Evans said...

Bombing always kills people.  There is not much more to say. I'm completely confident that any reasonably intelligent reader of the comments here to this point can draw a clear conclusion about the strengths of our arguments.

Again, I don't feel any urge to show you where and how your arguments fail.

Lidia said...

Now DM cited ONE (no plurals) poll done by Egypt rulers (put in this place by USA puppets SCAF).

"The poll came after last month Egypt's foreign minister told an Israeli official that Cairo was committed to its international treaties, ensuring the security of peace between Israel and Egypt since 1979."



There is some more about it 



"Asked how they’d feel about a party that favors breaking the treaty and ending diplomatic relations with Israel, 37 percent said they’d be at least somewhat more likely to support it versus 32 percent who’d be less likely. Asked how they’d feel about a party that would keep the treaty in place and favor a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, 63 percent were at least somewhat more likely to support it versus just 14 percent who were less likely."

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/07/egyptian-poll-63-want-peace-treaty-with-israel-to-continue-sort-of/

Not the same as DM said, esp. given that Zionists are not going to bring even the so-called "two-state solution". Not "most egyptians favor keeping the peace treaty is israel intact". 



But I wonder, why MB who won (more or less) elections were in pains recently to say that they are going to put the treaty to referendum? Does it not mean that they at least think simply saying - "the treaty will stay" - would not be heard happily by Egyptians?

Of course, if on the honest referendum Egyptians would be let to say what they want, it is their to decide. I wonder why USA is not calling for such vote, not it was during Sadat/Mubarak years? 

By the way, much vilified by USA/Zionists/Saudis Ahmadinejad says that Palestinians (all of them) should be given a chance to vote on the question of Israel. Of course, USA is NOT supporting this notion.

Lidia said...

"A big deal for Pakistan people murdered by drones of Bush and Obama, I am sure."

Murdered? This is debatable for wikileaks has shown that the pakistani government has allowed the us to make such strikes"

Those are EXACT copies of DM words. I suppose it means what I have said it meant. But, maybe for DM it means something else. 

Now about 1) The support for Pakistan military clearly based on notion that it is THEM in charge. No wonder it took wikileaks to show that the same Pakistan army SECRETLY approved USA bombings. General themselves were NOT going to tell their people that USA bombs (90% opposed by them) are, in fact, given green light by generals. Otherwise, why Pakistan army just not say to Pakistanies: USA bombings are done with our permission?

Regarding Libya and "The overthrow of an oppressive dictator" - the same was said about Iraq. I just cannot get, why DM is not happy about USA aggression against Iraq as well? 

1) A lot of dictators in the world. Most of them are best pals of USA. 
2) The same dictator was OK to USA when USA rulers thought he could be of use (just as all other "friendly" dictators).
3) Bahrain dictator was suppressing his people at the same time. USA let Saudis bring tanks to help murder Bahrain opposition. The oppression is going on, and it is OK for USA. Cole does NOT call for bombing Bahrain (not that I would support such call). Cole is NOT calling for at least sanctions against Bahrain ruler. Cole just politely ask for some politely wards from Obama.
4) DM told us before about "democracy" in Libya. Now he is content with simply the end of dictator not lackey of USA enough. Telling, is it not?

Lidia said...

AE, I understand that DM is not very civil. But he does it ONLY for our own good. I am sure he would bomb us for our own good if he could :)

noname7364 said...

Have you ever thought that colonialism was prefered by the people that were colonialized then the system they had at the time.   They were not "Noble Savages" but people that led short disgusting brutal ignorant  lives.  Even today half of Pakistan cant read, women are gang raped and buried alive as punishment.  Women are killed with impunity.

noname7364 said...

More than 55 rebel militia, totaling more than 30,000 armed fighters control parts of Tripoli alone. They will be killing each other for generations to come.

IW points out “The self-evident Western superiority stems from certain principles inherited, and further developed and refined over two millennia, from Athens, Rome and Jerusalem.

"The Greeks gave us the city and the notion of citizenship, the ideals of democracy and liberty, rationalism and science, philosophy and history.

"The Romans systematized the law, defined private property, and emphasized individual responsibility.

