Where Do They Stand?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

[/quote]

Your enemies look to your presence in their Holy Land and your support of Israel.

Nothing else matters.

22

[quote]JeffR wrote:
The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

[/quote]
Who exactly are “our enemies”?

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:
When human nature changes, we will be able to treat brutal dictators like one of your college professor pals. We’ll replace death and unspeakable violence with a nice latte and read some quotes from your pals in “THE MOVEMENT.”

[/quote]
I just have to ask you: what specifically is “human nature” and what specifically about it makes these ideas that you mock unworkable? If it is “human nature” we are up against should we just not quit now? After all, its pointless to keep trying if humans won?t change their “nature”.

I spend my life trying to understand nature from a physical perspective and one thing that I get out of it is that no one entity can exist independently. This is an immutable fact of nature and applies to everything. Early man got it right the first time and in all our intelligence and self-importance we have somehow deluded ourselves to believe we can.

Communism; democracy; military pacifism–these are the ultimate human ideals. It is no different than faith in that it is flawed logic to expect everyone to be able to pacify themselves with its dogma. But still, we try. Humans stray and do wrong; we forgive, let it go, and move on.

24

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

Who exactly are “our enemies”?[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point. Either you are a schtick, or you are beyond help.

Sorry,

JeffR

25

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
When human nature changes, we will be able to treat brutal dictators like one of your college professor pals. We’ll replace death and unspeakable violence with a nice latte and read some quotes from your pals in “THE MOVEMENT.”

I just have to ask you: what specifically is “human nature” and what specifically about it makes these ideas that you mock unworkable? If it is “human nature” we are up against should we just not quit now? After all, its pointless to keep trying if humans won?t change their “nature”.

I spend my life trying to understand nature from a physical perspective and one thing that I get out of it is that no one entity can exist independently. This is an immutable fact of nature and applies to everything. Early man got it right the first time and in all our intelligence and self-importance we have somehow deluded ourselves to believe we can.

Communism; democracy; military pacifism–these are the ultimate human ideals. It is no different than faith in that it is flawed logic to expect everyone to be able to pacify themselves with its dogma. But still, we try. Humans stray and do wrong; we forgive, let it go, and move on.[/quote]

liftus,

The idea of pacifism and peaceful coexistence is ABSOLUTELY a desirable goal. I agree and do my best to help others live peacefully.

HOWEVER, these ideals ARE NOT embraced by everyone. It only takes one brutal dictator to conquer and destroy.

We cannot “turn the other cheek” while others are attacking us.

Neither could you, unless others were enforcing laws and keeping the wolves at bay.

JeffR

26

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

Your enemies look to your presence in their Holy Land and your support of Israel.

Nothing else matters.[/quote]

orion,

Thanks for chiming in. You speak with some authority about our enemies.

Are you an enemy of the United States?

I heard that you austrians are arming iran. You can’t claim to not know the nature of this person and his regime. Further, you know full well where and against whom these sniper weapons will be used.

Are you, orion, an enemy of the United States?

Thanks,

JeffR

27

[quote]JeffR wrote:
liftus,

The idea of pacifism and peaceful coexistence is ABSOLUTELY a desirable goal. I agree and do my best to help others live peacefully.

HOWEVER, these ideals ARE NOT embraced by everyone. It only takes one brutal dictator to conquer and destroy.

We cannot “turn the other cheek” while others are attacking us.

Neither could you, unless others were enforcing laws and keeping the wolves at bay.

JeffR
[/quote]
Yes, that is why I call them ‘ideals’. They are no more idealistic than Christianity or Buddhism in their treatment of human nature.

My question is not to state that a military is bad. I believe in a common defense–I am questioning what exactly we are defending. Its one thing to post sentries at the gate its another thing to expect the sentries to “walk their post” preemptively in someone else?s castle.

And if “human nature” is the reson d’etre should the US be expected to police it?

28

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Are you an enemy of the United States?

I heard that you austrians are arming iran. You can’t claim to not know the nature of this person and his regime.
[/quote]

Look who’s talking? Did you forget the Iran-Contra affair?

The US has armed and financed some of the most brutal regimes in recent history. This includes weapons knowingly used for mass-murder and genocides. I don’t think you’re in a position to be lecturing others, even if we agree that the Iranian regime is awful.

