Well, it's official: No WMD in Iraq [Archive] - The Unofficial Warcraft III Forums

mulratt

09-10-04, 09:01 AM

Now, how can the u.s. save face? Simple. Admit the mistake and fix what you can. I think the best thing we could do is not to simply leave, but to stay and rebuild like was already planned. WMD are totaly irrelevent to rebuilding Iraq. The only bearing WMD had was on the war, and the war is over. Getting bush out of office just to save face is VERY short sighted. Its a "cut off the leg to cure an ichy foot" solution.

I'd much rather you vote for kerry instead of against bush.

I know everyone's against this "anyone but Bush idea". But that's how the world works. When a company tanks, it's not necessarily the CEO's fault, probably bad luck with the market trends. However, they often get rid of top management, so shareholders feel like a change was made. Everything is a big PR deal.

Now I think the case with Iraq, is that the US army is seen as an occupation force, not a peacekeeping. Having a larger international presence, especially non-western troops, would help a lot. So the US does need other countries' help. It cannot achieve so if Bush is there, cuz the world hates him.
Do you think the fight against terrorism is easier, now that the sympathy the world had for the USA has turned around? If the average person is now less likely to cooperate, then how can you get informants and such?
It's not for Iraq only, it's for all international dealings. Countries will be less likely to trust the US and enter win-win deals out of spite. Think how bad this is for globalization.

Bush's argument against this, is that leading the US is not a matter of a popularity contest. He is alike other conservatives, who believe sticking to your principles is a source of integrity and makes you righteous and almighty.

Well anybody ever learned of how to deal with other people? Hear of marriage is about compromise? He's a businessman, no? Didnt he learn you have to meet ppl halfway?
An utilitarian like me cannot conceive of being stubborn with your principles instead of analyzing each situation to see what will lead to the best consequences. Principles are for people who seek pride. Those who actually are virtuous will adapt themselves to the situation and find the best solution.

Bush has reinforced the idea of the USA being imperialistic. Sure you're reducing Al-Qaeda's capabilities, but doesnt mean they're not getting more support, or that other factions arent rising. The last thing you need is other terrorists than Islamic fundamentalists to hate the US enough to blow themselves up.
Think the other countries are unhappy? Not really. If the USA is directing all the world's anger towards itself, then it's an easy route for the others to just sit back.
And it's hard to look like you're on the right side when you're standing alone.

undsputed1

09-10-04, 10:35 AM

"No, honesty would have been never claiming he had WMD."

So your implying Bush and the rest of the world conspired to lie about WMD in that famous unanimous vote, a vote including Syria and France. You can argue poor intelligence, fine, but don't call it dishonest.

"Think the other countries are unhappy? Not really. If the USA is directing all the world's anger towards itself, then it's an easy route for the others to just sit back.
And it's hard to look like you're on the right side when you're standing alone."

Who cares what the French, Germans, and anyone else thinks? Part of the reason the French did what they did is because of their feelings of irrelevance in world proceedings. That's why they not only objected but attempted to threaten others who agreed with the US. The only thing the US wants or needs from them in foreign affairs is their consent. Other than that, they have provided very little in the past and were not crucial in past problems. What did they give in the first Gulf War in which Iraq openly invaded another country?

And as far as the "easy route" goes.....tell that to Russia. If anything, their route has been far more tragic. Tell that to Australia, who has had more terrorist related problems for their citizens in the Indonesian incident than the US has had since 9/11. Tell that to the European countries who are finding ricin stockpiles. Tell that to Spain who were forced to change leadership in exchange for being left alone.

mulratt

09-10-04, 12:34 PM

Who cares what the French, Germans, and anyone else thinks? Part of the reason the French did what they did is because of their feelings of irrelevance in world proceedings. That's why they not only objected but attempted to threaten others who agreed with the US. The only thing the US wants or needs from them in foreign affairs is their consent. Other than that, they have provided very little in the past and were not crucial in past problems. What did they give in the first Gulf War in which Iraq openly invaded another country?

It's less about contribution than about image, as I said. So yeah consent is all you need. I didnt mention France and Germany specifically, but say they are Europe's representatives. Other European countries would be more likely to embark had those countries just said yes. Then countries like Canada say yes too, and it puts more pressure on other continents.
Remember that people follow a herd mentality. You get the influencers' will and the rest will go.
PR is important in Iraq because you have a peacekeeping force there. You want ppl to like those soldiers. In gulf war 1, though, didnt ppl not join in because they felt it was the US' problem, well for supporting Saddam in the first place?

You're right that all these countries want to feel big and are jealous. So? You work it so that they get what they want and when they're happy you get yours. Same way you deal with simple ppl no? They are stubborn on sumthing. You accomodate them. While they think they've made a great deal, you secretly get what you wanted.

And as far as the "easy route" goes.....tell that to Russia. If anything, their route has been far more tragic. Tell that to Australia, who has had more terrorist related problems for their citizens in the Indonesian incident than the US has had since 9/11. Tell that to the European countries who are finding ricin stockpiles. Tell that to Spain who were forced to change leadership in exchange for being left alone.

I dont recal talking about easy routes. But anyways...
Werent Spain and Australia hit because they backed the US in Iraq?
Spain wasnt forced to changed leadership. Their people were always against the war, it's just the incident made more voters act on it.
As for Russia, well they're not playing nice either. It usually happens that when you hit the enemy strongly, but not enough to incapacite them, then they come back and hit you harder.
That's why the British who were pretty harsh on the Irish, had seen their armed wings rise to popularity. But when they started to support peace talks more and compromise with these guys, well things got better.
If they just said, well we must bring these terrorists to justice, well they would never have gotten peace and more people would die.
Is the pride you get from having a criminal behind bars worth an innocent's death?

strathyboy

09-10-04, 02:15 PM

First off, I'll note as have others that virtually everyone agreed that Hussein had WMD's. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't.

The Bush administration made multiple arguments and did not limit it to JUST WMD. Therefore, you can pick one of those.

Two reasons were given as the primary reasons for invasion. Only two. No others. Those two were WMD's and Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States. That's all. Bush wasn't stupid enough to put emphasis on other reasons, since any other reasons could backfire drastically against the Americans.

Although you commonly point out human rights as a reason for invasion, Bush did not, until the other reasons were shown to be false. I am surprised that you continue to ignore this fact. I know I've pointed it out to you a few hundred times already.

One of the common ones was that Saddam tortured people, had women sexually assualted, and gased his own people.

Is Hussein the only one? If such a thing is worth invasion, then why have we seen no attempt by the US to stop human rights violations in other nations? Bush could have at least mentioned it in one of his speeches, or written a stern note. But we've seen nothing. Historically and currently, the human rights of people in a nation that the US is not directly focusing on mean nothing.

Regardless, most countries would be content with doing nothing even if Saddam waved a mustard shell on TV....standing in front of the UN. Unfortunately that statement is more than just me saying it....it's backed by the fact that Europe is hardly doing anything now to Iraq, who is effectively developing a nuclear weapon and who now has range enough to hit European cities and US troops abroad. I'm sure that once again, these European countries will either look to their big brother to prevent the mess from happening OR expect them to clean it up once it happens.

Blah blah blah America rocks Europe sucks blah blah. :g grin: Sorry. I couldn't help myself. You just argue the same thing over and over.

Who cares what the French, Germans, and anyone else thinks? Part of the reason the French did what they did is because of their feelings of irrelevance in world proceedings. That's why they not only objected but attempted to threaten others who agreed with the US.

Actually, the French did what they did because popular opinion in France was behind doing what the French did. But you've clearly stated in the past that an elected official should do what they want, rather than doing what they've been elected to do, so obviously this reason means nothing to you. At least get it straight in the future.

There's just something about the way you write, undsputed, that bothers me. Up until you wrote what you did, I think I would have almost entirely agreed with you. But then you wrote stuff, and it bothered me, so I feel bound to argue with you about it. :g grin:

Glurin

09-10-04, 03:38 PM

I know everyone's against this "anyone but Bush idea". But that's how the world works.

No, thats only half of how the world works. The short-term bandaid is to fire a few people to make the ignorant masses happy for a while. It might get you reelected, but it creates even more problems and the existing problems will come back even worse than they were before. The short-term solution exploits the universal law "people are stupid" for immediate but short lived gains. The long-term cure is to adapt. The masses won't be happy for a little while, but in the long run they will be quite pleased, provided you adapt correctly of course.

Slay

09-10-04, 04:26 PM

No, thats only half of how the world works. The short-term bandaid is to fire a few people to make the ignorant masses happy for a while. It might get you reelected, but it creates even more problems and the existing problems will come back even worse than they were before. The short-term solution exploits the universal law "people are stupid" for immediate but short lived gains. The long-term cure is to adapt. The masses won't be happy for a little while, but in the long run they will be quite pleased, provided you adapt correctly of course.

The 'anyone but Bush' idea is viable because Bush is an idealogue who believes that if you think you're right, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Regardless of the other person's policies, not being a divisive idealogue is one of the best attributes for the jobs at task, like nation building and relationship building, for instance. If hte long-term plan is to adapt, we can see that the 'do whatever you think is right' idealogy may be necessary(note MAY) for making tough decisions, but it is flat out wrong for diplomatic purposes, which is exactly what we need. The 'anything but Bush' plan is to phase out that idealogy into a much more other-country-friendly idealogy so we can get the task we need to accomplished.

Saying that we want an 'anything but Bush' plan simply because we don't like him and are exploitative is way too simplistic and just wrong.
-Slay

flaming lama

09-10-04, 05:03 PM

anyone is better than bush, i garentee if he gets in again he will invade iran, there is no extraction plan for removing the troops from iraq, he plans so use them till they run out, which is shown by his refusal to send any reinforcements and some documents detailing the plan which they were stupid enough to put on paper... :y-mm:

undsputed1

09-10-04, 06:24 PM

And Strath emerges from the dark to take shots at me :) This whole thread was a European and Canadian party until some of the others started posting like Glu and myself. You should have stepped in before I posted :)

An important note is that the part about the nuclear weapon should say Iran and not Iraq. Now you wrote that off as "Europe sucks...." but you didn't do anything to argue my point.

"Although you commonly point out human rights as a reason for invasion, Bush did not, until the other reasons were shown to be false. I am surprised that you continue to ignore this fact. I know I've pointed it out to you a few hundred times already."

See....now here is where I disagree. You can say you said it 100 times, and you probably have. But that doesn't make it right because you say it a lot. The Bush administration...note that I didn't say only Bush...made arguments before and during the war in order to remove Saddam that were not limited to WMD. Would human rights have convinced Europe to help? No, we both know they would not have challenged Iraq's army in order to possibly do a good thing.....there would be too much war and risk involved for them. That is how ignorantly anti-war a few countries in Europe are. It almost seems selfish on their part....

"If such a thing is worth invasion, then why have we seen no attempt by the US to stop human rights violations in other nations?"

We both know I can list examples where the US has done just that, in both Liberia and Haiti in just the last year. That's two examples that were not only the US, but the Bush administration in particular. Now, you could argue the US does not stop ALL human rights violations, but that would be like saying the police aren't stoping all crime......it would sound a little dumb and unrealistic.

"anyone is better than bush, i garentee if he gets in again he will invade iran"

You say that likes its a bad thing. Other than useless warnings from a group of European countries, nothing will be done unless the US does it. Other countries say they want to act, and the US is letting them do it for now.....but if they continue to fail, then the problem needs addressed in another way. Middle Eastern countries with a nuke is clearly a stupid idea, given the volatility and natural hatred that the exists all over the region. Iran, for example, hates Israel......and I'm not so sure how many countries around the world would care if Iran tried something.... But anyway, Iran's support for anti-Jewish terror is no mystery, now is it?

flaming lama

09-10-04, 06:47 PM

its quite hard to argue the "they went in to save them from suddam" angle because he was what? 60, how many more years would he be in power? by now they have probably killed more iraqis than suddam would have and incase you havent noticed, the iraqis arnt particularly grateful, it was a failure on ALL grounds because: they killed huge numbers of innocent iraqis, the world hates america now, including lots of america itself, they tortured the iraqis they imprisoned and an oil well that they are defending is worth an estimated 4 billion, , but they are spending 10 billion protecting it, where is the upside?

also suddam is one man, if they really wanted to kill him why would they first tell him they are coming and then missile the hell out of random buildings? it takes one bullet, all they need is a bloody swat team not a multi-billion dollar army, the war was a show of power and "affirmative action"

"if we do not succeed we run the risk of failure" - bush

Mr.Astaroth

09-10-04, 07:07 PM

undisputed, you act like Saddam was all-evil. Thing is, the US was no better than him. When we first started testing nukes, we sent out people, knew we were chemically poisioning them, and didn't give a damn. We torture our prisoners, and Iraqies are sexually assulted in camps. I can go into a very deep discussion if needed, but I'm tired right now, so I leave currently with that.

Wait, not quite. I am pro Kerry.

Goodnight.

Glurin

09-10-04, 08:28 PM

The 'anyone but Bush' idea is viable because Bush is an idealogue who believes that if you think you're right, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Regardless of the other person's policies, not being a divisive idealogue is one of the best attributes for the jobs at task, like nation building and relationship building, for instance. If hte long-term plan is to adapt, we can see that the 'do whatever you think is right' idealogy may be necessary(note MAY) for making tough decisions, but it is flat out wrong for diplomatic purposes, which is exactly what we need. The 'anything but Bush' plan is to phase out that idealogy into a much more other-country-friendly idealogy so we can get the task we need to accomplished

The 'anyone but bush' idea is the kind of thinking that will send this country down the toilet. If your truely willing to take any alternative over bush, your just going to end up at the opposite end of the spectrum. Different idealogy, but just as bad if not worse. Thats exactly what we DON'T need.

And to top it off, once we are at the opposite end of the spectrum, following the "anyone but (insert name)" plan, we would need anyone but whoever is in charge at the time (Kerry in this case). "Anyone but" is a plan for self-destruction.