"Judeo-Christianity added a sense of conscience and charity, tempering justice with forgiveness, and the concept of linear rather than cyclical time, which allowed the possibility of progress. The Jewish ethic introduced a refusal to accept evil as the norm”.
Support of many countries are for pragmatic reasons, in much wider contex of the cold war with the USSR. NATO reasons for being in Libya was to get rid of the Libyan dictatorship, and I doubt any rational person would think it was for the support of Al-Qaida.

Lidia said...

IW is a native informer. He speaks about "fundamental liberties" while mentioning "continuing colonialist present" as if they were not in odds. Or maybe  "fundamental liberties" of West really include and even based on colonial power over non-West? After all, liberalism was 100% OK with colonies, and with all crimes needed to secure them. It were NOT "islamists" but Western liberals who wholesale supported Western rule over the world, and all mass-murders and torture needed to sustain it. SOME liberals sometimes were against it, but they were always exemption from the rule.

By the way, "islamism" were and still are wholly supported by USA and West when it suits them. Sauids and GCC are bulwark of USA politics in the ME. The latest example of active NATO support for Al-Qaida is in Libya.  

noname7364 said...

 Ibn Warraq Arab Expert from Pakistan whom worte the book “Why I Am Not A Muslim. says:

If we are trading Islamist for what they have now, the middle east is just going to be worse off instead of better no matter the reason.

Warraq slams Western relativism. “Intellectuals and academics have undermined the confidence of the West in its own values and strengths. For more than sixty years schools and universities in the West have inculcated three generations of the young with moral relativism leaving them incapable of passing moral or cross-cultural judgments, and unwilling to defend those values. Post-modernism and multiculturalism have completed the destruction of the West’s self-assurance”.Then he lashes out against the “intellectual terrorism of left-wing ideologues” such as the Palestinian Arab Edward Said, and his highly influential book, “Orientalism”, that bludgeoned Western intellectuals into silence. “Post–World War II Western intellectuals and leftists were consumed by guilt for the West’s colonial past and continuing colonialist present, and they wholeheartedly embraced any theory or ideology that voiced or at least seemed to voice the putatively thwarted aspirations of the peoples of the third world. ‘Orientalism’ came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular”.According to Ibn Warraq, freedom has been betrayed by the Western chattering classes. “Many liberals in the West, from government officials to academics and journalists, have failed to stand up for our fundamental liberties but instead have engaged in appeasement and self-censorship. The shameful abandonment of principle by many intellectuals in response to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie was a foreshadowing of things to come”. The Islamic scholar demolishes the so called “Arab Spring”. “I am not at all optimistic about the future of democracy in the Middle East, the Arab Spring should be renamed ‘The Muslim Brotherhood Spring’. There is no such thing as ‘moderate Islamism’. The Islamist parties have been cleverly feeding the gullible Western journalists from Nicholas Kristoff to Thomas Friedman, and even more gullible Western governments soothing words all the while concealing their true aims, the establishment of a Sharia based constitution and a theocratic state”.Listening to this brave lesson, one can realize that the long waited “reform of Islam” will might come from within. From heroes like Ibn Warraq. But is Islam really "reformable"?     

Lidia said...

Arnold, he logic of n7 reminds me strongly about the classical joke: 
A Jewish soldier was send to war against Turks by Russian Tzar. The soldier's mother gave him a piece of advice :do not overdo it. Kill a Turk and rest for a while.- He asked: but what while I am resting, another Turk would kill me? - She was astonished: But why for the all goodness would Turk want to kill you? 

I always thought the joke was a bit too improbable to be funny enough. n7 shows us that the reality could be even more funny - or more sad. n7 sure could not get that Iranians would NOT want to harm him if the USA politics he wholly supports - terror, economic war and other nice things - were to end. n7 could remember, that it was USA who harmed Iran first, not the other way around. On the other hand, maybe for n7 nationalization of Iranians oil was a crime against USA interests enough to justify all USA crimes against Iran since.

By the way, fantastic job with getting n7 plainly admit that he(?) is against democracy for natives  if it does not suit him. Your posts are usually very good, but comments are sometimes even more enlightening :)

Dermot Moloney said...

Dont get testy arnold.

Dermot Moloney said...

