[MD] Intellect battles the [immigrant] barbarians

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> No distortion. You implied we should have done nothing because without
> our arms support, Iraq would have likely been occupied by Iran
> 
> [What Arlo had said]
> "I regret that we sold arms to BOTH Iran and Iraq, with no moral fiber
> ruffled whatsoever so long as the killing destabilized the region. Even
> if I grant (which I don't) your noble concerns in containing Iran, the
> way Reagan and the republicans went about it was deplorable and
> immoral."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Can you point out where I imply we "should have done nothing"?

"I don't (grant) your noble concerns in containing Iran."

> [Platt]
> I guess you forgot about Iran's criminal holding of our diplomats
> hostage for a year under the feckless Jimmy Carter.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Shall we review the historical reasons leading up Khomeni's gaining
> control of Iran? In any case, what should Carter have done differently?

What Reagan did.

> [Platt]
> To prevent Iran from occupying Iraq and a large part of the Middle East,
> and vice versa, I consider what we did moral on the MOQ grounds of
> society having the right and obligation to keep barbaric biological
> forces in check.
> 
> [Arlo]
> What about the barbaric forces of the brutal dictator who we enabled to
> deploy chemical weapons and ignored as thousands and thousands die and
> human rights are violated across the region? But of course, we've been
> down this road before. Regarding anything done to preserve US interests,
> the ends always justify the means. So what if tens of thousands die in a
> bloody war we helped to prolong? They're not Americans, so they don't
> really count. Then let's pretend our interests are wholly noble, and not
> motivated by economics, because Heaven forbid a few thousand
> dark-skinned lives are worth a drop in profits and wealth here in
> America.

Ah, playing the race card, I see. You liberals are incorrigible. As for 
the rest, we've exchanged views.

> [Arlo previously]
> If my reply had even a HINT of criticism of the Morally Holy Republican
> Warriors of Freedom, all you'd do is engage in the same crap that you do
> above.
> 
> [Platt]
> Funny. Whenever you are challenged, you call it crap, the sort of 
> argument you would expect from a third grader.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You don't offer a challenge. You evade my points, or seek to distort
> them (as above). Yes, Platt, I call that crap.

Yes, I know -- an interminably childish response.

> Your only solution for shortening the conflict is "killing more people"?
> Good luck with that.

Kill or be killed. What's your pleasure?