EDIT:

also suddam is one man, if they really wanted to kill him why would they first tell him they are coming and then missile the hell out of random buildings? it takes one bullet, all they need is a bloody swat team not a multi-billion dollar army,

The man had doubles everywhere and there were only a few people who knew where he would be at any given time. Plus assasination comes with its own problems. Especialy these days.

undsputed1

09-10-04, 09:54 PM

"its quite hard to argue the "they went in to save them from suddam" angle because he was what? 60, how many more years would he be in power? by now they have probably killed more iraqis than suddam would have and incase you havent noticed, the iraqis arnt particularly grateful, it was a failure on ALL grounds because: they killed huge numbers of innocent iraqis, the world hates america now, including lots of america itself, they tortured the iraqis they imprisoned and an oil well that they are defending is worth an estimated 4 billion, , but they are spending 10 billion protecting it, where is the upside?

also suddam is one man, if they really wanted to kill him why would they first tell him they are coming and then missile the hell out of random buildings? it takes one bullet, all they need is a bloody swat team not a multi-billion dollar army, the war was a show of power and "affirmative action"

The problem here is that even if we decided to wait for Saddam to die, one of two things would have happened. The country would have continued on it's current path and one of Saddam's two sons would have taken power. At least one of these two sons was so much a piece of trash that Saddam tried to kill him. With either son in, Iraq would continue to be a severe threat to it's neighbors. The second course for Iraq would have been that the country would fall apart after Saddam's death, leading to a Shiite majority to take over at the expense of Kurdish and Sunni minorities......and guess what you have then people? Yep, this situation might be the same thing Iraq is today...maybe it was unavoidable. And eventually that Shiite majority becomes Iran Jr.

About your oil, your financials only prove that the US isn't there to collect oil (sorry Europe...).

And the buildings were anything but random. We spend extra on precision bombs just for the purpose of hitting specific targets, not mass bombings of civilians.

Glurin

09-10-04, 10:30 PM

strathyboy

10-10-04, 03:06 AM

You should have stepped in before I posted :)

I've wanted to visit these forums some time ago, but life stepped in and gave that notion a big fat kick in the crotch. :g grin:

See....now here is where I disagree. You can say you said it 100 times, and you probably have. But that doesn't make it right because you say it a lot. The Bush administration...note that I didn't say only Bush...made arguments before and during the war in order to remove Saddam that were not limited to WMD.

Mentioning it is not the same as putting any sort of priority on it. The two points I mentioned earlier were put as the only two reasons that mattered, and any other reasons were not put forward as really important.

Would human rights have convinced Europe to help? No, we both know they would not have challenged Iraq's army in order to possibly do a good thing.....there would be too much war and risk involved for them. That is how ignorantly anti-war a few countries in Europe are. It almost seems selfish on their part....

Would human rights have convinced the US to help? Not bloody likely, despite your protests.

We both know I can list examples where the US has done just that, in both Liberia and Haiti in just the last year. That's two examples that were not only the US, but the Bush administration in particular.

I'll have to look deeper into those, but I don't recall either being a shining display of gallantry by the Bush administration. Liberia was only an issue after months of attacks from around the world that the Bush administration only cared about oil.

But yes, I withdraw my earlier statement that the US has done "absolutely nothing" to address human rights in countries outside the middle east since invading Iraq. Historically speaking, however, human rights in other countries is less important to an American president than what colour of underwear to put on. :g grin:

Iran is a huge "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the US, in my own humble opinion. If the US invades, then they risk doing exactly what they said they didn't want to do, which was begin a general US vs. Islam war. Other nations in the middle east that wouldn't lift a finger to help Iraq might decide to do so to help Iran. In addition, all those extremist Islamic groups would be justified in their earlier statements that the US was planning to wipe out Islam all along. However, if the US doesn't get Iran to stop with the weapons and stuff, all of Bush's rhetoric is shown to just be rhetoric and you have another nuclear power in the middle east.

Canadian Tire Money

10-10-04, 04:45 AM

i swear me and undy are the only two people who heard the bush administration put empathize on human rights violations before the war.

people think that because he marketed one idea to get support, that he didn't care about the other. there can be differences between marketing to the segments that will get you support, and what you truely belive. he threw in Human rights as a secondary arguement as things got closer to the war.

lets be honest. american (people from any country) people are dumb. they don't give a **** about human right violations. they give a **** about not being blown up. maybe big evil bush has a big heart, but is smart enough to realize what the american people will eat up. i know the cry baby moralist trash will tell me that the end doesn't justify the means, but the truth of the matter is this is reality and not some textbook.

. . .

okay, i will stop the baiting for a minute. there is a damn good reason that bush brought up human rights violations big time before the war started. he wanted a political excape route before going into iraq, just in case there were no WMD. he wanted to be able to shift the arguement of the war to human rights. if he had never mentioned human rights before the war he would look really foolish right now as kerry measured the drapes in the oval office. because of his preparation he doesn't look near as foolish, and has a partially defencable justification of the iraq war.

the bush haters will boo him for that, but the fact of the matter is that is what politicians do. deal with it.

Slay

10-10-04, 04:54 AM

The 'anyone but bush' idea is the kind of thinking that will send this country down the toilet. If your truely willing to take any alternative over bush, your just going to end up at the opposite end of the spectrum. Different idealogy, but just as bad if not worse. Thats exactly what we DON'T need.

And to top it off, once we are at the opposite end of the spectrum, following the "anyone but (insert name)" plan, we would need anyone but whoever is in charge at the time (Kerry in this case). "Anyone but" is a plan for self-destruction.

Thanks for completely ignoring my entire post and restating your rhetoric. The Bush plan may have been useful for taking the necessary steps to invade Iraq, but when it comes to nation-building, the Bush plan WILL NOT WORK, EVER. We need a different plan in office, one that brings the whole world into the nation building process, one that's not afraid to admit and reverse the mistakes of its predecessor, and one that will actively work towards change. This is not just a simple black and white issue like you seem to think, it is a progression in thought and policy. If you read my post carefully(or read my post at all), you would see that I never said ANYTHING to the effect of "Bush is bad, anything is better than Bush". That's a stupid line of thought, and you should know me better than to think that I'd believe something like that.
-Slay

mulratt

10-10-04, 06:56 AM

Not to mention "just wait for him to retire or die of old age" is actualy "ignore the problem and it will go away". That logic has been proven fataly flawed so many, many times in the past. How do you think sadam became such a problem in the first place?

I was one of the people who supported intervention in Iraq. But not lead by a 90% USA force. Given the history with the Iraqi ppl, and the current anti-US feeling in the Middle East, what chances did they have to succeed?

Sure the world is bureaucratic, but you deal with it. Now Saddam is gone, and the same amount of chaos is there (had Saddam just died) but international relations are a mess and we wont see one of those win-win global deals for a long time.

undsputed1

10-10-04, 07:29 AM

And another thing....people talk about having troops over there. If Saddam and his sons were still in power the next couple decades, who do you think would have to stay there......US TROOPS. How many French, German, or Russian troops do you honestly believe were already stationed in Iraq to contain it? I know of none at all, not one.

If the problem is removed, US troops come home faster.

Glurin

10-10-04, 09:18 AM

Thanks for completely ignoring my entire post and restating your rhetoric.

No, actualy I know exactly what your trying to say. I just think its flawed. Bouncing between the ends of the spectrum is just going to create different kinds of problems every cycle and never really solve anything. There will be no progression of thought and policy. Only a cycle of each side destroying half the U.S. every time its their turn in power. True progession comes with choosing the candadite that would do the better job overall, not by choosing one just because he's different from the previous president.

Also, IMO its not a good idea for you to be defending "anyone but bush". That voting policy was born out of hate for bush, not out of seeking progress in thought. Thats the simple truth of the matter.

Sure the world is bureaucratic, but you deal with it.

The world is too bureaucratic. Thats a problem.

ArPharazon

10-10-04, 10:07 AM

Now, I won't pretend I've read this entire thread. I tried, but it was just too much text... and I'm not interested in details.

I'll just say this: the way I see it, it's a win-win situation. Bush loses the election, Kerry wins, good. US reputation saved. But, if Bush does get reelected, he'll probably perform some other global criminal action, and get assassinated. Now that can't be bad either, right? :y-evil:

Canadian Tire Money

10-10-04, 12:24 PM

no offence, but the rest of the world didn't like the US when clinton was president, and i hate to tell you that kerry is no clinton.

for four more years of not being liked, vote kerry or bush.

Slay

10-10-04, 12:27 PM

Okay Blurin, it's time we got down to specifics to develop a better argument than 'no, you're wrong'.

Bouncing between the ends of the spectrum is just going to create different kinds of problems every cycle and never really solve anything.

I'll give you that choosing someone as radical and idealogical as Bush would be a bad thing, however, that's not the case. None of the candidates is as radical as Bush, Kerry isn't and Nader isn't. Saying 'anyone but Bush' does not include Hitler or the Grand Wizard of the KKK. By the 'anyone but Bush' statement, it's not as all-inclusive as you think, despite the deceptive wording. It's saying that pretty much anyone would have a better foreign policy than Bush, because that's how backwards Bush's policy is.

There will be no progression of thought and policy.

Nor will ther be if Bush is president again. It will be the same inflammatory rhetoric for another 4 years. And nothing will be done.

Only a cycle of each side destroying half the U.S. every time its their turn in power.

You're wrong. You assume that every time, a president will be elected that's as divisive as Bush is. That's not hte case, things aren't black and white, and there are moderates that may run for president.

True progession comes with choosing the candadite that would do the better job overall

And I would give you ten to one odds that the other candidates will do a better job on foreign policy than Bush, for the next four years.

not by choosing one just because he's different from the previous president.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a change in face is good, such as right now, when we have to sell the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries so that they will help us in bringing peace to Iraq. Other countries will not agree to do so when Bush has been demonized like he has, and when Bush has openly intimidated and blackmailed other countries into going to war(Yemen, France).

Example: Suppose, for a second, that we hadn't preemptively attacked Iraq. Instead, Saddam renounced his ties with the Ba'athists, paid reparations to the Kurds and others that he harmed, rebuilt cities, and ended corruption. Then, Israel, out of nowhere, attacks Iraq. Do you help Saddam Hussein out?
What if some nobody had replaced Hussein and made those changes? Which would the public approve of?

Also, IMO its not a good idea for you to be defending "anyone but bush". That voting policy was born out of hate for bush, not out of seeking progress in thought. Thats the simple truth of the matter.

Okay, in the interest of my sanity, I'll redefine my stance. I'm in favor of "pretty much anyone but Bush" for the reasons I've stated above.

The world is too bureaucratic. Thats a problem.

And its a problem that needs to be worked around, not openly defied.
-Slay

Mark Romaneck

10-10-04, 02:16 PM

Glurin answer is bound to be good

honestly now what Bush did was wrong and good (duh!)
but I mean
it is good in the point that Sadam wasnt exactly pure evil, but he most definately wansnt good, in the position he was in, cuz power corrupts, and he had power, he wasnt doin something good for his Nation.

Now in the bad part, Bush, why did it happen while he was in power? Im not shure but I think it had to do with him wanting to show military power and the thing

Im not acuarate in these Facts so im bound to be wrong in some aspects, but hey with the info I have im giving my point o` view

Divine_Pie.exe

10-10-04, 03:35 PM

While I really don't like bush a whole lot, Kerry doesn't look any better (if anything, I see that he'll be no better than clinton). Bush is careless and a Texan, Kerry is a French-Hugging politician who will make choices based on what the UN likes.

It really comes down to this: "Who is the best to laugh at when they do SNL skits on them"

Glurin

10-10-04, 03:42 PM

I'll give you that choosing someone as radical and idealogical as Bush would be a bad thing, however, that's not the case. None of the candidates is as radical as Bush, Kerry isn't and Nader isn't.

You haven't looked at kerry's voting record yet, have you? I have. He is as radical as bush, if not more so.

Nor will ther be if Bush is president again. It will be the same inflammatory rhetoric for another 4 years. And nothing will be done.

You'll get the same with Kerry for the next four years, and most likely another four after that.

You're wrong. You assume that every time, a president will be elected that's as divisive as Bush is. That's not hte case, things aren't black and white, and there are moderates that may run for president.

This election is black and white, no doubt about it. If Kerry is ellected, the next one will almost certainly be black and white as well. Moderates run (in the two main parties) when there are no extream candadits. When one is extream (usualy the president ends up being that one when running for reelection) the other one also tends to be extream. Why? "Anyone but..." voters. Be as opposite as you possibly can to the other guy, and you get an instant 40-45% of the vote. Thats just how a two party system like this one works in a situation like this.

We need more voting for people instead of against people. In other words, we need more careing about the issues rather than the parties. THAT is how we can truely make progress. You can't get anywhere just by saying "His ideas suck so lets not vote for him.". You need that other half.

And I would give you ten to one odds that the other candidates will do a better job on foreign policy than Bush, for the next four years.

Foreign policy is not the be all and end all of a president. Also, there is such a thing as being too willing to make concessions or being too unwilling to go to war. Despite what some people seem to think, a little conflict is a healthy thing.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a change in face is good, such as right now, when we have to sell the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries so that they will help us in bringing peace to Iraq.

We don't need to pick a new president to do that. Plus there are other things to factor in that your probably not doing, judging by what you've said so far.

Example: Suppose, for a second, that we hadn't preemptively attacked Iraq. Instead, Saddam renounced his ties with the Ba'athists, paid reparations to the Kurds and others that he harmed, rebuilt cities, and ended corruption. Then, Israel, out of nowhere, attacks Iraq. Do you help Saddam Hussein out?
What if some nobody had replaced Hussein and made those changes? Which would the public approve of?

What does that have to do with anything?

And its a problem that needs to be worked around, not openly defied.

You work around problems when it is impossible to fix at the moment. Working around a problem leaves the problem in place, where it festers. No, the best way to deal with any problem is to directly address it.

Slay

10-10-04, 04:13 PM

You haven't looked at kerry's voting record yet, have you? I have. He is as radical as bush, if not more so.

What? Back that up with evidence.

You'll get the same with Kerry for the next four years, and most likely another four after that.

Kerry has openly stated his goals to reverse what the President has done in Iraq and bring diplomatic talks to all nations. Do you know anything about Kerry at all besides what the Bush attack ads tell you?

This election is black and white, no doubt about it. If Kerry is ellected, the next one will almost certainly be black and white as well. Moderates run (in the two main parties) when there are no extream candadits. When one is extream (usualy the president ends up being that one when running for reelection) the other one also tends to be extream. Why? "Anyone but..." voters. Be as opposite as you possibly can to the other guy, and you get an instant 40-45% of the vote. Thats just how a two party system like this one works in a situation like this.

HOward Dean tried that. It didn't work out. Democratic voter want 'anything but' crazy radicals. The polls show that they voted for Kerry based on his experience in the Senate. And more independents that showed up to vote for the Democratic primaries took Kerry over anyone else.

We need more voting for people instead of against people. In other words, we need more careing about the issues rather than the parties. THAT is how we can truely make progress. You can't get anywhere just by saying "His ideas suck so lets not vote for him.". You need that other half.

Okay, here goes: Bush's ideas suck, and Kerry's are way better.

Foreign policy is not the be all and end all of a president.

