T Nation

Your Views On This War Link

Red,

Do you have anything realistic to say? Picking something that doesn’t work and complaining about it doesn’t mean that nothing will work.

Are you that short sighted?

Thunder,

Are you serious?

So, when a bill is up for voting, and politicians generally vote on party lines, does this really tell you much?

Alternately, lets say there are two bills, and one suddenly ends up with a billion dollars of pork barrel spending, but it was mostly about getting supplies to the troops.

In this scenario, anyone who votes against the pork barrel spending bill will be decried as against the troops – but that is very unlikely to be true. At the same time, any voting for the troops will obviously be in favor of pork barrel politics right?

The voting records suck ass, because they vote on conflicting issues within one vote all the time. Both political parties then focus on whatever issue they like during attack ads… and everyone knows this. This is a stupid way to judge our politicians and it is probably detrimental to the political process as a whole.

Personally, I’m very disappointed by the entire concept whenever election season rolls around.

Speaking of which, it won’t be long now, then we’ll see the politics forum liven up alright!!!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, like sending the FBI after them and prosocuting them in court… Oh wait. We’ve already tried that.

Red,

Do you have anything realistic to say? Picking something that doesn’t work and complaining about it doesn’t mean that nothing will work.

Are you that short sighted?[/quote]

We tried many different ways to fight terrorism, and it brought us to 9-11. Sometime war is the only answer.

Thunder, you disregard anything that doesn’t agree with Bush or the war. To me you have lost good judgment in your biased support. You like to argue the minutia to make your point. I don’t need the minutia to form my opinion on the matter.

In my opinion if you deny the fact that politicians or government officials were bullied in the aftermath of 9/11 that didn’t agree with Bush and company you are of the same mind set as the ones who did the bullying and you refuse to be honest.

Loth, you are the one who insinuated before that because you watched a heroin addict die as well as others at your job that you were under the same duress as soldiers in Iraq. So, I will bring that up whenever you start deriding me “shaking your head” and talking in a condescending manner about me or anyone else who opposes the war.

Jerff, I don’t pay attention to your posts anymore they have been the exact same thing for a long time. You certainly don’t have to read mine. I don’t care one way or the other, just letting you know I don’t read yours and you may save yourself some energy not responding to mine, but if you like to knock your self out.

Red,

I don’t think that is realistic either. Before 9-11, there wasn’t a concept of a war against terror.

There were the odd terrorist actions, but nobody in the general public had the notion that there was some vast movement out there trying to kill off US citizens.

After 9-11, plenty of serious measures were introduced to combat terrorism, other than going to war, and those measures may or may not prove to be effective.

Looking before 9-11 to talk about how to combat terrorism is simply useless.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Red,

I don’t think that is realistic either. Before 9-11, there wasn’t a concept of a war against terror.
[/quote]

Thank you for making my point for me. Had we been awake prior to 9-11 & realized we were in a war, and fought it like a war, there likely never would have been a 9-11. Strike globally, protect locally.

Red,

You are just arguing in circles to justify your point of view.

You can’t defend perfectly against a single unorganized person who adopts the tenants of fanaticism.

Detection will never be perfect. There will be terrorist strikes, no matter how many nations you invade and bomb.

The only way to stop it is to stop the creation of new fanatics.

I’m not saying that force should not be used, when needed, not at all. I am saying that force is not the solution to our problems, but perhaps a solution to a certain type of problem.

If that is all we feel we need to solve the problem, we are in for a long rough ride. I hope you are willing to consider other options as well at some point.

[quote]vroom wrote:
If that is all we feel we need to solve the problem, we are in for a long rough ride. I hope you are willing to consider other options as well at some point.[/quote]

Absolutely. There are a number of countries that allow or even assist terrorist that are better dealt with diplomatically. But the military option is a big piece of the puzzle, and should never be taken off the table.

e wrote:

“Jerff, I don’t pay attention to your posts anymore they have been the exact same thing for a long time. You certainly don’t have to read mine. I don’t care one way or the other, just letting you know I don’t read yours and you may save yourself some energy not responding to mine, but if you like to knock your self out.”

I knew that e. I just cannot leave your uninformed drivel go unchallenged.

It’s too bad that you are so severely limited in your perceptions.

Oh well, let me know if a few bits of RAM open up in your mind. I’d be happy to fill them with coherent thoughts.

JeffR

Jerffy,

The day you actually have a coherent thought will be the day hell freezes over. People point out holes in the tripe you post all the time, and you never ever will admit to or acknowledge any of it.

You see exactly what you want and ignore everything else. This is why you are the chief cheerleader around these parts.

Now, shall I expect to hear back from you? Obviously not, but perhaps your alter ego will come in to take a swipe at me on your behalf, as happens so often?

[quote]vroom wrote:
The only way to stop it is to stop the creation of new fanatics.

[/quote]

In the mind of the apologist, you are absolutely correct.

You can’t stop the creation of fanatics. That is just total bullshit.

Don’t believe me? I have an entire history of mankind backing me up on this one. Pick ANY decade in our history - and I can show you a problem with fanatics somewhere on the globe.

If you want to look at answers - pick one that is actually doable, and quit sounding like a pie in the sky college professor.

[quote]In the mind of the apologist, you are absolutely correct.

You can’t stop the creation of fanatics. That is just total bullshit.[/quote]

No, it isn’t total bullshit. I’m not talking about being nice to people. Perhaps you missed my posts on the concept of ideological warfare?