The majority of Americans favor diplomacy on the Iranian issue. World opinion is much more pronounced than that. Are they enemies of the United states? The stance of the US administration on the issue is litteraly killing the chances of Iranian reformists by isolating Teheran.
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN27288539.html

The world is sick of the double-standards and bully tactics implemented by the US. And they’re not afraid to show it anymore. Look at what happened in Latin America. Look at what’s happening to Prodi!

29

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If there is reason to remove one dictator then there is reason to remove them all.[/quote]

Dumbest thing I have read in a week.

Not when, under your own sovereign power, you have committed to an armistice.

Fifteen out of sixteen UN Security Council nations (Syria abstaining) believed the exact opposite as you.

If you can’t make a moral/political distinction between a liberal democracy subject to self-audit and a neofascist autocracy w/r/t to owning weapons, then no one here - liberal or conservative - can help you.

Your ridiculous relativism - on display yet again - is embarrassing. See above.

Absolutely.

Breach of armistice and international agreements. Unaccounted for WMDs. Aid to international terrorism. Power projection and the education of the autocratic Islamic world that the US will no longer be held back by worthless multilateralism. Humanitarian reasons.

Read Resolution 1441 of the UN. Or read Bush’s 23 reasons submitted to Congress. Now, all are debatable, but don’t suggest there are no reasons - there were more reasons for Bush to invade Iraq than for Clinton to intervene in the Balkans. Now I am not here to say Clinton was wrong, only to say that Bush had his precedent.

Nope. Why do you insist on this? There is no reason to think that because you depose one, you must, as a corollary, depose all. It is a fallacy.

In a post-9/11 world, you call in some debts. Everyone believed - that includes foreign countries against our going in to topple Saddam - Iraq had WMDs. The existence of WMDs in a lawless country controlled by a madman who’d love nothing more than to run the option with some rogue Islamists is a gamble the US was unwilling to take.

Again, a fair debate can be had over whether it was a good idea or not - just don’t act as though there was no justification or that no one thought a threat existed.

30

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR
[/quote]

The truth is the Bush administration exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to take the country to war – and then had to lie, manufacture evidence and ‘out’ an undercover agent to make some vague connection.

The same neocons had been pressing Clinton over and over again to invade Iraq – what a stroke of “luck” they got their “new Pearl Harbor” right when Bush came to town.

31

[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

Your enemies look to your presence in their Holy Land and your support of Israel.

Nothing else matters.

orion,

Thanks for chiming in. You speak with some authority about our enemies.

Are you an enemy of the United States?

I heard that you austrians are arming iran. You can’t claim to not know the nature of this person and his regime. Further, you know full well where and against whom these sniper weapons will be used.

Are you, orion, an enemy of the United States?

Thanks,

JeffR
[/quote]

Yup, we sold them some sniper rifles.

Good quality too.

Compared to pretty much their whole airforce that?s peanuts isn`t it?

32

[quote]JeffR wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
jumper wrote:
What people will say for a vote. The democratic party has no principal. They just oppose the other side no matter what it stands for as long as it gets votes.

And that differs from Republican strategy how? I’m assuming you forgot the lapse on the ‘National Contract’ from the 1994 off-year elections, where the Republicans took 27 seats by running under a generalized criteria and then in 2000 shit on it. I’m not trying to say I’m a democrat either, but don’t make a dumbass remark like that.

MisterAmazing (great name!!!)

The difference is war. The difference is the fact that our enemies look to the very waffling being shown by the democrats in order to sustain their war effort.

I can’t say it any plainer than that.

JeffR

[/quote]

The war effort for ‘the enemy’ is fueled by a bunch of hyped up religious fanatcism that has these assholes blowing themselves up to kill a bunch of innocents, not supporting a war that has been drawn out due to ignorant strategizing and miniscule force and has cost the lives of thousands of our brave men and women is not unpatriotic, this isn’t the fuel for their fire. I have the utmost love and respect for everybody fighting over there for us, and I know that we’ve gotten ourselves into something we must finish. So because I disagree with the war’s so called ‘principles’, the way we we went in half assed and got caught with our pants down and now decide to send more troops, and the fact that we really do have bigger fish to fry and now’s the time to move on, I’m the enemy’s war effort?