No, but in terms of domestic issues, Bush is just the average sucky president who doesn't do anythign to fix the countries woes. Foreign policy is where Bush is focusing the hardest, so thats where we attack him.

Also, there is such a thing as being too willing to make concessions or being too unwilling to go to war.

And conversely, there is such a thing as being too willing to go to war, such as what Bush did by ignoring the diplomatic phase of the Iraq talks.

Despite what some people seem to think, a little conflict is a healthy thing.

Damn, maybe you could have told that to Nixon and Johnson in the 1970's and there wouldn't have been such a stir over the Vietnam war, huh?

We don't need to pick a new president to do that. Plus there are other things to factor in that your probably not doing, judging by what you've said so far.

Be specific.

What does that have to do with anything?

Answer the question and I'll tell you.

You work around problems when it is impossible to fix at the moment. Working around a problem leaves the problem in place, where it festers. No, the best way to deal with any problem is to directly address it.[/QUOTE]

But what you're suggesting is drastic measures. Smoking is a problem in America, but we don't confront it by banning cigarettes.

"Who is the best to laugh at when they do SNL skits on them"

SNL is terrible. They've lost all their good people.
-Slay

Canadian Tire Money

10-10-04, 04:36 PM

i only read a few sentences, but i have to comment.

glurin, either you don't know a lot about US politics or the US uses bizarro world logic when picking candidates.

when the incumbant is an extremeist, you want to pick a moderate. you are likely going to get the "anybody but" group, because they were largely your support base anyways. if it is an extreme right winger, you are going to get most of the leftwing vote without lifting a finger. therefore you shift to the center to get the moderate conservatives and the centralists. if you go with a left wing extremeist, you get what you were going to get anyways, but the middle and soft conservative vote will be a lot less likely to vote for you. when you want to pick up votes you don't want to leave people with a difficult decision.

look at it this way. if your party is running against hitler, would you want your leader to be stalin, or bill clinton?

Glurin

10-10-04, 05:12 PM

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Does that suffice? I'm really not too inclined to post much more because all you have to do is go to google and search for his record yourself. Its super easy to find.

Kerry has openly stated his goals to reverse what the President has done in Iraq and bring diplomatic talks to all nations. Do you know anything about Kerry at all besides what the Bush attack ads tell you?

Do you know anything about him or bush at all besides what the Kerry ads tell you?

HOward Dean tried that. It didn't work out. Democratic voter want 'anything but' crazy radicals. The polls show that they voted for Kerry based on his experience in the Senate. And more independents that showed up to vote for the Democratic primaries took Kerry over anyone else.

Do you honestly think that most people would answer "because he's not bush" in those polls? I think not. Its a psychological issue. People view you as intelligent if you say you are voteing for someone because of his past experience, thus the tendency is to answer the same on an anonomous poll. In my experience however, the vast majority tend to be unaware of exactly what that past experience is. Also, kerry is saying a lot of things that right up until he started campaining and even during are contradictory to his record. He does that to get the swing voters. Thus I'm not surprised he would get more independent votes in the democratic primaries than the others.

Okay, here goes: Bush's ideas suck, and Kerry's are way better.

Prove it.

And conversely, there is such a thing as being too willing to go to war, such as what Bush did by ignoring the diplomatic phase of the Iraq talks.

The Iraq situation did not start with 9/11, no matter how much you want it to.

Damn, maybe you could have told that to Nixon and Johnson in the 1970's and there wouldn't have been such a stir over the Vietnam war, huh?

Damn straight! Vietnam was such a mess because politics got too involved. IIRC, it wasn't even officialy a war.

Be specific.

Too complicated. I don't feel like takeing the time to right a novel right now. So lets start simple: Cost. How do you make up for it?

Answer the question and I'll tell you.

As I see it, the question is irrelevant and is lacking in some of the details, so I have no incentive to answer. You'll have to link it somehow to the topic at hand first.

But what you're suggesting is drastic measures. Smoking is a problem in America, but we don't confront it by banning cigarettes.

No, I'm not proposing "drastic measures". What I'm proposing is directly addressing the problem. Gas tank is empty, fill it up (directly addressing the problem). Gas tank is empty, buy a new car (drastic measures). Gas tank is empty, walk (workaround).

flaming lama

10-10-04, 05:34 PM

About your oil, your financials only prove that the US isn't there to collect oil (sorry Europe...).

or that the american government is niave and stupid...

And the buildings were anything but random. We spend extra on precision bombs just for the purpose of hitting specific targets, not mass bombings of civilians.

precision bombs dont help if they are aimed at the wrong thing...

btw how old are you? i guessed 21, im 16

Canadian Tire Money

10-10-04, 05:39 PM

what is the latest on the government of new zealand?

flaming lama

10-10-04, 05:53 PM

that aimed at me?
well if it was was then we have a boring government(i immagrated from south africa which is ah... a lil more interesting) that worries about stupid small maori issues while there is a huge damn war going on, we had 81 troops in iraq and 81 came home. our current government is the labour party, our president is a woman named Helan Clarke in desperate need of dental care who is a complete kiss-ass to america cos she thinks it will get her a free trade agreement which is why we had troops in iraq.
wow i didnt know i knew that much about our government... :g puzzled

Canadian Tire Money

10-10-04, 07:13 PM

oh yeah, how are things in south africa these days?

flaming lama

10-10-04, 07:16 PM

oh yeah, how are things in south africa these days?
i have no idea... :y-candle:

mojojojomo

10-10-04, 08:39 PM

our president is a woman named Helan Clarke

Prime Minister, not President. The head of state of any country still affiliated with the United Kingdom is Queen Elizabeth.

Slay

11-10-04, 03:37 AM

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Does that suffice? I'm really not too inclined to post much more because all you have to do is go to google and search for his record yourself. Its super easy to find.

No, it doesn't suffice. I'm still looking for the part where Kerry's voting record is terrible. Fill me in, please.

Do you know anything about him or bush at all besides what the Kerry ads tell you?

Here in Massachusetts there are no Kerry ads. I rely on what I hear about and what I read about. Besides, your point is moot unless you can prove to me that Bush is giving all he has to be diplomatic to other nations, like what Kerry wants to do.

Do you honestly think that most people would answer "because he's not bush" in those polls? I think not. Its a psychological issue. People view you as intelligent if you say you are voteing for someone because of his past experience, thus the tendency is to answer the same on an anonomous poll. In my experience however, the vast majority tend to be unaware of exactly what that past experience is. Also, kerry is saying a lot of things that right up until he started campaining and even during are contradictory to his record. He does that to get the swing voters. Thus I'm not surprised he would get more independent votes in the democratic primaries than the others.

1: Yes, I would. Considering it's a very mainstream liberal idea to vote for Kerry because he's not Bush.
2: Howard Dean was the least like Bush out of all the candidates, yet they went for Kerry in one of the biggest political upsets in American history.
3: He says things that are contrary to his voting record? BACK IT UP.

Prove it.

Sounds like a plan.

Bush has, in light of the 9/11 attacks, forced the world to choose sides by declaring "You're either with us or against us." On the people that didn't go to war with him in the Iraq war, he demonized them. See Freedm Fries, for reference. Or Yemen, whom the US withdrew all aid after they voted 'no' for the US war. Or how about how Bush has called the UN 'ineffective'. There have been lots of examples through history that have detailed Bush's divisiveness.

Now, Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

You may say this is biased, so I ask you to respond in kind by looking for Bush's plan to win the peace in Iraq on Bush's own website. Becasue I looked for a good 15 minutes, and I found nothing. Tell me if you come up with anything.

The Iraq situation did not start with 9/11, no matter how much you want it to.

Defiance of the US means nothing. The diplomatic stage was still going on. Bush rushed to war with Iraq. If he had taken another two years to survey the situation and let inspectors do their job, he would have found out what the CIA did, that Iraq never had capacity for WMD.

Damn straight! Vietnam was such a mess because politics got too involved. IIRC, it wasn't even officialy a war.

So you're saying that without the people protesting at home, we woudl have won the Vietnam war? That sounds dangerously Orwellian to me. If you're wrong, then we 've got a placid populace not caring that the US makes such terrible mistakes like going into Vietnam. No. The people must be active in their protest of US military and social actions. I bet the Civil Wa would have never occurred if those damned abolitionists hadn't opened their damn mouths and started all that anti-slavery business. By the way, the invasion of Iraq wasn't considered a war either. That means jack.

Too complicated. I don't feel like takeing the time to right a novel right now. So lets start simple: Cost. How do you make up for it?

Bull ****. You don't give such a statement as 'we don't need a new president to save face in the world' and then pussy out of it by saying it's "too complicated". Man up to your ****ing words and explain them. You make the point, you back it up. I've extended the same gratitude towards you. And especially considering you just rejected my ****ing cornerstone point of why the 'anyone but Bush' plan is useful without giving any ****ing evidence, you're full of ****.

As I see it, the question is irrelevant and is lacking in some of the details, so I have no incentive to answer. You'll have to link it somehow to the topic at hand first.

Okay: Saddam has been demonized since 1991. But he makes good changes and brings peace and prosperity to Iraq where none existed before. Israel, our so-called 'friend', comes out of nowhere and attacks Iraq after it has become a stellar example of goodness and reform. Who do you defend?

No, I'm not proposing "drastic measures". What I'm proposing is directly addressing the problem. Gas tank is empty, fill it up (directly addressing the problem). Gas tank is empty, buy a new car (drastic measures). Gas tank is empty, walk (workaround).

Terrible analogy, considering the topic is the world's bureaucracy. The point is, you will never end the bureaucracy of the world by attackign the problem. The world has always been bureaucratic and politics have always been as shortsighted as the country that the leaders are leading. You can't end it, but you can use it to further your own goals. Don't get any ideas here. Corruption and bureaucracy will always remain a part of the government forever. The only governments that avoid it are Communism and Fascism.
-Slay

Nio the Namless

11-10-04, 10:01 AM

as far as issues go either one works for me (as much of what I am concerned about gets split between the two), but the problem is I have trouble believing either of them. However, when I listen to Kerry speak (before the presidential debates) he makes me feel uncomfortable.

As far as Iraq goes. I see two issues. Changing horses in the middle of a war, which is usually bad. And then considering who could mess it up more... I am not sure how much informaton Kerry would have to learn about Iraq once getting into office.... hopefully I can listen to the domestic debates.

Glurin

11-10-04, 04:17 PM

No, it doesn't suffice. I'm still looking for the part where Kerry's voting record is terrible. Fill me in, please.

Most of it. Its heavy with liberal junk.

Here in Massachusetts there are no Kerry ads. I rely on what I hear about and what I read about. Besides, your point is moot unless you can prove to me that Bush is giving all he has to be diplomatic to other nations, like what Kerry wants to do.

Like I said before, there is such a thing as trying to be too diplomatic. A little "screw you" can ultimately lead to a much better outcome in the long run. Kerry is a "Can't we all just get along." kind of guy, but the fact is we can't. We are too different for that. Bush, at least in part, understands this.

1: Yes, I would. Considering it's a very mainstream liberal idea to vote for Kerry because he's not Bush.
2: Howard Dean was the least like Bush out of all the candidates, yet they went for Kerry in one of the biggest political upsets in American history.
3: He says things that are contrary to his voting record? BACK IT UP.

1: Mainstream liberal? Not quite. Its a far left idea that got half adopted by the mainstream for demonstration purposes. As individual voters though, and unless they are very far left they will most likly say that they are voteing for kerry because of his past experience. Ask them what he's about though, and 9 out of 10 times you'll basicly get "Kerry has a plan."
2: There can be more than one person on the opposite end you know.
3: Off the top of my head, durring the debates, he threw around accusations about the troops not haveing proper equipment in iraq. And right there in his voteing record is this: Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003). That money was intended to support the troops and better equip them.

Defiance of the US means nothing.

I hope your joking, but know you arn't. The rest of your statement has been covered a thousand times already and I'm sick of repeating myself, so here is a quick summary. Diplomacy failed. The issue is over a decade old. Inspections were unreliable. Sadam was playing games. Nobody seriously doubted he had WMD. There comes a point where enough is enough.

So you're saying that without the people protesting at home, we woudl have won the Vietnam war?

Where did I say anything about the protesters?

Bull ****. You don't give such a statement as 'we don't need a new president to save face in the world' and then pussy out of it by saying it's "too complicated". Man up to your ****ing words and explain them. You make the point, you back it up. I've extended the same gratitude towards you. And especially considering you just rejected my ****ing cornerstone point of why the 'anyone but Bush' plan is useful without giving any ****ing evidence, you're full of ****.

Shesh, calm down already. When I say its complicated, its because its REALLY complicated. There are a TON of factors to consider and which also intimatly interact with each other, affecting the ultimate outcome. I told you we'd start simple and gave you something to start with. I'm not trying to "pussy out of it". I just don't feel like writing the novel required to accurately explain these interactions right now.

Okay: Saddam has been demonized since 1991. But he makes good changes and brings peace and prosperity to Iraq where none existed before. Israel, our so-called 'friend', comes out of nowhere and attacks Iraq after it has become a stellar example of goodness and reform. Who do you defend?

Is Iraq still an enemy, or did we already patch up the differences between us? I assume Israel is still the same. And when did this turnaround happen? Right after we delivered that final ultimatem? Or did he just wake up one morning a saint one or two years before 9/11? Why did Isreal attack Iraq?

Terrible analogy, considering the topic is the world's bureaucracy. The point is, you will never end the bureaucracy of the world by attackign the problem. The world has always been bureaucratic and politics have always been as shortsighted as the country that the leaders are leading. You can't end it, but you can use it to further your own goals. Don't get any ideas here. Corruption and bureaucracy will always remain a part of the government forever. The only governments that avoid it are Communism and Fascism.

You are correct that politics have always been a quagmire of shortsightedness and corruption. To work around it or use it will only encourage it though. Communism and Fascism are two drastic measures. Addressing it directly is to simply cut through the bull****. Instead of danceing around with half-truths, lies, and deceptions, cut to the heart of the matter.

flaming lama

11-10-04, 05:54 PM

Bush, at least in part, understands this.

bullsh*t, bush doesnt understand the complexitys of his own damn breakfast, nevermind the way of the world, he is a figurehead, a stupid figurehead. :y-dunce:

Canadian Tire Money

11-10-04, 06:13 PM

you don't even know the position of your countries leader . . .

Glurin

11-10-04, 08:02 PM

You underestimate him, lama. Bush isn't as stupid as you think. Oh he's no genious, thats for sure. But he's not a total dunce either.

Besides, I never said he compleatly understood it. Note the "in part" part.