Again i repeat, you cant. If this was a debate and you adopted this tactic you would be ridiculed.

Arnold Evans said...

So, noname7364, do you have answers to the questions in the post here:

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-westerners-especially-in.html

It was written partly for you.

noname7364 said...

The US would prefer to support a democracy,  but we are going to support those countries that are in the best interest of the USA to support and tolerate the rest as long as they are not supporting international terrorism or hostile to the USA.   I have watched enough hostile mass parades in Iran shouting Death to America to understand those people are not our friends.     I know, I know, they have there reasons, but once you decide you want me dead, I dont care about your reasons and I dont want to be friends with those kind of people.

Arnold Evans said...


Because you cant.


I guess you have the special power that you can keep going back and forth on minor issues for as long as you want and I don't.

Congratulations are in order.  That is a rare and unique accomplishment on the internet.

If you believe I could not respond, feel free.

Dermot Moloney said...

An accurate one more like, and it seems a certain someone is getting a little testy.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Cole is NOT calling for at least sanctions against Bahrain ruler."

Actually cole does think that the goods the us can provide to bahrain should be limited.

"Now he is content with simply the end of dictator"

Making stuff up again lidia, when did i say im content with merely the end of a dictator, least of all one not lackey enough, my actual postion is that im happy with the removal of a dictator and would like to see the coming about of democracy in libya which would not have occurred if you had your way. Also gaddafi was removed do to his actions against his people and the political will to take him on, he was not removed due to being not lacky enough.

Dermot Moloney said...

Actually wikileaks showed that they are approved by the pakistani civilian government.

" the same was said about Iraq. I just cannot get, why DM is not happy about USA aggression against Iraq as well? "

If one has a simplistic black and white view of the world this isnt really surprising, the fact is some wars are just while some are not, if a war improves the welfare of the people and prevents a greater level of distress occurring then it is right, if it causes a greater level of distress then it is wrong. From the available evidence the iraq war caused more distress than the alternative while intervening in libya did the opposite. Therefore i see the libya action as being right while the iraq war as being wrong.

"A lot of dictators in the world. Most of them are best pals of USA. "

They are many dictators in the world, and the us does have relations with them as does basically every other nation in the world, what would be the alternative, treating every nation like iran, cuba?

"The same dictator was OK to USA when USA rulers thought he could be of use (just as all other "friendly" dictators)."

Actually this isnt entirely true for the us sided against gaddafi when relations between the two were overall stable.

"Bahrain dictator was suppressing his people at the same time. USA let
Saudis bring tanks to help murder Bahrain opposition."

Actually us influence has its limits, the us basically folded after its failure to organise dialogue talks between various groups.

 "The oppression is
going on, and it is OK for USA."

Hardly, the us government has criticised bahrain and even made efforts which prevented the Al-Wefaq from being banned.

"Cole does NOT call for bombing Bahrain"

Obviously, The reason for the bombing in libya was due to the massvie assault gaddafi was subjecting his people to, the situation in bahrain is no-where near as bad, also their is no un resolution allowing, the bahraini opposition have not called for it and finally a bombing campaign is unlikely to achieve much and end up only causing excess distress.

Dermot Moloney said...

"put in this place by USA puppets SCAF"

Id disagree with the puppet comment, the us merely has influence but the scaf is very much its own organisation and will not always follow the will of the us.

" There is some more about it"

I believe that the inforamtion from hot air is about another poll so this criticism doesnt really work. Also this other poll found that a party that is willing to maintain peace with israel would increase the likelyhood of being voted for.

There is also a brookings poll where a small majority of egyptians said that they favour keeping the treaty.

"if on the honest referendum Egyptians would be let to say what they want, it is their to decide."

Id personally support a referendum, get all these things out into the open.

Dermot Moloney said...

Any intelligent reader would realise that soemtimes military action is just and sometimes it is unjust, it is just when it saves more lives in the long run while it is unjust if it cause more distress than the alternative.

"Again, I don't feel any urge to show you where and how your arguments fail."

Because you cant.

Again this thread is useful for it has shown that are unconcerned with the welfare of others when it clashes with your ideological beliefs.

Dermot Moloney said...

Ha! For the good of the world more like :p