33

Where should we send the thank you card?

A study on global terrorism has shown a sevenfold increase since President Bush attacked Iraq
The study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third…
http://www.generationq.net/articles/President-Bush-has-increased-terrorism-00001.html

34

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Where should we send the thank you card?

A study on global terrorism has shown a sevenfold increase since President Bush attacked Iraq
The study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third…
http://www.generationq.net/articles/President-Bush-has-increased-terrorism-00001.html
[/quote]

And in other news Japan fought back when we went to war with them.

35

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Wrong. Look at kerry. Look at the guys you voted for. They authorized FORCE. Are you seriously trying to contend that the dems were thinking that force DIDN’T include troops?

What a joke.

JeffR

I’m pretty sure they were thinking of “Force” in U.N. terms - i.e. “A very Forceful letter backed up by a forceful resolution which resolves nothing, without the resolve to back up their words with force.”
[/quote]

And what dit the use of “Force” in U.S. terms resolve?

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If you are now going to swallow their “mushroom cloud” crap, then you are beyond saving.

What are you talking about? That’s exactly how this war was sold to us.

Iraq has/had WMDs, blah, blah, blah.

Intelligence, blah, blah, blah.

Just because I didn’t buy into it doesn’t mean the rest of the sheep in congress didn’t. I am a little more realistic than that.

Besides, you and every other neocon know we had nothing to fear from Iraq. It was a red-herring we were after all along. The fact of the matter is we had to be lied to in order for us to “buy it” because decorum dictates it. We beleived the lies because we wanted to and we allowed our selves to be fooled because we are. This does not mean any side is right or wrong. Both sides got it wrong.

liftus,

You have some serious problems. I don’t have the strength to list them all.

The only thing Bush didn’t get right is the amount of WMD on hand. The rest was correct. saddam was absolutely a threat. Firing on our planes, trying to assassinate former Presidents, actively working to reconstitute his weaponery, arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists, murdering, invading, threatening our allies.

You can go ahead and pin your opinion on one instance where things fell short. However, don’t come on here and pretend that there weren’t plenty of reasons to remove and hang that slime.

JeffR

[/quote]

I must have missed something.
Could you give me a list of WMD?
When did the Iraqi fire on any US planes. I’m quite sure they only lit them up using their radar. That’s ok Effr0, I know you guys have problems dealing with actual facts.
Als, could you please provide me with a list of former Presidents he tried to assasinate.
How did he “actively worki to reconstitute his weaponery”. I’m quite sure I saw a report that there really was no program of WMD in action. But again, facts and fiction eh…
arming/harboring/encouraging terrorists. Again, got any credible links.

To finish, I wouldn’t haven’t mentioned murdering, invading and threatening. When you live in a glass house and all that.

I’m looking forward to your lists.

37

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If there is reason to remove one dictator then there is reason to remove them all.

Dumbest thing I have read in a week.[/quote]
No, the most inconvenient thing you’ve read in a week.

[quote]I would call that exerting one’s natural sovereignty.

Not when, under your own sovereign power, you have committed to an armistice.

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein was a threat or ever carried out any aggression against this country prior to our involvement in Kuwait.

Fifteen out of sixteen UN Security Council nations (Syria abstaining) believed the exact opposite as you.

So he had weapons (or didn’t)–so what?! So do we–more of them, in fact.

If you can’t make a moral/political distinction between a liberal democracy subject to self-audit and a neofascist autocracy w/r/t to owning weapons, then no one here - liberal or conservative - can help you.

So they actually used them? Again, so what?! So have we–against more nations than he has. What gives us the moral authority to act in the way we did? We can argue that we are protecting our interests–so can they.

Your ridiculous relativism - on display yet again - is embarrassing. See above.[/quote]

Another inconvenient truth.
Are you saying you are the good guys because you wear the white hats?

[quote] Is there a logical response, either relative or absolute, that can be given for why we deposed the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein?

Absolutely.

Breach of armistice and international agreements. Unaccounted for WMDs. Aid to international terrorism. Power projection and the education of the autocratic Islamic world that the US will no longer be held back by worthless multilateralism.[/quote]
Well, he didn’t actually say you couldn’t lie about the reasons, but come on, that was implied.