Kaptain

12-10-04, 12:25 PM

bullsh*t, bush doesnt understand the complexitys of his own damn breakfast, nevermind the way of the world, he is a figurehead, a stupid figurehead. :y-dunce:

He may not be the brightest President, but he surrounds himself with smart and capable people.

As for the topic of the thread, I really wish they would have told us Iraq had no WMDs a few years ago. They probably should have told the Russians as well since they seemed to believe he had WMD. They probably should have gave France a ring and let them know about it to. Maybe page the Clinton Administration while they're at it, I'm sure he'd of gotten back to them as soon as Monica was done :y-thumbsu . Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, British Intelligence, etc. They probably should have sent a memo to those people.

Yes the intelligence sucked, but to say people, mostly the Bush Admin., lied (intentionally deceived) is hardly fair.

Kaptain

12-10-04, 12:47 PM

And for those of you saying "Kerry will bring respect back to the US!" or "He'll get other countries in there to HELP now that Bush is out! Yea!" might want to rethink that.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a "centerpiece of his campaign", but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.

No matter who is President for the US, the majority of the world are still going to hate us.

Slay

12-10-04, 02:04 PM

Most of it. Its heavy with liberal junk.

What's wrong with being liberal? That doesn't disqualify him from being president.

Like I said before, there is such a thing as trying to be too diplomatic. A little "screw you" can ultimately lead to a much better outcome in the long run. Kerry is a "Can't we all just get along." kind of guy, but the fact is we can't. We are too different for that. Bush, at least in part, understands this.

Why can't we get along? Is it because our beliefs are too different to work together or is it because both parties harbor a cynical belief that states that 'we can't get along, so we might as well stop trying.' And this goes beyond simply saying 'screw you' to other countries, this has degraded to downright ostracizion(sp?) of other countries. Remember freedom fries and how people burned French cars? And how the US would only let US contractors into the Iraq reconstruction? This is downright childish i nthe way that Bush has demonized the various countries that didn't watn to go to war.

1: Mainstream liberal? Not quite. Its a far left idea that got half adopted by the mainstream for demonstration purposes. As individual voters though, and unless they are very far left they will most likly say that they are voteing for kerry because of his past experience. Ask them what he's about though, and 9 out of 10 times you'll basicly get "Kerry has a plan."

What makes you say it's a far left idea? When nearly 90% of the left agrees that that's a very good reason(note: not the only one) to vote for Kerry, it's a pretty mainstream idea on the left. Note that the independent voters often have a very negative view on the candidates, so when they vote for Kerry, it probably is because he's better than Bush, or the lesser of the two evils. But when it comes down to it, many independents stay home for that reason, that choosing between two evils is a bad thing to do either way. Still, this doesn't invalidate the 'not Bush' train of thought until you show that it's really a far left idea.

2: There can be more than one person on the opposite end you know.

I'm guessing, since you aren't a democrat, you didn't pay attention to the democratic primaries as close as I did. When you contrasted Kerry and Dean, it really wasn't close. As for Kerry's liberalness, I say 'so what?' He can still be a incredibly liberal person and not be inflammatory and divisive like Bush. Only his policies change, his rhetoric certainly does not.

3: Off the top of my head, durring the debates, he threw around accusations about the troops not haveing proper equipment in iraq. And right there in his voteing record is this: Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003). That money was intended to support the troops and better equip them.

Kerry justified his vote perfectly when he said 'I voted for the bill before I voted against it.' Although that is one of the key points of the Bush propoganda machine, with a certain knowledge of parliamentary processes, his vote is well justified. Bills in Congress often go through many amendments and changes. And the debates last for several days, maybe weeks. While it looks like that quote defines his flip-flopping, that kind of flip-flopping at such a high level at such a pace is more like flip-coin. But back to the topic: The bill was obviously originally supported by Kerry as he voted on the bill to be passed. When the bill didn't get through that stage, certain amendments were made to make the bill more favorable in Congress, and it was passed. Kerry probably didn't like the new amendments, and thought the bill was too sucky to be passed. So he voted against it. And that's how his final vote stands in the books. I'm sure given those quite common circumstances, every Senator/representative is probably at faulta t least half a dozen times at the matter.

I hope your joking, but know you arn't. The rest of your statement has been covered a thousand times already and I'm sick of repeating myself, so here is a quick summary. Diplomacy failed. The issue is over a decade old. Inspections were unreliable. Sadam was playing games. Nobody seriously doubted he had WMD. There comes a point where enough is enough.

Saddam stopped playing games, on March 1st, the weapons inspectors were allowed a crapload more access to Iraq and Saddam pomised newcooperation, probably because the US had a gun up his throat. Imagine what would h ave happened if the inspectors had two years in Iraq, they would have found out what the CIA knows now, that Iraq didn't have a shred of WMD and hadn't for at least a decade.

Where did I say anything about the protesters?

So what the hell are you saying then?

Shesh, calm down already. When I say its complicated, its because its REALLY complicated. There are a TON of factors to consider and which also intimatly interact with each other, affecting the ultimate outcome. I told you we'd start simple and gave you something to start with. I'm not trying to "pussy out of it". I just don't feel like writing the novel required to accurately explain these interactions right now.

I've got time. Besides, if you don't give at least a semblance of an explanation, you do indeed 'pussy out of it' by default.

Is Iraq still an enemy, or did we already patch up the differences between us? I assume Israel is still the same. And when did this turnaround happen? Right after we delivered that final ultimatem? Or did he just wake up one morning a saint one or two years before 9/11? Why did Isreal attack Iraq?

Let's assume that Iraq's relationship to the US is still really bad, but his relationship to his neighbors + the Kurds and his own people have been excellent. Let's also assume he woke up a saint one morning. Israel attacked Iraq because of a threat to its sovereignty.

You are correct that politics have always been a quagmire of shortsightedness and corruption. To work around it or use it will only encourage it though. Communism and Fascism are two drastic measures. Addressing it directly is to simply cut through the bull****. Instead of danceing around with half-truths, lies, and deceptions, cut to the heart of the matter.

Nobody can ever cut through the bull****. Because no issue has just one side to it. Cutting through the bull**** simply means cutting through the bull**** that the populus sees, it gives absolutely no indication that there aren't other legitimate sides to the issue that haven't been repressed because it will make the decisions a lot more complicated. If you look straight at the leader, you can't see what's behind him, only what he's behind.

*feels philosophical*
-Slay

Slay

12-10-04, 02:10 PM

And for those of you saying "Kerry will bring respect back to the US!" or "He'll get other countries in there to HELP now that Bush is out! Yea!" might want to rethink that.

No matter who is President for the US, the majority of the world are still going to hate us.

EDIT: Oh, crap, forgot to adress Kaptain's point.

1: It may be a slow process, but Kerry, if he stays true to his word, will bring respect back to the US. It may be not applicable now, as the world does indeed view the Iraq war as a war that the US wanted and nobody else really cared enough about, but if/when Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia becomes insane dangerous, and we have no backup going into there, and we stil lhave peacekeeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're probably going to get bumscrewed and we woudl have wished that we had mended relations with other countries. helping our relations is never a bad thing, and it nearly always turns out to be a good thing.

2: Can I get a source for that quote?

Oh yeah, and Glurin: How goes the search for the Bush exit strategy in Iraq?
-Slay

Kaptain

12-10-04, 02:37 PM

1: It may be a slow process, but Kerry, if he stays true to his word, will bring respect back to the US. It may be not applicable now, as the world does indeed view the Iraq war as a war that the US wanted and nobody else really cared enough about, but if/when Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia becomes insane dangerous, and we have no backup going into there, and we stil lhave peacekeeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're probably going to get bumscrewed and we woudl have wished that we had mended relations with other countries. helping our relations is never a bad thing, and it nearly always turns out to be a good thing.

Well according to Kerry he has this magical plan which I've yet to hear a detailed outline of to get our troops out of Iraq in 6 months (or a year, I forgot which one). The only part of that plan that I've heard is to get international troops in there and to get the Iraqi police trained faster. And when the international troops part fails, what then? I think the Bush Admin is already trying to get the Iraqi police properly prepaired as fast as they can. I don't see how Kerry could make it any faster except by throwing more money at it.

And in future conflicts, I don't think it matters to France, Germany, or the UN who the US President is. If they see it as a justified conflict, they're most likely going to contribute. If they don't see the jusification in invading Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. they're not going to give troops just because Kerry asked them and not Bush.

2: Can I get a source for that quote?

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-011859-5099r.htm

mulratt

12-10-04, 03:22 PM

Like I said before, there is such a thing as trying to be too diplomatic. A little "screw you" can ultimately lead to a much better outcome in the long run. Kerry is a "Can't we all just get along." kind of guy, but the fact is we can't. We are too different for that. Bush, at least in part, understands this.

We're not asking the USA govt to be a lapdog to other countries. Of course, every country should look out for itself first. However, we all know that thru cooperation, great things can be achieved and I think we're extremely far away right now from what true alliances can do for all of humanity.

Bush is a cynic and so are you Glurin. To think that different peoples cannot possibly come to an understanding. Sometimes people are jerks, but if you persist, then the others notice your efforts, and soon the jerk is isolated and complies (not referring to Saddam there).

Glurin

12-10-04, 04:44 PM

What's wrong with being liberal? That doesn't disqualify him from being president.

The exact same thing thats wrong with being too conservative.

Why can't we get along? Is it because our beliefs are too different to work together or is it because both parties harbor a cynical belief that states that 'we can't get along, so we might as well stop trying.' And this goes beyond simply saying 'screw you' to other countries, this has degraded to downright ostracizion(sp?) of other countries. Remember freedom fries and how people burned French cars? And how the US would only let US contractors into the Iraq reconstruction? This is downright childish i nthe way that Bush has demonized the various countries that didn't watn to go to war.

Thats right. Beliefs are just too different. At times, compleat opposites. "Freedom fries" is just plain rediculouse. Burning french cars is a bunch of overpatriotic zealots. Only allowing U.S. contractors in Iraq is a different matter entirely. Its mainly a matter of who did the work, so who should reap the rewards. "Your either with us, or against us." was also a stupid thing to say and disregards the concept of neutrality or differing opinions.

What makes you say it's a far left idea? When nearly 90% of the left agrees that that's a very good reason(note: not the only one) to vote for Kerry, it's a pretty mainstream idea on the left. Note that the independent voters often have a very negative view on the candidates, so when they vote for Kerry, it probably is because he's better than Bush, or the lesser of the two evils. But when it comes down to it, many independents stay home for that reason, that choosing between two evils is a bad thing to do either way. Still, this doesn't invalidate the 'not Bush' train of thought until you show that it's really a far left idea.

I said it started as a far left idea. What about it makes you think it didn't? "Lets vote for anybody but this guy." just SCREAMS the extream edges of the scale. It was later adopted by the mainstream because it sounds good in a campain ad. As for choosing the lesser of two evils, you do that by choosing which you prefer, not which you don't want. Pick the one that would do a better job over the other, even if neither would do a good job. Looking at who would be worse blinds you to the actions of the other and also to the opritunites that become available when one or the other is elected.

I'm guessing, since you aren't a democrat, you didn't pay attention to the democratic primaries as close as I did. When you contrasted Kerry and Dean, it really wasn't close. As for Kerry's liberalness, I say 'so what?' He can still be a incredibly liberal person and not be inflammatory and divisive like Bush. Only his policies change, his rhetoric certainly does not.

The votes always come down to a yes or a no. No matter what the details are or how negotiations are going, it always comes to an ultimate yes or no decision. Kerry has a very liberal voting record, putting him at or close to the far end. There is no getting around that. As for the argument about divisiveness, Bush can be an incredibly conservative person and not be inflammatory or divisive like he is doing now. Will either happen? Probably not. No matter who gets elected, they will be just as divisive as the other unless they are really, really good at being president. If either of them were that good though, the election wouldn't be as close as it is. They both suck.

Hmm, looking through that, I want to clear something up before you get the wrong impressions about what I just said. I don't entirely blame either of them for being divisive. The political climate has a lot to do with that. Being preaty deep in their respective ends of the spectrum certainly don't help, but this has been building all during the Clinton years and on into the Bush Jr. years. Elections are like a can of gasoline to an out of control fire. No matter who wins, they are just more fuel. At this point the best way to put out the blaze is a clean slate. Two candadites with no significant ties to the previous administration and fairly neutral records. A firewall, if you will. Without fuel, the divisivness sputters out.

Kerry justified his vote perfectly when he said 'I voted for the bill before I voted against it.' Although that is one of the key points of the Bush propoganda machine, with a certain knowledge of parliamentary processes, his vote is well justified. Bills in Congress often go through many amendments and changes. And the debates last for several days, maybe weeks. While it looks like that quote defines his flip-flopping, that kind of flip-flopping at such a high level at such a pace is more like flip-coin. But back to the topic: The bill was obviously originally supported by Kerry as he voted on the bill to be passed. When the bill didn't get through that stage, certain amendments were made to make the bill more favorable in Congress, and it was passed. Kerry probably didn't like the new amendments, and thought the bill was too sucky to be passed. So he voted against it. And that's how his final vote stands in the books. I'm sure given those quite common circumstances, every Senator/representative is probably at faulta t least half a dozen times at the matter.

Its not HOW he came to his decision, its that he's flinging about accusations of bush not properly supporting the troops when he himself voted against a bill intended to support them. He should have known better than that. Accusations like that depend on reduceing the issue into black and white terms (something bush is very good at), therefore when makeing that accusation, you better have nothing in your record that can so easily work against you to discredit it. Another thing, something in the paper this morning reminded me of this. What did you think of kerry's answer on abortion?

So what the hell are you saying then?

Whats not clear about it? Politics got way too involved in that war. Politics does not equal protesters.

I've got time. Besides, if you don't give at least a semblance of an explanation, you do indeed 'pussy out of it' by default.

Then answer my question.

Let's assume that Iraq's relationship to the US is still really bad, but his relationship to his neighbors + the Kurds and his own people have been excellent. Let's also assume he woke up a saint one morning. Israel attacked Iraq because of a threat to its sovereignty.

I'd probably tell Israel to hold up a minute IF this reform has been happening for a while. If it happened yesterday, screw him. I don't know about outright defending either one of them though. This is all, of course, assumeing nobody else really disagreed that Iraq was a potential threat, as was the case with what really did happen. I'd probably do more if Israel was standing compleatly alone on that. Likely at the request of the u.n. or something. I favor largely staying out of other countries affairs. Not compleatly mind, but for the most part I do.