When I say stop creating new fanatics, I’m talking about active measures to control the environment and education of individuals that are now being recruited and educated by other fanatics instead.

Stop sounding like a Republican cheerleader focusing only talking points…

[quote]vroom wrote:

When I say stop creating new fanatics, I’m talking about active measures to control the environment and education of individuals that are now being recruited and educated by other fanatics instead.

Stop sounding like a Republican cheerleader focusing only talking points…[/quote]

The truth will set you free. How can we do that when the only information people get comes from totally biased sources. Whether it’s Al-Jizera (sp?), Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh. The truth is held in very low regard.

Red,

Quite honestly, I’d suggest finding very creative ways to spend some of the billions being spent on the war movement…

[quote]vroom wrote:
So, when a bill is up for voting, and politicians generally vote on party lines, does this really tell you much?[/quote]

You mean to tell me that a Senate resolution authorizing war doesn’t mean anything?

Would have the same attitude if tomorrow there was a bipartisan resolution demanding we withdraw from Iraq and stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia?

Your point I understand. Bills are often complicated, and the pork example is actually a great one - legislators may very well want some very important things in a bill but refuse to sign on to a pork-filled monstrosity. I am fine with that.

However, not all legislation can be viewed the same under that abstraction. Something as serious as an authorization to use force does not have the kind of moving parts other bills have. The stakes are much higher.

To some degree, yes, but what else should we measure them on? We have to measure them - and while the voting record isn’t a perfect means, but in evalutaing certain issues, it’s the best tool.

The fact that there was a bipartisan Senate resolution authorizing war informs anyone of reasonable sense that the decision was a strong one that transcended party lines. If any Senator voted for the war that actually didn’t believe in the causes listed, too bad - a vote is a result you sign your name to, and you will be held accountable.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Thunder, you disregard anything that doesn’t agree with Bush or the war. To me you have lost good judgment in your biased support. You like to argue the minutia to make your point. I don’t need the minutia to form my opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t. I have criticized Bush on a number of occasions. Moreover, what you label a ‘disregard’, I call a disagreement, one that I will debate with you. If I think you’re wrong, I’ll debate you on it - if it hurts your precious feelers, find a different hobby. It’s not my job to agree with you or endorse your opinions if I think you are incorrect.

If you are right - that Bush and Co. strongarmed the Dems - then what is your opinion of these lameass Democratic politicans that allowed themselves to be ‘bullied’? Why not throw the wimps out instead of re-electing them? Assuming you are right about the ‘bullying’, all you are doing is confirming how weak the Democracts are - you want to be doing that?

Seems to me your definition of a ‘bully’ is anyone who challenges your delicate and fragile views. In my view, bullies are jerks who get their jollies from picking on weaker people because they can’t take on someone their own size.

I don’t think the GOP bullied anyone, unless you are willing to concede that the Democrats are weak. Personally, I always thought the GOP vs. the Democrats was a heavyweight bout of roughly equal competitors. Keep talking, Elk, you’re changing my mind.

At the risk of sounding pugilistic, if you are gonna charge that I am not honest, back it up. Thanks in advance.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Red,

Quite honestly, I’d suggest finding very creative ways to spend some of the billions being spent on the war movement…[/quote]

Such as?

Thunder,

Do you really believe this or is it just convenient?

I mean, do you really think that shortly after 9-11 when everyone was watching little vials of anthrax being waved around on television and the administration was saying “with us or against us” to the world, that people should have committed political suicide by saying… well gee, I’m not sure this is a good idea.

I don’t think it is realistic to expect that to happen, ever.

If you really do want to look at the voting record, you certainly have to look at the mood of the populace at the time of the vote. Politicians will reflect that mood – whether that is right or wrong is another discussion.

At the time the votes took place the populace was in a fear driven frenzy to retailiate and the President was promising to use all peaceful means prior to any potential use of force.

Any votes that took place have to be viewed through the lens of the times. Also, I do realize that different people will view those times differently, but in honesty, nearly half the population sees those times as I’ve described.

As a country that is supposed to be driven by the will of the populace, it would make sense to consider and give weight to the opposing side, even if it doesn’t make you change your mind or your course of action, at least acknowledge and accept the viewpoints of others.

Many people feel the votes taken in that timeframe are not a good representation of bipartisan support and that it is not something that is realistic to use now for some type of flip-flop attack.

Red,

I have ideas, but I’d rather not get into details.

I feel it would be similar to writing up a list of things I see as vulnerabilities to terrorist actions right now.

For example, if bridge X in city Y has weakness Z and can be brought down with half a stick of conventional dynamite – I sure as hell don’t think it would be smart to go around telling the world about it.

Suffice to say, I’m vary much in favor of many non-violent efforts as well as use of force against those that have already shown themselves to be fanatics.

[quote]vroom wrote:
No, it isn’t total bullshit. I’m not talking about being nice to people. Perhaps you missed my posts on the concept of ideological warfare?

When I say stop creating new fanatics, I’m talking about active measures to control the environment and education of individuals that are now being recruited and educated by other fanatics instead.

Stop sounding like a Republican cheerleader focusing only talking points…[/quote]

When you say it is the ONLY way - then yes…It IS bullshit. As part of a big picture - I think your “be nicer to them and don’t piss them off too bad” approach actually has merit.

But to say it is the ONLY way makes you as closeminded as you accuse me of being.