The Nature of Government?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Were we not attacked?

Could I go through historic passages and find one that conforms to my way of thinking?

I post it because its ironic that a stop readingNazi said it. And yet to those of us on the left, it could absolutely be said today by Rove and it wouldn’t surprise me.

And Iraq did not attack us.

Did Russia or Germany ever attack our soil? Were I or II justified?

That said–it’s sad that the quote, in fact, does carry some truth.

And no, Iraq never attacked us

russia never attacked the U.S…

japan (an ally of germany) attacked the U.S…

was entering WWI justified…hmmm, I’m not sure…

was entering WWII justified … definately…japan attacked U.S. soil…

and finally iraq never attacked the U.S…

so what is your point?

If you had read the posts leading up to this you wouldn’t have to ask. This was a 3 post back and forth discussion with another poster.
that’s my point

I’ve read every post in this thread…

you haven’t written jack shit in this thread worth reading…

so what the fuck is your point in writing anything?
[/quote]

ok let’s go slow

I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

22

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading [/quote]

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?

23

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?[/quote]

Please read the quote–
It says “all you have to do is tell the people you are being attacked”

I then countered by saying we were attacked–in reference to our current situation.

FI countered not by Iraq
I agreed but then stated we were not attacked by Russia or Germany directly, but we fought in WWI WWII. Are those/were those wars justified, even though they didn’t attack us, just as Iraq didn’t.

It would go to my belief that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Granted, it hasn’t gone in the perfect direction, I think our cause is noble and justified.

It doesn’t warrant all this discussion to show my train of thought. The original poster had no issues, why now after 2 days is it an issue. If we’re not on the same page, it isn’t the first and won’t be the last that something is lost in the translation or time warp.

Peace

24

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?[/quote]

Russia was a different case because it was not a hot war. Soviet Communism had to be combatted, but not in the way we went about it. The way Soviet communism worked was that either the entire world had to be Communist or none could be. A capitalist and a Soviet system cannot work together. However, to call the Soviet Union a true communist state is incorrect. The entire point of Communism was to create a classless society, not a fascist dictatorship like it became under Stalin. Soviet communism was pure only at the very start, then became corrupted by power hungry men. But either way, If we did not stand up to the USSR, the world would be a different place. Attacked has more than one meaning. Their attack on our idealogy, and the massiveness of their country and military, was plenty threat to combat it. However, as I said, the way we did it was wrong, such as Vietnam.

Germany was a facist dictatorship led by a madman who would have done anything to take over the world, committing mass genocide at the same time. There was reason to fight him.

At the same time, Nazi Germany was the creation of Britain and France and there ridiculous “punishment” of Germany after WWI. France and Britain both broke their own agreements with Germany over disarmament, put Germany so far in debt that the mark had no value at all, and generally destroyed the morale and identity of the German people. It is extreme desperation and depression that causes a man like Hitler to be able to take over a country, when anyone who had read his book at the time would be able to tell the man was certifiably a genius and insane at the same time.

It is my thought that Roosevelt was looking for a reason to get into that war anyway, and I believe even if Pearl Harbor didn’t happen we would have ended up in there eventually. Take a look at Hitler’s globe, where it is carved into the American continent, “I am coming”. We would have gotten involved.

And as I recall, 14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Where is the attack on this oppressive Muslim country with a terrible human rights record?

25

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?

Please read the quote–
It says “all you have to do is tell the people you are being attacked”

I then countered by saying we were attacked–in reference to our current situation.

FI countered not by Iraq
I agreed but then stated we were not attacked by Russia or Germany directly, but we fought in WWI WWII. Are those/were those wars justified, even though they didn’t attack us, just as Iraq didn’t.

It would go to my belief that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Granted, it hasn’t gone in the perfect direction, I think our cause is noble and justified.

It doesn’t warrant all this discussion to show my train of thought. The original poster had no issues, why now after 2 days is it an issue. If we’re not on the same page, it isn’t the first and won’t be the last that something is lost in the translation or time warp.

Peace[/quote]

fine…

but, russia was our ally in WWII, we did not fight them…

26

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?

Russia was a different case because it was not a hot war. Soviet Communism had to be combatted, but not in the way we went about it. The way Soviet communism worked was that either the entire world had to be Communist or none could be. A capitalist and a Soviet system cannot work together. However, to call the Soviet Union a true communist state is incorrect. The entire point of Communism was to create a classless society, not a fascist dictatorship like it became under Stalin. Soviet communism was pure only at the very start, then became corrupted by power hungry men. But either way, If we did not stand up to the USSR, the world would be a different place. Attacked has more than one meaning. Their attack on our idealogy, and the massiveness of their country and military, was plenty threat to combat it. However, as I said, the way we did it was wrong, such as Vietnam.