Nobody can ever cut through the bull****. Because no issue has just one side to it. Cutting through the bull**** simply means cutting through the bull**** that the populus sees, it gives absolutely no indication that there aren't other legitimate sides to the issue that haven't been repressed because it will make the decisions a lot more complicated. If you look straight at the leader, you can't see what's behind him, only what he's behind.

Not true. Its actualy preaty simple. Take say, the civil war. What was the very heart of the matter in that war? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't slavery.

Slay

12-10-04, 04:50 PM

Well according to Kerry he has this magical plan which I've yet to hear a detailed outline of to get our troops out of Iraq in 6 months (or a year, I forgot which one). The only part of that plan that I've heard is to get international troops in there and to get the Iraqi police trained faster. And when the international troops part fails, what then? I think the Bush Admin is already trying to get the Iraqi police properly prepaired as fast as they can. I don't see how Kerry could make it any faster except by throwing more money at it.

I've already posted the plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

And the 6 mths get our troops out of Iraq is a complete falsehood, that was never Kerry's plan, the origin of it was a passing reference, where he said somethign to the effect of "it'd be really nice if we could get our troops out of there in 6 months."

And in future conflicts, I don't think it matters to France, Germany, or the UN who the US President is. If they see it as a justified conflict, they're most likely going to contribute. If they don't see the jusification in invading Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. they're not going to give troops just because Kerry asked them and not Bush.

Yeah, it really does. They may think it's unjustified, but then they think, hey, we've got a really nice friendship with the US troops, it'd be a shame to see that die, and I bet I'll get some extra crispy oil/trade deals out of it if I do my part. And that very well could happen with Europe as a friend.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-011859-5099r.htm[/QUOTE]

Yeah...about your article, I'm thoroughly convinced that it's blatantly wrong. I just looked through the debate thranscripts, and there's not a single word of evidence that Kerry said those words or even implied that. Not only did Kerry not say those words, he didn't even imply them. Although, to be honest, he didn't say a thing about other people in Iraq. He said pretty much what I said in my statements up above.
-Slay

Glurin

12-10-04, 05:07 PM

Forgot these:

Oh yeah, and Glurin: How goes the search for the Bush exit strategy in Iraq?

I told you to prove it to make sure you weren't just saying the words. :y-thumbsu

We're not asking the USA govt to be a lapdog to other countries. Of course, every country should look out for itself first. However, we all know that thru cooperation, great things can be achieved and I think we're extremely far away right now from what true alliances can do for all of humanity.

War. When anyone says that word, what immediatly comes to mind for the average person is "No! War bad! Need diplomacy!" In and of itself, thats not too bad. BUT, it has gotten to the point where if someone says "No.", you get the same response. "Cooperation" has actualy come to mean "concession" rather than "working together". And this hasn't happened just in politics either. Its infected society all the way from top to bottom. Nobody views it as being a lapdog because they've rationalized it using seseme street philosophy into cooperation and freindlyness. The ballanced version has been demonized into being selfish or uncareing. Its taboo to walk away from anything anymore, no matter the circumstances. If someone is being really abusive, your supposed to sit there and take it, which is now defined as trying to understand and reason with him.

Bush is a cynic and so are you Glurin. To think that different peoples cannot possibly come to an understanding. Sometimes people are jerks, but if you persist, then the others notice your efforts, and soon the jerk is isolated and complies (not referring to Saddam there).

Never said that we can't come to an understanding. Just that we can't "just get along." We are far too different to do that. Call me a cynic all you want, thats how things are.

Kaptain

12-10-04, 05:19 PM

Yeah, it really does. They may think it's unjustified, but then they think, hey, we've got a really nice friendship with the US troops, it'd be a shame to see that die,

You really think a country like France is going to give troops for a war they believe is unjustified? So if Great Britain decided to invade Ireland and the US thought this was completely wrong and were like "hey wtf do you think you guys are doing?" we'd still give troops?

and I bet I'll get some extra crispy oil/trade deals out of it if I do my part.

That kind of negates the point if they already have crispy oil deals with the country their allie is attacking :cough: French and Iraq :cough: :y-sealed: :y-sneaky:

Yeah...about your article, I'm thoroughly convinced that it's blatantly wrong. I just looked through the debate thranscripts, and there's not a single word of evidence that Kerry said those words or even implied that. Not only did Kerry not say those words, he didn't even imply them. Although, to be honest, he didn't say a thing about other people in Iraq. He said pretty much what I said in my statements up above.
-Slay

You'll have to check the Washington Times on that one (aren't they considered a liberal paper anyways?). But I do remember Chirac specifically saying he wouldn't give troops even if Kerry was elected.

ScrubHuman2

12-10-04, 06:08 PM

undisputed1:

Bush did exactly what he was supposed to do based on the UN resolution passed. Did Saddam ever comply.....I can objectively say no just by looking at the violations. Now, this means that we cannot rely on a process that depends to some degree on honesty and cooperation.....the inspections. Bush's other option would be to add inspectors and hope that Saddam was actually cooperating. Was Bush to assume that since inspections were not working, and had repeatedly failed, no WMD exists in Iraq?

Even looking at those violations and the state of Iraqi science and economy easily leads one to the rather inescapable conclusion that Iraq cannot be developing nuclear or any other mass destructive warfare. Whatever else Saddam is, he is no fool. If you have something on the level of a nuclear weapon on the works, you don't antagonize people until after you finish it. You kowtow and make friends until you're done. The most elemetary study of game theory and strategy immediately proposes this basic principle. The fact that Saddam is being vague about his weapons is one of the surest signs that he doesn't have any. Otherwise, he'll either say that he does or say that he doesn't, without being cute. When you have a massive weapon on the works, you either say it's done to scare people into not invading, or say that it's not there to allay fears. Being wishy-washy to the international community about nuclear or chemical weapons is so obviously a ploy to maintain flagging military presence that I fail to appreciate why Bush did not see it.

In fact, if Iraq did have working nuclear and chemical weapons, the worse thing you could possibly do is try to invade it. You would be precipitating a situation in which a nuclear weapon could go off, either in Iraq or at a target outside. USSR had nuclear weapons and did no dancing. It was quite open about possessing them. Invading the USSR wasn't even considered a real option during the Cold War precisely because you don't go around making people with massive weapons antsy. In a way, the US invasion of Iraq was the surest sign that Iraq had no WMD capability whatsoever.

So yes. A lot of very intelligent people around the world were thoroughly convinced the Saddam had no WMD capability of any note.

In any case, US sovereignty was never threatened by either Iran or Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons. Americans like to think that they're pretty smart and that everyone else is raving lunatic, but this simply isn't so. If Iraq was lucky enough to acquire a nuclear weapon, then as with everyone else, it would rapidly tell everyone it did have WMDs in no uncertain terms, and quickly go about never using it. Nuclear weapons or anything on that scale has never been used by any nation other than the US and most people around the world think you'd be crazy to even try it. It's called a weapon of deterrence for a very good reason.

So no. The US itself as a nation was never in any real military danger from Iraq whether or not it had WMD.

So go ahead and celebrate that US intelligence was wrong...kinda lame but enjoy it. That doesn't mean the wrong decision was made. And that doesn't mean there weren't plenty of reasons other than WMD to remove Saddam. Afterall, none of you can dispute the fact that Saddam would have continually tried to obtain WMD, and the US military is the one that would have had to stay stationed there to keep him in check.

The wrong decision was made. About the absolute worst decision you could possibly ever make in modern history. The US's use of WMDs as a reason for invading Iraq is a precedent for "pre-emptive invasion" as a form of defensive measure. Now, any other country can say it feels threatened by another nation and invade it whether or not the UN or any other nation feels the same way. It would be exactly defensible to the exact same proportions. For you and me, it's not very much so, but just as WMDs made sense to some Americans, this would make sense to the right people. It's the most dangerous precedent there ever was.

Other than threat to sovereignty, the reasons the US has for invading Iraq just go down the hill. Dictatorship? Killing and abusing women? Massacreing your own people? Where was the US when Marcos was president? Oh right. It was right behind him. Morals as a reason for invading and killing people leads you to the horrors and depravities of the Crusades.

Canadian Tire Money

12-10-04, 06:54 PM

if the US hadn't of invaded iraq, then the UN would be respected and listened to. just like it has always been :)

powerful nations always have and always will attack who ever the hell they want. this isn't some new and terrible precedent. the Idea of a UN is flawed.

anyways, the americans never stopped attacking iraq, so i don't see what the whole issue is. you know, since it was an attack on kuwait that started it all :)

ScrubHuman2

12-10-04, 07:07 PM

Canadian Tire Monkey:

if the US hadn't of invaded iraq, then the UN would be respected and listened to. just like it has always been

Lol Truer words were never spoken. Bpfft Lol

powerful nations always have and always will attack who ever the hell they want. this isn't some new and terrible precedent. the Idea of a UN is flawed.

The fact that a superpower is doing it is. As I said before, America stands on the threshhold of empire and I believe it has decided to cross into waters UK has been into before. I can't say that the UK was so very civilized in the manner it enforced Empire, but the US is being especially crude this cycle.

The dangerous precendent here is that it becomes internationally acceptable for nations to attack other nations just because they feel like it. At least Iraq didn't dissemble in this pathetic manner when they invaded Kuwait.

anyways, the americans never stopped attacking iraq, so i don't see what the whole issue is. you know, since it was an attack on kuwait that started it all

Tricky statement. Not true, but not entirely false. Fallacious, but I can't get my finger on what the exact fallacy is. I'll get back to you on that.

Iraq invading Kuwait isn't exactly what I would call right, but the US invading Iraq for some similar reasons isn't very encouraging for the new world order. Also this sort of behavior by the US spits on the very idealism undisputed1 and others seem hell bent on trying to believe.

mojojojomo

12-10-04, 10:29 PM

You have an incredibly warped perception of the world, Scrub Human. Britain was civilized in it's imposition of Empire? Tell that to the millions of displaced natives who colonizers forced from their ancestral lands, and to the millions more who died trying to fight the Empire. What about the villagers of Mesopotamia bombed by the RAF in the 1930's when they refused to pay taxes? And then there is the Irish issue as well. The list of British transgressions is at least as long as America's, but it was in a far more accepting age.

Anyway, i found this interesting quote by Geogre Herbet Walker Bush written five years ago:

Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another one of our principles. Furthermore, we had been trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in a post Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could still conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land".

ScrubHuman2

13-10-04, 03:30 AM

mojojojomo:

You have an incredibly warped perception of the world, Scrub Human. Britain was civilized in it's imposition of Empire?

originally posted by Scubhuman2:
I can't say that the UK was so very civilized in the manner it enforced Empire...

I thought I'd said that no nation had really been civilized in living memory, save perhaps for the Mongols, for whom recent findings show that their barbaric reputations may be undeserved. (like they didn't, in fact, put entire cities to the sword and actually behaved rather decently for invading troops).

Where did you get the impression that I said Britain was civilized?

That's an interesting quote by Bush Senior, by the way, and as it turns out, right on the money. I didn't know Bush posted on a message board.

Slay

14-10-04, 02:32 PM

The exact same thing thats wrong with being too conservative.

What? I asked what was wrong with being liberal? There's such a thing as too liberal, and that's as bad as being too conservative, but you never said he was too liberal at all. You said he was liberal, I agree with you. And I ask whats wrong with that.

Thats right. Beliefs are just too different. At times, compleat opposites. "Freedom fries" is just plain rediculouse. Burning french cars is a bunch of overpatriotic zealots. Only allowing U.S. contractors in Iraq is a different matter entirely. Its mainly a matter of who did the work, so who should reap the rewards. "Your either with us, or against us." was also a stupid thing to say and disregards the concept of neutrality or differing opinions.

Only allowing US contractors into Iraq loses the US money, because other companies can do it for a lot less. It's just plain silly and it cost us money. It has patriotic backgrounds, but as a nation mad far into debt, losing money to spite our so-called allies is really outright dumb.

I said it started as a far left idea. What about it makes you think it didn't? "Lets vote for anybody but this guy." just SCREAMS the extream edges of the scale. It was later adopted by the mainstream because it sounds good in a campain ad. As for choosing the lesser of two evils, you do that by choosing which you prefer, not which you don't want. Pick the one that would do a better job over the other, even if neither would do a good job. Looking at who would be worse blinds you to the actions of the other and also to the opritunites that become available when one or the other is elected.

I'll give you that it started as a far left idea, but that doesn't relaly matter. Ideas are refined, and made more acceptable to the masses. While I'm sure that there are numerous leftist zealots that would rather vote for a moldy potato than Bush, the middle leftists have adopted that idea and revised it so that it's much less extreme. Note that the 'anyone but Bush' plan as you look at it was largely rejected by voters, as otherwise Howard Dean would be on the ticket, because that essentially WAS his platform.

As for your other argument, if you prefer the lesser evil, then go to heck.

The votes always come down to a yes or a no. No matter what the details are or how negotiations are going, it always comes to an ultimate yes or no decision. Kerry has a very liberal voting record, putting him at or close to the far end. There is no getting around that. As for the argument about divisiveness, Bush can be an incredibly conservative person and not be inflammatory or divisive like he is doing now. Will either happen? Probably not. No matter who gets elected, they will be just as divisive as the other unless they are really, really good at being president. If either of them were that good though, the election wouldn't be as close as it is. They both suck.

That's oversimplifying things a whole lot. Issues are quite complex and often have many multiple facets of it. The Senate is supposed to be the guys that inject some cold sanity into various bills, and when people in the Senate think "well, this part is good, but that part is terrible" they vote no. The big exception to this is the PATRIOT Act, but then that passed 99-0 or something like that.

Kerry's record may be liberal, but that should have no real effect on his effectiveness at being a uniter. Clearly, people will still hate him for not being a conservative, but that is to be expected. If he, like the Bush campaign says, is pussywhipped by the people, I would imagine that would do a lot for his ability to unite, as he would be trying to please everyone. Whether or not this will devolve into a Carter-like scenario where he tries to be too nice and ends up being backstabbed by everyone in Washington is up to debate, but I think that Kerry had the leadership to make the people go one way on an issue, then agree with the people and go do waht he intended to do in the first place.

Also you must not forget the effects of the absolutely zany amount and effectiveness of negative ads on the minds of the voters. Average Joes certainly feel that both candidates suck major balls, but that usually is not the case. If they sucked, they probably wouldn't be running for president/be president. These are the best we can offer, and they want you to believe that the other guy sucks more. Both are gifted leaders that can and will make things happen, it's what you want them to do that is the real issue. I don't want Bush to invade some other country wiht lots of brown people, I want Kerry to fix healthcare and balance the budget. This isn't abotu whether or not they will do things, it's about what things they will do.

this has been building all during the Clinton years and on into the Bush Jr. years. Elections are like a can of gasoline to an out of control fire. No matter who wins, they are just more fuel. At this point the best way to put out the blaze is a clean slate. Two candadites with no significant ties to the previous administration and fairly neutral records. A firewall, if you will. Without fuel, the divisivness sputters out.

