sick fuck

Yep -- and we're all completely shocked that the movies are losing big bux and indictments are flying.

vile putz.

I actually agree that 9/11 was a revolt, and the jihadist movement is a revolution against the West. Which of course means that it is a revolt against reason, the enlightenment, and every Jeffersonian principle ever penned.

From this perspective it's easier to see what it is we're up against, and which side Stone is on.

Movies may be losing at the box office, but I thought they wee still cleaning up on cable, rental, overseas, etc.

They might as well move Hollywood overseas, since they're making movies for the market outside of America anyway.

How can one communicate that the Arabs have a point without drawing fire from us reactionaries? I'd agree they have a point, if pressed, but I'd have to note it's not much of one, it doesn't justify much of anything and I don't give a shit about their point anyway.

But that aside, some Arabs have legitimate complaints about American imperialism. How about that airliner we shot down by accident in Iran? Think we made any friends there? Sure, it's an accident but if we weren't there it wouldn't have happened. Want me to keep going?

Maybe it's a Nixon-to-China thing. Maybe only the Right can acknowledge legitimate grievances of the Arab world since the Left would be accused--most likely accurately--of bashing their country.

Now how to recognize real American fuckups without fueling even more Arab radicalism, that I'll leave to the smarter type rightwingers like, um... Cedarford maybe?

Just to be picky spongeworthy, I would point out that Iranians are not Arabs.

I would also like to point out that if you are to discuss Iran and it's grievances towards the US, it seems wise to bring up the hostage crisis, as well as the missile attack on one of our warships. Unless, that is you only want to paint the US as the monster that never had a grievance of it's own.

I guess you do want me to go on.

As I noted, I don't really give a shit about their grievances, but they do have some and somebody better than me ought to recognize that. Of course we have a long list too, but it would be foolhardy to act is if we didn't have a hand in virtually all of the problems we've had with them. Of nothing else, simply for being there fucking with stuff. That's imperialism of a sort and there is a price.

Now whether it's legitimate to start shit you can't finish and kill innocents and stuff is another story entirely. (I'm not going to keep qualifying this, BTW.)

Taking responsibility for the part of your relationship that you fucked up, and with Iran the list is long, may be a good thing. And maybe if a Democrat suggested rapproachment with the people of Iran by doing so we'd rip him a new one. But if done right it could be a mater stroke. I just can't figure who could pull it off.

We are also responsible for creating a technological society that made a previously worthless goo lying underneath eternally worthless stretches of sand into something that can finance the purchase of all the things the Arabs can't make for themselves such as, well, everything short of dates and glass.

A fair trade, all in all.

Just so. Yet they might argue that we not only installed a kleptocracy to hoard the wealth from that oil crutch they lean on, but perpetuated the same kleptocracies long past the time it became apparent it was doing more harm than good.

And what did we as consumers get out of it? Cheap oil for a while. Meanwhile some really obscenely rich guys got even richer and these same guys would fuck the Arabs, Persians and us all over again twice as hard for a few dollars more. Bank on it.

It was a mistake. Our Cold War alliances not so much so, but there's a price to pay for that, too, just as there always is for the victors in conflicts.

Anyway, I'm just saying is all.

Spongeworth, here's an extract from a speech by someone who agrees with you:

"[Britain and the United States] must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. [Britain and the United States], in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led [these nations] to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make [those nations] safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold. As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and [the United States and Britain] should oppose tyranny wherever it is found."

Some ranting leftie? Try George W. Bush, addressing the British government at Whitehall, November 19, 2003.

I would rather be dipped in boiling shit than watch Oliver Stone's "take" on 9-11.

No thanks.

I'm sure Stone's big insight into 9-11 will be that the hijackers were gay and destroyed the WTC as revenge for Stonewall.