Germany was a facist dictatorship led by a madman who would have done anything to take over the world, committing mass genocide at the same time. There was reason to fight him.

At the same time, Nazi Germany was the creation of Britain and France and there ridiculous “punishment” of Germany after WWI. France and Britain both broke their own agreements with Germany over disarmament, put Germany so far in debt that the mark had no value at all, and generally destroyed the morale and identity of the German people. It is extreme desperation and depression that causes a man like Hitler to be able to take over a country, when anyone who had read his book at the time would be able to tell the man was certifiably a genius and insane at the same time.

It is my thought that Roosevelt was looking for a reason to get into that war anyway, and I believe even if Pearl Harbor didn’t happen we would have ended up in there eventually. Take a look at Hitler’s globe, where it is carved into the American continent, “I am coming”. We would have gotten involved.

And as I recall, 14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Where is the attack on this oppressive Muslim country with a terrible human rights record? [/quote]

yes…all true…

I agree…to call the soviet union a communist state is a falsehood…the soviet union was a dictatorship and nothing more…

27

[quote]ron33 wrote:
FightinIrish,some conservatives up in the east have made the remarks that Bush1,2 and the reagan group are Neo-Imperialists ,what say you .[/quote]

Haha. I can’t tell if you are bating me or actually want my opinion. But yes I think they are imperialists. Reagan had the Iran-Contra affair. His allies in Central America committed genocides in El Salvador and Guatemala. He used the guise of fighting Communism to bully Central America and keep militant dictaroships in power. And then they wonder why Central/South America are electing leftist presidents who despise the US. Nor do I agree with his backbreaking attack on unions. His military buildup was justified to me in that it employs so many people when we are heading into war that it helps the economy, similar to WWII. I think it also helped Americans cope better with the threat of Communism, helping to feel not so threatened. When the threat of war was always imminent with another superpower, having a strong military isn’t a bad thing.

All in all however, his foregn policy was skewed into the old nationalistic America fervor that was used to blind the public to the atrocities committed in Central America. His policies did coincide with the definition of imperialist.

I think the first Iraq war was justified, and Saddam was a threat back then. In all honesty, there was no real reason to stop at the Iraq border when we did. He was a threat at the time, far more serious than he was in 2002. Of course, the US and Britain, of course, seemed intent on using force, as they rejected all diplomatic offers at peace. This is where I split with the leftist theory that I often subscribe to, as I think that we should have gone in and finished the job when we had the chance in 1991.

We all know my thoughts about George II. There has been no more blatant flouting of imperialistic intent than that George II and our own Rasputin, Karl Rove. They have pushed this country so far into an imperialistic midset that it is disguting. “Preemptive attacking” is called invasion where I come from. And it is the perfect guise for imperialistic intent.

At least Britain admitted it that they wanted, and had, an empire.

28

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?

Please read the quote–
It says “all you have to do is tell the people you are being attacked”

I then countered by saying we were attacked–in reference to our current situation.

FI countered not by Iraq
I agreed but then stated we were not attacked by Russia or Germany directly, but we fought in WWI WWII. Are those/were those wars justified, even though they didn’t attack us, just as Iraq didn’t.

It would go to my belief that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Granted, it hasn’t gone in the perfect direction, I think our cause is noble and justified.

It doesn’t warrant all this discussion to show my train of thought. The original poster had no issues, why now after 2 days is it an issue. If we’re not on the same page, it isn’t the first and won’t be the last that something is lost in the translation or time warp.

Peace

fine…

but, russia was our ally in WWII, we did not fight them…[/quote]

WWI
Now give it a rest

29

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I said we were attacked–
referring to the original post
He came back with Iraq did not attack us
I agreed, but then said
Did Russia–Did Germany
Does that mean we should not have invaded either or was each justified.

If you don’t find the point stop reading

what does the Hermann Goering quote have to do with being attacked by al-queda?

being attacked by al-queda does not justify invading iraq…

we invaded germany because an ally of their’s (japan) invaded us first…

we never invaded russia so why are you bring them up?

Please read the quote–
It says “all you have to do is tell the people you are being attacked”

I then countered by saying we were attacked–in reference to our current situation.

FI countered not by Iraq
I agreed but then stated we were not attacked by Russia or Germany directly, but we fought in WWI WWII. Are those/were those wars justified, even though they didn’t attack us, just as Iraq didn’t.

It would go to my belief that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Granted, it hasn’t gone in the perfect direction, I think our cause is noble and justified.

It doesn’t warrant all this discussion to show my train of thought. The original poster had no issues, why now after 2 days is it an issue. If we’re not on the same page, it isn’t the first and won’t be the last that something is lost in the translation or time warp.