If your theory is right, which it isn't, then why didn't all the tension disappear when Clinton ended hsi reign in office nad two new people with a blank slate came to contend. The tension ended for about four months, then it came back full force. Don't fool yourself into believing that the tension will suddenly go *bing* just because there's two new people running for office.

Plus your theory is downright wrong. To say that we should stick with a loser for another four years just so we might have the chance of getting a winner goes against all commom sense. The presidential elections are there so we can ditch the losers and get some winners. Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter were losers. Would you propose that we should've elected Carter for another four years just so we wouldn't have to deal with him anymore, or should we have taken a chance and gone for the new guy, Reagan, and gotten a much better president than Carter ever would have been. Likewise, we have no idea that Kerry might be the next Clinton or Reagan, but we know for sure that Bush Jr is NOT the next Clinton or Reagan. And if Kerry turns out to be a deadbeat, we can just dump him in four years too.

Its not HOW he came to his decision, its that he's flinging about accusations of bush not properly supporting the troops when he himself voted against a bill intended to support them. He should have known better than that. Accusations like that depend on reduceing the issue into black and white terms (something bush is very good at), therefore when makeing that accusation, you better have nothing in your record that can so easily work against you to discredit it. Another thing, something in the paper this morning reminded me of this. What did you think of kerry's answer on abortion?

But it IS how he came to his decision. If there was somethign in that bill he didn't like, he votes against it. It's prudency vs. making a decision that on the surface benefits your country. There is a similar case, I recall, it was during the Revolutionary War, during the Winter at Valley Forge. Washington was vastly outnumbered and ill equipped to fight the war, and War Profiteers would give him the equipment he needed to stomp the British's ass, but it would be so expensive that he's bankrupt the country. Washington decided not to cede to the war profiteers and built his army up from the ground. It was a tough decision and one that cost him a lot of support and set him back a lot, but in the end, right decision to make. While the not voting for 87 billion might not be as extreme as the case I just described to you, it proves that issues are not always as simple as they appear. Sure, it seems pretty obvious that you take the weapons, you win the war, and then you rebuild, but everything comes with a price, and the price of some things is so outrageous that you can't do them even if they seem a good idea.

Whats not clear about it? Politics got way too involved in that war. Politics does not equal protesters.

Everything's not clear about it. How did politics get in the way of that war?

Then answer my question.

Your question is irrelevent. Let's have ahistory lesson:

First you say: not by choosing one just because he's different from the previous president.

To which I respond: Not necessarily. Sometimes a change in face is good, such as right now, when we have to sell the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries so that they will help us in bringing peace to Iraq.

To which you respond: We don't need to pick a new president to do that. Plus there are other things to factor in that your probably not doing, judging by what you've said so far.

To which I say: Be specific

To which you say: Too complicated. I don't feel like takeing the time to right a novel right now. So lets start simple: Cost. How do you make up for it?

HOW THE **** DOES COST HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CHANGING A PRESIDENT SAVES FACE IN THE WORLD??????????

I'd probably tell Israel to hold up a minute IF this reform has been happening for a while. If it happened yesterday, screw him. I don't know about outright defending either one of them though. This is all, of course, assumeing nobody else really disagreed that Iraq was a potential threat, as was the case with what really did happen. I'd probably do more if Israel was standing compleatly alone on that. Likely at the request of the u.n. or something. I favor largely staying out of other countries affairs. Not compleatly mind, but for the most part I do.

So essentially, you won't be taking either side. Now the second part of the question: Which side would you choose, if instead, Saddam died with his horrible regime still in effect, some guy who nobody knows about took over Iraq, and proceeded to reform Iraq into a peaceful and prosperous country, but still maintained the dictatorship and the animosity for the US?

Not true. Its actualy preaty simple. Take say, the civil war. What was the very heart of the matter in that war? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't slavery.

How does proving that the Civil War is more complicated than it appears on the surface prove that you can cut through the bull**** to form a clear and coherent argument.

Ask any civil war expert and they attribute a large number of reasons to the Civil War taking place, one of which was slavery.

I told you to prove it to make sure you weren't just saying the words.

**** you, it's not my job to prove both my side and your side. I gave you Kerry's exit strategy for Iraq, and you have been unable to give me Bush's exit strategy for Iraq. You're avoiding the question. Give me Bush's clear and concise exit strategy for Iraq and prove to me why it's better than Kerry's, and I'll cede this Iraq debate to you. Otherwise, I win by default.
-Slay

Kingcrazygenius

14-10-04, 03:18 PM

Has Gluring been thoroughly owned yet? This is starting to get dull.

Slay

14-10-04, 04:01 PM

You don't HAVE to pay attention to this. This is essentially a PM war between me and Glurin, but other people are chiming in from time to time.
-Slay

Glurin

14-10-04, 06:12 PM

What? I asked what was wrong with being liberal? There's such a thing as too liberal, and that's as bad as being too conservative, but you never said he was too liberal at all. You said he was liberal, I agree with you. And I ask whats wrong with that.

"Its heavy with liberal junk." What does that tell you? Seems preaty clear to me that it means "too liberal".

Only allowing US contractors into Iraq loses the US money, because other companies can do it for a lot less. It's just plain silly and it cost us money. It has patriotic backgrounds, but as a nation mad far into debt, losing money to spite our so-called allies is really outright dumb.

Thats some twisted logic you have there. We lose money when our companies accept contracts for rebuilding parts of Iraq? Then why were other countries so upset about not being able to bid on contracts? They'd just be loseing money too, according to you. Hey, if its the case that we just lose money on the deal, why didn't they just go "Ok. Have fun." since they disagreed with the war in the first place? Thats what I would do if the deal really was that bad.

As for your other argument, if you prefer the lesser evil, then go to heck.

Well, well. Thats an very interesting statement you just made. Am I to take it that you prefer the greater evil to the lesser?

That's oversimplifying things a whole lot. Issues are quite complex and often have many multiple facets of it. The Senate is supposed to be the guys that inject some cold sanity into various bills, and when people in the Senate think "well, this part is good, but that part is terrible" they vote no. The big exception to this is the PATRIOT Act, but then that passed 99-0 or something like that.

Thats not oversimplifying anything. The vote comes down to YES or NO. There is no maybe, perhaps, kind of, sort of, well..., or anything else. Its just yes or no. The summation of those votes indicate a person's possition on political issues, and Kerry's votes put him deep into liberal territory.

Your looking at more than the black and the white on this, which is good and I applaud you for it. But IMO you've focused on the part rather than the whole. In other words, missed the big picture.

Kerry's record may be liberal, but that should have no real effect on his effectiveness at being a uniter.

Thats absolutely true, and absolutly false at the same time. Being a liberal or conservative, no matter by what degree, has absolutly 0% reflection on how good of a leader you are. But, being a heavy leaning liberal or conservative does mean that your going to have a lot of trouble getting everybody behind you. Now you already commented on this, but what you forgot to factor in is the political climate right now. With things as divided as they are, trying to please everyone by going back and forth on the issues while still trying to achieve your agenda is not a good idea and will only serve to further divide the country. In less divided times, its only a short term solution. Pacifying people for the moment, but dividing them later.

Frankly, there is little either one of them can do to be a true uniter. In order to do it, they would have to truely be one of the best damn presidents we've ever had, and they just arn't.

These are the best we can offer

Thats just sad if it were true. Surely we can do better than a monkey and a weasel, don't you agree?

Both are gifted leaders

Thats right. They are gifted leaders. Bush is gifted with getting right to the point and Kerry is gifted with good speaking skills. But these skills alone do not a good leader make.

I don't want Bush to invade some other country wiht lots of brown people, I want Kerry to fix healthcare and balance the budget. This isn't abotu whether or not they will do things, it's about what things they will do.

Interestingly enough, how do you know Bush will invade another country and how do you know Kerry will fix healthcare and balance the budget?

If your theory is right, which it isn't, then why didn't all the tension disappear when Clinton ended hsi reign in office nad two new people with a blank slate came to contend. The tension ended for about four months, then it came back full force. Don't fool yourself into believing that the tension will suddenly go *bing* just because there's two new people running for office.

Wasn't clean slate. Remember Gore? Also, the tension did not simply end for four months, or have you also forgotten the continued controversy over bush's victory. And, I'm not fooling myself. Despite what you might think, I don't believe that the tension will simply disappear one night. But, a clean slate would significantly cool the blaze. After that its up to whoever is elected at that time to let it finish cooling.

Plus your theory is downright wrong. To say that we should stick with a loser for another four years just so we might have the chance of getting a winner goes against all commom sense. The presidential elections are there so we can ditch the losers and get some winners. Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter were losers. Would you propose that we should've elected Carter for another four years just so we wouldn't have to deal with him anymore, or should we have taken a chance and gone for the new guy, Reagan, and gotten a much better president than Carter ever would have been. Likewise, we have no idea that Kerry might be the next Clinton or Reagan, but we know for sure that Bush Jr is NOT the next Clinton or Reagan. And if Kerry turns out to be a deadbeat, we can just dump him in four years too.

First of all, their both losers. There isn't a winner to pick from. Second, I'm not suggesting that you should vote for bush JUST to release the tension four years from now. Its just a plus if he is indeed reelected. Third, Clinton was NOT a great president. Fourth, odds are not that good there will be a real winner to pick from in the next election either. But with Kerry running for reelection in that one, unless he was outstandingly good or bad, it will simply fuel more division. With two brand new people, there is no old fuel to feed on. Thats how the tension is greatly released.

Everything's not clear about it. How did politics get in the way of that war?

How did they not?

The short answer to your question is that it heavly limited what the military could do and ultimatly resulted in a compleate breakdown of command.

HOW THE **** DOES COST HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CHANGING A PRESIDENT SAVES FACE IN THE WORLD??????????

Because cost is a factor in the war, and a rather significant one at that. Basicly, how do you save face without getting shafted? A portrait of a different person on T.V. isn't going to do that for you.

So essentially, you won't be taking either side. Now the second part of the question: Which side would you choose, if instead, Saddam died with his horrible regime still in effect, some guy who nobody knows about took over Iraq, and proceeded to reform Iraq into a peaceful and prosperous country, but still maintained the dictatorship and the animosity for the US?

Not quite. Like I said, if this has been happening for a while, I'd tell them to hold up for a bit. If it happened yesterday, good bye Sadam and good riddance. Anyway, on to the second question. Basicly the same answer. Time is still very much a factor. I might have to step in to keep the conflict from spreading, but its not to defend either country.

How does proving that the Civil War is more complicated than it appears on the surface prove that you can cut through the bull**** to form a clear and coherent argument.

Ask any civil war expert and they attribute a large number of reasons to the Civil War taking place, one of which was slavery.

You answered your first comment with the second. The surface appearance as it is recorded in history is what happens over time. Its a watered down answer from the popular perspective rather than the historians. Anyway, what was the heart of the issue when it comes to the Civil War? When all is said and done, what was the war really about? State rights. That is the core.

**** you, it's not my job to prove both my side and your side.

I didn't ask you to. I just wanted you to prove to me that you really thought Kerry's plan was better than Bush's. I've gotten "Bush's ideas suck, Kerry's ideas are better." before. Nine out of ten times, when I ask them what Kerry's plan is, they respond "Uh, I donno. But its better than Bush's!" You actualy posting it and haveing spent time looking for Bush's proves to me that you arn't just saying the words, and thats all I asked.

BTW, if your thinking of trying to turn that around on me, you should note that I haven't said one word about Bush's Iraq exit strategy, what I thought of it, or which is better.

Glurin

14-10-04, 06:18 PM

You don't HAVE to pay attention to this. This is essentially a PM war between me and Glurin, but other people are chiming in from time to time.

Here I 100% agree with you. :y-thumbsu

Quick comment on the Bush senior quote, he makes a good point, but its incompleate. I'll say no more on the subject.

mojojojomo

14-10-04, 08:54 PM

Scrub human, my apologies. I didn't express myself correctly.

I can't say that the UK was so very civilized in the manner it enforced Empire, but the US is being especially crude this cycle.

You think the UK's impostion of Empire was any more 'civil' than what America has done in the past 60 years?

Glurin, if that's not all of the quote, then my apologies. It was all the newspaper gave.

ScrubHuman2

14-10-04, 09:51 PM

mojojojomo:

You think the UK's impostion of Empire was any more 'civil' than what America has done in the past 60 years?

By a small amount, yes. The atrocities committed by British troops were often admitted and they usually don't demonize their enemies to quite the same extent. British troops show respect for their enemies, especially those that they feel deserve it for bravery and battle prowess. The best you can expect from an American is Abu Ghraib, apparently, and worse if you actually gave them a hard time fighting.

You don't see British schools denying the existence of Gandhi and why he made the world stage in the first place. This tradition continued even much later on. In Africa, during WW II, the Germans and the British fought the so-called Gentleman's War. It's barbaric to have to resort to warfare in the first place, but if you're going to blow someone's brains out anyway, you can still be civilized about the entire affair. No one in the world can accuse American troops of being gentlemanly, I think. It just doesn't seem to be in their blood.

Even in total war as occurred in the Sengoku period in Japanese history, or in mythical Three Kingdoms China or later invasions of the Vietnamese and surrounding countries, heads of state do not fall all over themselves trying to put a pretty picture on war and slaughter, and being caught in humiliating lies to boot. WMDs aren't in Iraq. Either the US is a liar, or it's incompetent. It doesn't show the country anything like a positive light, however it turns out to be.

It's unfortunate, too. The average US citizen today, while bigoted due to unavoidable environmental factors, is still, I believe, a lot better than many respects than either Chinese or British citizens during the heyday of their respective empires. Bush is really, really screwing it up big time on the world stage. The worst thing about this is that this is going down in history in countries all over the world. I actually like Bush better than Kerry, but there is something to be said about washing your laundry in private.

mojojojomo

14-10-04, 11:16 PM

By a small amount, yes. The atrocities committed by British troops were often admitted and they usually don't demonize their enemies to quite the same extent.

Wrong. Germans were depicted as baby staking murderers in the first World War, and the White Man's Burden essentially said that anyone not of European descent was either stupid or otherwise incapable.

British troops show respect for their enemies, especially those that they feel deserve it for bravery and battle prowess. The best you can expect from an American is Abu Ghraib, apparently, and worse if you actually gave them a hard time fighting.