That’s a laugh. I dare you to go tell the people in Iraq.

[quote] Read Resolution 1441 of the UN. Or read Bush’s 23 reasons submitted to Congress. Now, all are debatable, but don’t suggest there are no reasons - there were more reasons for Bush to invade Iraq than for Clinton to intervene in the Balkans.
[/quote]

No, there aren’t.
There was a genocide going on the Balkan.
The US was asked by an international alliance.
There were clear objectives.
And these were met within the time frame, without heavy casualties. Without any US casualty actually.

[quote]
Now I am not here to say Clinton was wrong, only to say that Bush had his precedent. [/quote]

I’m here to say that precedent was objected by the Republicans. They fought him tooth and nail over the intervention in the Balkan. So, for you now to claim Clinton has set a precedent . . .

[quote] We either answer that they acted aggressively against a non-threatening neighbor in which case we should now be expected to overthrow every dictator guilty of these crimes;

Nope. Why do you insist on this? There is no reason to think that because you depose one, you must, as a corollary, depose all. It is a fallacy. [/quote]

No, the fallacy is using this argument to dispose one, and turning a blind eye to the others.

[quote] …or we answer that he was a direct threat to this country. We’re still waiting for proof. I believe we were told this would most likely come in the form of a “mushroom cloud”.

In a post-9/11 world, you call in some debts. Everyone believed - that includes foreign countries against our going in to topple Saddam - Iraq had WMDs. The existence of WMDs in a lawless country controlled by a madman who’d love nothing more than to run the option with some rogue Islamists is a gamble the US was unwilling to take. [/quote]

I didn’t believe it. Belgians didn’t believe it. Neither did the Germans and the French. Blickx didn’t believe it. The U.N. didn’t either. I’m sure you hold all these people in high regard, since they got it right and you didn’t.

A fair debate is only possible when people acknowledge some facts.
I can’t know what other people thought about the thread, and if it was imminent or not. The facts show that they fabricated evidence to convince others.

No fair debate is possible without accepting that as a fact.

38

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Where should we send the thank you card?

A study on global terrorism has shown a sevenfold increase since President Bush attacked Iraq

And in other news Japan fought back when we went to war with them.[/quote]

I think the point is that it totally contradicts claims made by Bush.

GEORGE W. BUSH: “From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing and free-flowing communications are long over. The terrorist?s life since 9/11 has never been the same.” - 23 Jan. 2007, state of the union address-

I noticed that you like to focus the discussion on WWII and overlook the dozens of unjustified attacks the US perpetrated ever since. Also, you do not seem to understand what terrorism is; It has no country. By your logic, the Air Force should bomb and invade London because of Richard Colvin Reid (aka: the shoe bomber). Terrorism can only be defeated by eradicating the very things it fosters on. A good place for the US to start is to acknowledge its mistakes and stop acting like a hegemon. Sadly, and as far as top American priorities are concerned, the mighty buck prevails…

39

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Where should we send the thank you card?

A study on global terrorism has shown a sevenfold increase since President Bush attacked Iraq

And in other news Japan fought back when we went to war with them.

I think the point is that it totally contradicts claims made by Bush.

…[/quote]

Bush has always claimed it would be a long hard battle. He did not pretend terrorism would go just away. He knew things would get worse before they get better. There is no contradiction.

40

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has always claimed it would be a long hard battle. He did not pretend terrorism would go just away. He knew things would get worse before they get better. There is no contradiction. [/quote]

Read again.

GEORGE W. BUSH: “From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing and free-flowing communications are long over. The terrorists life since 9/11 has never been the same.” - 23 Jan. 2007, state of the union address-

What part of “the days of comfortable sanctuary […] are long over” do you not understand? He’s trying to sell the idea that terrorism has been defeated, when in fact it only gained momentum.
You can’t possibly interpret it any other way.

On a related note, look at the way Hezbollah saw its local base expand as a result of the Israeli/US attacks of last summer. Al-Qaeda gained tremendous support globally.

You can’t stop a man who believes deeply in the cause he’s fighting for. Your forefathers surely showed that it was true when fighting the Brits. No amount of brute force ever managed to defeat people with ideals (no matter how noble or wicked they are).