Peace

fine…

but, russia was our ally in WWII, we did not fight them…[/quote]

The Soviet Union was only our ally because Hitler made Napolean’s mistake and turned on Russia.

If Russia had been a true communist state, they would have attacked Germany immediately, simply on the premise that communism runs in direct opposition to the facist ideal. Being as they never did, even had a non-aggression pact with them, shows how far the USSR was from any ideal that resembled either socialism or communism. Which is why I agree with standing up to the “Communist” soviet union.

30

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
WWI
Now give it a rest
[/quote]

you truly are a historical genius…

russia was on our side during WWI also shit-for-brains…

the major ass beating that russia received from the Central Powers was one of the main reasons for the October Revolution that brought Lenin to power in russia…

instead of resting why don’t you do some reading??

31

i’d just like to say that pure communism is impossible for a nation, just like pure democracy. both defy human nature. people will always try to elevate themselves or their voice or their needs over one another.
the soviet union was a dictatorship/aristocracy with a socialized economy. obviously the “party members” could abuse the social distribution and be quite wealthy when in fact wealth like private business was “illegal”.

likewise, when you look at a “pure” democracy like athens. it was still the best orators, the greatest skilled individuals that dominated communal voting. still those with the “best ability to rule” or control did in fact lay out a sort of aristocracy. and of course not everyone was a citizen able to vote.
personally, i believe neither a democratic republic with capatalist systems nor a socialist based system can maintain the efficiency of a mixed system. Each system will counteract the momentum of reform in either direction to prevent breaking away alltogether from one side even if there is an urgent need to swing into extremity for war or depression or some sort of need for radical adjustments.

32

[quote]DPH wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
WWI
Now give it a rest

you truly are a historical genius…

russia was on our side during WWI also shit-for-brains…

the major ass beating that russia received from the Central Powers was one of the main reasons for the October Revolution that brought Lenin to power in russia…

instead of resting why don’t you do some reading??[/quote]

Your both right, so kiss and make up. The US joined WWI in April 1917 (although there were no US troops in effective numbers in Europe until June 1918.) Russia signs the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in February 1918 although fighting had effectively ended some time before. So the US and Russia were allies for 10 months.

However, The US then decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919-21 in support of the White Russians. Once they were defeated, the US withdrew.

BTW, one good reason to wonder about the US involvement in WWI was that they managed to reach 54000 dead in only four and a half months of fighting. Nothing like the British who reached that in a single day, but questionable anyway. Still I don’t think I would have liked to live in the Europe of a German 1918 victory.

Just to link to the other thread, the Canadians were considered the best soldiers in that war;-)

33

FYI - 15 of the hijackers were Saudis.

I wish we invaded Saudi Arabia.

Instead we removed our troops from Saudi soil because we were attached by Osama Bin Forgotten.

That was a real tough stand Bush made.

Osama said he attacked our WTC because of our troops on Saudi soil and we proceeded to remove these troops after 9/11.

34

[quote]stonesanctus wrote:
i’d just like to say that pure communism is impossible for a nation, just like pure democracy. both defy human nature. people will always try to elevate themselves or their voice or their needs over one another.
the soviet union was a dictatorship/aristocracy with a socialized economy. obviously the “party members” could abuse the social distribution and be quite wealthy when in fact wealth like private business was “illegal”.

likewise, when you look at a “pure” democracy like athens. it was still the best orators, the greatest skilled individuals that dominated communal voting. still those with the “best ability to rule” or control did in fact lay out a sort of aristocracy. and of course not everyone was a citizen able to vote.
personally, i believe neither a democratic republic with capatalist systems nor a socialist based system can maintain the efficiency of a mixed system. Each system will counteract the momentum of reform in either direction to prevent breaking away alltogether from one side even if there is an urgent need to swing into extremity for war or depression or some sort of need for radical adjustments.

[/quote]

I understand this. And I believe that a true communist state is impossible also. But what we have is an out of hand, rampant capitalist system that puts money at the head of everything. The very word is derived from “capital”, as opposed to “social” or “commune” for the others. It is, in Chomsky’s words, putting profit over people. The rich hold entirely too much power in this country, and I fear that none of us can even udnerstand it, as we don’t see it.

There is an excellent article, I think in Mens Health, where they explained that the federal dietry guidlines literally get changed according to which industry is more powerful. As soon as it was said, “Limit sugar intake”, the sugar cane guys were on the phone with Clinton, changing the guidelines. Which is why you cannot trust the dietry guidelines that the gov’t sets up.

The power the rich have is to the point of ridiculousness. And there is not one politician that wishes to give the power back to the people.