Wrong. The best you can expect from the United States is the Marshall Plan, and (i'm not sure if you know this) but the Germans gave the US a far harder time figthing than Iraq has so far. Same goes for Japan.

You don't see British schools denying the existence of Gandhi and why he made the world stage in the first place. This tradition continued even much later on.

Who do schools from the United States deny existing?

tradition continued even much later on. In Africa, during WW II, the Germans and the British fought the so-called Gentleman's War.

The notion of a Gentlemen's war is hardly a British concept. In fact, it was the basis for all warfare amongst the civilized nations until WWI. And, let's remember, the British were just as willing to break with conventions as the Americans if it secured victory. Dresden came at Churchill's behest.

No one in the world can accuse American troops of being gentlemanly, I think. It just doesn't seem to be in their blood.

Unfortunately, you arent in a position to make that judgement. Your understanding of America is remarkably limited, and seems to focus on teh negative. Snap back to reality. Every nation has its flaws, and every nation has its achievements. As it stands, the US is doing better than most countries, in terms of achievements versus flaws.

ScrubHuman2

15-10-04, 01:43 AM

mojojojomo:

Wrong. Germans were depicted as baby staking murderers in the first World War, and the White Man's Burden essentially said that anyone not of European descent was either stupid or otherwise incapable.

These things don't invalidate what I said. I didn't say the British didn't demonize their enemies. I said I think the US does it to a greater extent and to a larger degree.

Wrong. The best you can expect from the United States is the Marshall Plan, and (i'm not sure if you know this) but the Germans gave the US a far harder time figthing than Iraq has so far. Same goes for Japan.

Those were self-serving interests. Any country can pour forth the charm when the results serve their purposes.

Who do schools from the United States deny existing?

The Philippine Revolutionary Government, for one.

The notion of a Gentlemen's war is hardly a British concept. In fact, it was the basis for all warfare amongst the civilized nations until WWI. And, let's remember, the British were just as willing to break with conventions as the Americans if it secured victory. Dresden came at Churchill's behest.

You apparently don't understand what I'm saying. In WWII during the Africa campaign in which the Germans fought the British, the troops on both sides behaved in a manner so explemary towards each other's troops that the conflict eventually became known as the "Gentleman's War." It's not a concept. It's an event. This sort of warfare was what many of the nobility in the British Isles aspired to even as early as the Victorian era, though racial prejudice and/or wartime necessity often counseled otherwise. It is not the "basis" for "all warfare" amongst the "civilized nations" (European tribes?) before or after WWI, and many incidences before and since illustrate so. That's why the Gentleman's War was so remarkable.

In contrast, American military policy and thought emphasizes either decency to the enemy nor professional military behavior in the face of civilians. If anything, foreign American base assignments and policies that favor the establishment of white slavery pens that cater to US servicemen teach them quite the opposite, even if inadvertently. Certainly, from past US military behavior, one gets the impression that in their ranks, success is paramount, obedience to authority is important, but the ideals demonstrated in the Gentleman's War is ranked somewhere close to stupidity.

Unfortunately, you arent in a position to make that judgement. Your understanding of America is remarkably limited, and seems to focus on teh negative. Snap back to reality. Every nation has its flaws, and every nation has its achievements. As it stands, the US is doing better than most countries, in terms of achievements versus flaws.

If you provide me with any dispassionate non-US aligned third party review of American servicemen being gentlemanly, of noble demeanor, or otherwise of such make, then I'll be much obliged. Remember that the Germans in that particular incident saw their enemies as such decent soldiers that they would surrender if they could, because they got such unbelievably good treatment. One account says that the Germans got tea and drank with the other British chaps, just like they were simply out for some fresh air. Such a glowing review from your enemy is likely something Americans can never aspire to, but I challenge you to provide any such material you can come up with.

Any appropriate source will do. I'm always of a mind to learn more.

While it's entirely probable that my understanding of the US is limited, it's also almost completely true that most Americans' understanding of their own country's activities and history is warped and therefore inherently more limited. An American historian who recently went to the Philippines to study Asian history found facts and evidences on his own effort that were so contrary to his glowing view of his country that he went into a depression for a year or so and thereby delayed the publication of his work.

This is not to say that the US is a mean, small, and low country. I agree that it has had many acheivements to its name, and if almost every one of these great acheivements have been self-serving, who's to blame it? Every country looks out for its own. However, my statement regarding the demeanor of American servicemen and the record of their behavior in and out of combat is based on many events and incidents, both past and recent, and is no snap surface judgement based on a few inaccurate details. You'd be well-advised to provide so much material for your own assertions on this point.

mojojojomo

15-10-04, 12:44 PM

These things don't invalidate what I said. I didn't say the British didn't demonize their enemies. I said I think the US does it to a greater extent and to a larger degree.

I don't know about you, but to me, actively spreading the rumour that Germans went out and threw babies on bonfires and pitchforks is worse than anything the Americans have said recently. Similar things were said about the Irish in earlier centuries, to justify the occupation and confiscation of vast swaths of Gaelic owned land.

The White Man's Burden was also far more pervasisve than anything the US has recently stated.

Those were self-serving interests. Any country can pour forth the charm when the results serve their purposes.

Regardless, they are still the best you can expect from a US government. You talk about America demonizing its enemies, but look how warped your picture of the US is.

The Philippine Revolutionary Government, for one.

More often than not, it is not denied. It is simply not discussed. There is a rather large difference, but both are still pretty bad.

You apparently don't understand what I'm saying. In WWII during the Africa campaign in which the Germans fought the British, the troops on both sides behaved in a manner so explemary towards each other's troops that the conflict eventually became known as the "Gentleman's War." It's not a concept. It's an event. This sort of warfare was what many of the nobility in the British Isles aspired to even as early as the Victorian era, though racial prejudice and/or wartime necessity often counseled otherwise.

No. You are wrong. The entire idea of a gentlemen's war existed long before WW2. When Rommel and Montgomery decided to fight in such a way, they were simply adhering to ideas developed centuries before (long before Victoria as well), amongst the various European nations. Nor is it pirmarily a British concept. It was simply how war was fought amongst the empires of Europe.

In contrast, American military policy and thought emphasizes either decency to the enemy nor professional military behavior in the face of civilians. If anything, foreign American base assignments and policies that favor the establishment of white slavery pens that cater to US servicemen teach them quite the opposite, even if inadvertently. Certainly, from past US military behavior, one gets the impression that in their ranks, success is paramount, obedience to authority is important, but the ideals demonstrated in the Gentleman's War is ranked somewhere close to stupidity.

You cannot make the comparrison, i'm afraid. Pax Britannica and Pax Americana are from different eras, and how they conducted themselves are indicative of that age. The entire concepts of how to fight have evolved since the collapse of the British Empire. The US is faced with styles of warfare that do not allow for 'drinking tea' with their captives, nor for a Gentlemen's War. No one is willing to fight like that anymore, and, not only that, but doing so would negate airpower, the primary advantage of the United States.

White slavery pens is another gross exageration on your part. Slavery, by definition, is forced labour without payment. Foreign US bases, often being the size of small towns, create a demand for goods and services. The native population supplies the bases with what they need, thus fulfilling the demand they produce. That is one of the reasons that leaders want US bases on their soil. They are a huge source of employment.

If you provide me with any dispassionate non-US aligned third party review of American servicemen being gentlemanly, of noble demeanor, or otherwise of such make, then I'll be much obliged. Remember that the Germans in that particular incident saw their enemies as such decent soldiers that they would surrender if they could, because they got such unbelievably good treatment. One account says that the Germans got tea and drank with the other British chaps, just like they were simply out for some fresh air. Such a glowing review from your enemy is likely something Americans can never aspire to, but I challenge you to provide any such material you can come up with.

As i said before, British treatment of their captives was indicative of the age in which they lived. I hope you're not under the impression that British incarceration facilities still let prisoners have cups of tea with the guards. I don't want to prove that America treats its prisoners of war well. As Abu Ghraib proves, it's not always the case. I also want to point out, though, that what happened there is not the norm.

However, this was not an argument on proving that the US is civil. It's about proving that the British were just as bad, if not worse. As such, im going to list off a few of the attrocities commited in the name of British Imperialism (in the truest sense of the word).

-The Amritsa Massacre.
-Addiciting an entire nation to opium so to gain trading concessions in the country.
-The Bombardment of Wexford, and the massacre of Drogheda.
-The brutal suppression of the Easter Rising, and the reprisals that followed.
-The beginnings of apartheid in South Africa.
-The bombing of various Mesopotamian villages for not paying taxes to the Brtish government, even though they weren't technically part of the Empire.
-Breaking the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori Land Wars and confiscation of lands, even from the tribes that fought on the side of the Crown.
-The forced displacement of Australia's Aboriginal population, including the genocide of all of Tasmainia's original inhabitants.
-The creation of slave states in the Carribean for cheap production of sugar and other cash crops.
-The Suez Incident (which, co-incidentally, the US put an end to, despite it not necessarily being part of the national interest).

While it's entirely probable that my understanding of the US is limited, it's also almost completely true that most Americans' understanding of their own country's activities and history is warped and therefore inherently more limited. An American historian who recently went to the Philippines to study Asian history found facts and evidences on his own effort that were so contrary to his glowing view of his country that he went into a depression for a year or so and thereby delayed the publication of his work.

True, but just because most Americans don't understand their own history doesn't make your warped version any more correct.

And on your final point, the behaviour of servicemen is not the be all and end all of a nation's character. It's quite well documented that American soldiers are badly behaved when on foreign soil. If, for some instant, you think this is indicative of the American population as a whole, you need to do some reading of some (how should i put this?) less biased sources

undsputed1

15-10-04, 11:11 PM

"However, this was not an argument on proving that the US is civil. It's about proving that the British were just as bad, if not worse. As such, im going to list off a few of the attrocities commited in the name of British Imperialism (in the truest sense of the word)."

Yea....I said it before and I'll say it again....a handful of European countries severely messed up Africa for a long time. Their problems even today have root in Europe's interference with their social and political structures as well as the flat out theft of their resources by European powers.

"And on your final point, the behaviour of servicemen is not the be all and end all of a nation's character. It's quite well documented that American soldiers are badly behaved when on foreign soil. If, for some instant, you think this is indicative of the American population as a whole, you need to do some reading of some (how should i put this?) less biased sources"

Well, any foreign soldiers actually, not just American. If anything, American troops have historically been better than a lot of other troops. German troops, in their last significant action, in WW2 were not known for their kindness. And of course, the British army used to be made up of some of British society's worst elements.....I mean around colonial times.

mojojojomo

16-10-04, 12:14 AM

So wait, im defending your country and you're still going after my argument.

Yea....I said it before and I'll say it again....a handful of European countries severely messed up Africa for a long time. Their problems even today have root in Europe's interference with their social and political structures as well as the flat out theft of their resources by European powers.

But then, the US isn't entirely free of guilt in that respect either.

Well, any foreign soldiers actually, not just American. If anything, American troops have historically been better than a lot of other troops. German troops, in their last significant action, in WW2 were not known for their kindness. And of course, the British army used to be made up of some of British society's worst elements.....I mean around colonial times.

Historically, American troops have been fairly bad really. I, and im sure Scrub Human, can rattle of a list of fairly dire things carried out by the United States military in the past 60 years. My point was simply that the British Empire probably wasn't much better.

undsputed1

16-10-04, 09:31 AM

"So wait, im defending your country and you're still going after my argument."

Hey....I was agreeing with you :) I just did it in a way that might have pissed you off. Not my intetion. I think the main difference here is that militaries in the last 50 years have been soo much more careful and humane then they have historically. Since US military action is only limited to recent history anyway, instead of all the time before WW2 that a lot of the other countries conducted military operations (British, Spanish, etc), the US military has done a lot better. It's simply a matter of the fact that the US military has had its prime time in the current media aware age. The media wasn't there to do things like that 200 years ago.

And you agree about some of the worst elements of society making up the British armies historically?

"Only allowing US contractors into Iraq loses the US money, because other companies can do it for a lot less. It's just plain silly and it cost us money. It has patriotic backgrounds, but as a nation mad far into debt, losing money to spite our so-called allies is really outright dumb."

Wait a second....when money goes to US contractors, whose economy do you think is benefitting from it? This should be obvious, but the US economy will benefit from government spending.

Canadian Tire Money

16-10-04, 01:03 PM

scrubby, have you thought about what fallacy it is yet?

mojojojomo

16-10-04, 03:00 PM

Hey....I was agreeing with you :) I just did it in a way that might have pissed you off. Not my intetion. I think the main difference here is that militaries in the last 50 years have been soo much more careful and humane then they have historically. Since US military action is only limited to recent history anyway, instead of all the time before WW2 that a lot of the other countries conducted military operations (British, Spanish, etc), the US military has done a lot better. It's simply a matter of the fact that the US military has had its prime time in the current media aware age. The media wasn't there to do things like that 200 years ago.

Well, given that the United States actions have taken place in what should be an enlightened age, one could argue that the actions carried out by American soldiers, though approximately equal, are in 'real' terms worse. By the way, not all major American military actions took place after WW2. Remember, manifest destiny was a doctrine preached and acted upon since its inception. In all, it resulted in the Spanish American War, the American Fillipino War, the Mexican American War, as well as a few others. In none of those wars was American conduct particuarly good. Vietnam was also an example of terrible attrocities carried out by US servicemen, though that resulted from something else entirely.

And you agree about some of the worst elements of society making up the British armies historically?

In some ways, but in others, no. The officer class was made up of either the gentry, the merchantry or the aristocracy. In the navy particuarly (the principle power behind British supremacy), discilpline was such a key issue, that men rarely went against their superiors orders. Because of this, and the concept of a Gentlemen's war between the European powers, massacres rarely happened. Of course, it was a different thing entirely when dealing with 'natives'.

undsputed1

16-10-04, 04:44 PM

"In some ways, but in others, no. The officer class was made up of either the gentry, the merchantry or the aristocracy. In the navy particuarly (the principle power behind British supremacy), discilpline was such a key issue, that men rarely went against their superiors orders. Because of this, and the concept of a Gentlemen's war between the European powers, massacres rarely happened. Of course, it was a different thing entirely when dealing with 'natives'."

Actually, your probably right...the officer class was probably some rather wealthy or upscale people But the regulars were not. And of course, the naval policy of impressment wasn't great either.

ScrubHuman2

17-10-04, 01:42 AM

mojojojomo:

I don't know about you, but to me, actively spreading the rumour that Germans went out and threw babies on bonfires and pitchforks is worse than anything the Americans have said recently. Similar things were said about the Irish in earlier centuries, to justify the occupation and confiscation of vast swaths of Gaelic owned land.

The White Man's Burden was also far more pervasisve than anything the US has recently stated.

Actually, the Germans aren't that bad at all. They're pretty decent people. Now I would argue that the way the Holocaust was built up and overdramatized. It's not like the Jews were wiped out from the face of the planet, after all, and genocidal wars have been more succesaful in other incidences. It isn't even their idea to begin with. It was mainly Hitler's unearthly charisma that made such a horror possible. Yet Germans as a people are commonly linked to that not-unique incident in American minds.

Regardless, they are still the best you can expect from a US government. You talk about America demonizing its enemies, but look how warped your picture of the US is.

The British Empire could be pretty darned peachy, too. So with the Romans and other peoples throughout history. Self-serving niceness is just a whole 'nother can of worms.

More often than not, it is not denied. It is simply not discussed. There is a rather large difference, but both are still pretty bad.

Calling the incident the "Filipino Insurrection" rather blatantly denies the existence of this government and the various agreements the US had with its representatives prior to the betrayal.

No. You are wrong. The entire idea of a gentlemen's war existed long before WW2. When Rommel and Montgomery decided to fight in such a way, they were simply adhering to ideas developed centuries before (long before Victoria as well), amongst the various European nations. Nor is it pirmarily a British concept. It was simply how war was fought amongst the empires of Europe.

I would deign to disagree. The Hundred Years War wasn't fought that way. Nor the Norman Conquest of the British Isles, nor anything the European tribes had to show for in the Crusades. I[i/i] was referring to an [i]event. How many times must I say this in order for you to understand it?

You cannot make the comparrison, i'm afraid. Pax Britannica and Pax Americana are from different eras, and how they conducted themselves are indicative of that age. The entire concepts of how to fight have evolved since the collapse of the British Empire. The US is faced with styles of warfare that do not allow for 'drinking tea' with their captives, nor for a Gentlemen's War. No one is willing to fight like that anymore, and, not only that, but doing so would negate airpower, the primary advantage of the United States.

Bull****. The US is the most powerful nation in the world with enough armaments to destroy the planet several times over. No country in existence can boast even a tenth of this awesome military capability. A sovereign nation would have to be insane to truly threaten US sovereignty by invasion. The USSR didn't do it in its heyday. No one will. It seems to me that at this juncture, Americans can pretty much tell the world how wars should be fought and it's entirely likely that the entire world will listen and sympathize, especially if this manner is as noble as what transpired in the Gentleman's War. Heck, the US is telling the world to fight nasty and the world pretty much listens to that awful example.

White slavery pens is another gross exageration on your part. Slavery, by definition, is forced labour without payment. Foreign US bases, often being the size of small towns, create a demand for goods and services. The native population supplies the bases with what they need, thus fulfilling the demand they produce. That is one of the reasons that leaders want US bases on their soil. They are a huge source of employment.

1. These prostitution dens feature kidnapped women who work for nothing. They are enslaved in the most horrible possible definition of the word.

2. These US servicemen know these conditions and promote it by openly and preferentially patronizing these establishments.

3. The only massive employment US bases produce on anything like a regular basis is sex trade. Even local food isn't patronized regularly enough to be viable. Throughout Asia, you can hardly find a US base that is not serviced by white slavery dens to a greater or lesser extent. The amount by which they boost regular employment is spotty at best.

It is not a gross exaggeration at all, mojojojomo, although I wish that it were.

As i said before, British treatment of their captives was indicative of the age in which they lived. I hope you're not under the impression that British incarceration facilities still let prisoners have cups of tea with the guards. I don't want to prove that America treats its prisoners of war well. As Abu Ghraib proves, it's not always the case. I also want to point out, though, that what happened there is not the norm.

What can you tell me about what the norm is?

However, this was not an argument on proving that the US is civil. It's about proving that the British were just as bad, if not worse. As such, im going to list off a few of the attrocities commited in the name of British Imperialism (in the truest sense of the word)... blah, blah...

Yes. I'm aware of those. What are you getting at? That all this is worse than all the terrible things the US has done in the entirety of its existence? I would put it at about the same. I'm only placing a premium on the British Empire because even it did not have the gall to betray a weaker ally without so much as a "Hey!", and even if it did, it still waged war in some semblance of decency against some very hated foes.

True, but just because most Americans don't understand their own history doesn't make your warped version any more correct.

Was any fact I said incorrect?

And on your final point, the behaviour of servicemen is not the be all and end all of a nation's character. It's quite well documented that American soldiers are badly behaved when on foreign soil. If, for some instant, you think this is indicative of the American population as a whole, you need to do some reading of some (how should i put this?) less biased sources

It is. Many Americans are exposed to news of these activities, however small and biased, and those who are actually interested can find out the truth, usually much to the detriment of their patriotism.

What's sad about the American population as a whole is that they don't care. They are peripherally aware that their men are behaving atrociously outside the country, but they'd rather deny it and not hear about it rather than set it right. When was the last time you heard an American furor about the British nationals held illegally in Guantanamo Bay? Was there even a Dateline on it? What was the national pulse when the public heard a news snippet about it on CNN? You know what the massive public reaction was? Nothing.

Historically, American troops have been fairly bad really. I, and im sure Scrub Human, can rattle of a list of fairly dire things carried out by the United States military in the past 60 years. My point was simply that the British Empire probably wasn't much better.

Well, I wouldn't say much better. Slightly better, maybe.

Of course, just comparing the US to the British Empire in terms of atrocities committed is hardly a flattering comparison.

Canadian Tire Money:

Been busy. Sorry. It's a little hard to just stumble onto the information. It might be Strawman, because while the US technically "never stopped attacking Iraq", it's also true that the US did not launch and had no plans of launching an invasion of Iraq the first time around. Kuwait was barely mentioned, if ever it was, by Bush in justifying the Iraq invasion to anyone, so saying that the invasion of Iraq was "started" by the Kuwait incident isn't true.

undsputed1

17-10-04, 06:58 AM

"Actually, the Germans aren't that bad at all. They're pretty decent people. Now I would argue that the way the Holocaust was built up and overdramatized. It's not like the Jews were wiped out from the face of the planet, after all, and genocidal wars have been more succesaful in other incidences. It isn't even their idea to begin with. It was mainly Hitler's unearthly charisma that made such a horror possible. Yet Germans as a people are commonly linked to that not-unique incident in American minds."

I'm not arguing that the Germans are not decent people, but the rest of what you said is messed up. Your on here saying it wasn't so bad because Germany didn't succeed in wiping them all out.....wow.

ScrubHuman2

17-10-04, 07:05 AM

undisputed1:

Well, I'd argue that a genocide that was actually successful would be what I'd call really bad, but I think that that was self-evident. Moreover, it isn't fair that Germans are tainted with genocidal images when so many other races and nations have practiced it, and with more success, in some instances.

mulratt

17-10-04, 07:26 AM

I dont understand this historic comparison. Why the hell are you looking into the past instead of forward? I see the world as better today, and our ethics code has evolved significantly.
They used to have gentlemen's wars in the past because of these messed up honor codes. Sure, treat your enemy officers well since they're nobility like you. But slaughter other lower beings like they were animals, like you mentioned mojo, the natives.

Sure if you take Canadian soldiers historically, their behavior could be seen as outstanding. But that's because their history started pretty late, and thus is less likely to be brutal. Canadian military operations are also limited.

So when we're to discuss whether one's conduct is appropriate, we dont say, well look at the others. That's if you think morality is relative, and so if my neighbour rapes and torture ppl, then its ok for me to steal cuz I'm an angel compare to that guy.
If you think there is an absolute morality, and you dont have to have absolute knowledge of it, you will preach the right type of behavior for soldiers, regardless of time and place.

UltraDavid

17-10-04, 07:27 AM

Actually, the Germans aren't that bad at all. They're pretty decent people. Now I would argue that the way the Holocaust was built up and overdramatized. It's not like the Jews were wiped out from the face of the planet, after all, and genocidal wars have been more succesaful in other incidences. It isn't even their idea to begin with. It was mainly Hitler's unearthly charisma that made such a horror possible. Yet Germans as a people are commonly linked to that not-unique incident in American minds.

I'm not sure what else you wrote, and I don't know what the context is here, but frankly I don't really care because I've kinda lost my taste for reading the same political novels on chat boards over and over again. I'll just respond to this real fast.

The Holocaust is not built up or overdramatized, and it was an extremely successful genocide. There were more Jews alive on planet Earth in 1930 than in 1990. That's pretty damn terrible. Every other group of people on Earth has seen its numbers go up two, three, even five or six times in the same period of time, yet because so many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust the net population increase in 55 years was NEGATIVE. My father has no European relatives at all anymore because of Hitler (wonderfully enough, my mother also has no European relatives, thanks to the Croat-Serb fighting and guys like Slobodan Milosevic). Each and every one was murdered, and let me remind you that Eastern European Jews had pretty big families. The Germans just swept virtually every Jew out of Poland and Romania, and the Poles and Romanians weren't upset about it enough to do anything. There were three, maybe four places in the world that had sizeable Jewish populations at the end of the Holocaust: the United States, the USSR, Israel, and maybe you could include Argentina. And there weren't even that many Jews in Israel; even today there are scarcely more than 6 million.

And was it really just Hitler that was anti-Semitic, and managed to convince an entire society in the span of just a couple years that Jews should be eradicated? Come on. Anti-Semitism has a pretty long and ugly history in Germany, hell, in Central and Eastern Europe (and even Western Europe, in Spain and France). Remember, it's not like all of a sudden Germans stopped being Germans and became Nazis, and then after WWII went back to being Germans. The Nazis were Germans, "Nazi Germany" was just Germany. You could say we fought the Nazis in WWII, but you could just as correctly say that we fought Germans. You could say the Nazis orchestrated the destruction of a people, but you could just as correctly say that Germans did it.

Does that mean I hate the Germans? Not really. Germany has clearly tried its best to make restitution. Even today it's overwhelmingly anti-war, anti-sending German troops anywhere, and admirably anti-prejudice. German culture, and especially the culture in former West Germany, has changed pretty dramatically in that regard. But plenty of Jews still do. My dad, for example, won't buy German products, and there are lots of Jews his generation and my grandpa's generation who did/do the same thing. But that's pretty much waning out, and things are more or less ok now. Anyway, I just realized I ended up writing a lot more than I intended, and I apologize for totally hijacking this action. You guys don't have to respond. Just know that yes, Germany did a pretty excellent job of eradicating Central/Eastern European Judaism, and yes, the German people were responsible.

ScrubHuman2

17-10-04, 07:43 AM

mulratt:

I dont understand this historic comparison. Why the hell are you looking into the past instead of forward? I see the world as better today, and our ethics code has evolved significantly.
They used to have gentlemen's wars in the past because of these messed up honor codes. Sure, treat your enemy officers well since they're nobility like you. But slaughter other lower beings like they were animals, like you mentioned mojo, the natives.

So killing everyone indsicriminately is better than just killing the lower tier troops and indies? I don't see how that's better.

You need to look into the past to understand the present and augur what tomorrow holds. The world today is, in some ways, better, but in some ways it is a lot worse.

Sure if you take Canadian soldiers historically

Whoops! Sorry about replying. You must be talking about some other conversation.

UltraDavid:

The Holocaust is not built up or overdramatized, and it was an extremely successful genocide. There were more Jews alive on planet Earth in 1930 than in 1990. That's pretty damn terrible.

It's terrible alright, but having no Jews at all would be truly terrible and that would be what I would define as a successful genocide.

And there weren't even that many Jews in Israel; even today there are scarcely more than 6 million.

Ironically, it seems to me that the Jews who are in Isreal are doing their damnedest best to kill off the Palestinians. What was that about genocide being terrible again?

Remember, it's not like all of a sudden Germans stopped being Germans and became Nazis, and then after WWII went back to being Germans. The Nazis were Germans, "Nazi Germany" was just Germany. You could say we fought the Nazis in WWII, but you could just as correctly say that we fought Germans. You could say the Nazis orchestrated the destruction of a people, but you could just as correctly say that Germans did it.

You're being naive. The Germanic tribes did not have a history of genocidal warfare that I know of prior to the Holocaust. Other tribes do not have such an innocent history. Sure, there was anti-Semitic sentiment, but genocide is an altogether different level of sentiment from resentment. It's not like these Germans didn't have a reason to resent the Jews living in their localities. It's more complicated than what many Holocaust accounts would have you believe.

So no. I believe that any other nation, given the same circumstances would have done much the same thing, though perhaps not with the kind of professionalism the Germans put into it. I do not think it is fair to say that the Germans all on their own decided to commit genocide, nor would I say that Germans were unique in having attempted genocide in world history.

Just know that yes, Germany did a pretty excellent job of eradicating Central/Eastern European Judaism, and yes, the German people were responsible.

To summarize and reiterate, it isn't successful genocide if the Jews aren't all dead, and no, the Germans aren't the only ones to have done this, nor the most successful ones.

UltraDavid

17-10-04, 08:17 AM

It's terrible alright, but having no Jews at all would be truly terrible and that would be what I would define as a successful genocide.

Wow, I can't believe you're actually arguing this with me. Hitler eradicated virtually every Jew from the territories he controlled before the end of WWII. Like I said, the only places left in the world with sizeable Jewish populations were the USA, the USSR, and Israel (and to a lesser extent Argentina), all of which were outside the control of Germany. But as for the Jews in Germany, Austria, France, Poland, Romania, and Hungary, well, they basically just no longer exist. I mean really, only France even today has a Jewish population of even 1%, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are alive today because they lived where Hitler and Vichy had little control.

Ironically, it seems to me that the Jews who are in Isreal are doing their damnedest best to kill off the Palestinians. What was that about genocide being terrible again?

Wow. Now that is a low blow. A low, one-sided blow, and rather off-topic as well.

You're being naive. The Germanic tribes did not have a history of genocidal warfare that I know of prior to the Holocaust. Other tribes do not have such an innocent history. Sure, there was anti-Semitic sentiment, but genocide is an altogether different level of sentiment from resentment. It's not like these Germans didn't have a reason to resent the Jews living in their localities. It's more complicated than what many Holocaust accounts would have you believe.

Actually, there in fact WERE attacks on Jews, all throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, and while pogroms were much more common in Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, and Russia, they happened in Germany as well. Anti-Semitism was a noticeable part of German culture, and cultural heroes like Wagner and Neitzsche promoted it. And genocide is not so far from racism. All it took was a leader like Hitler to spout some ill-founded scape-goat rhetoric about how the Jews were why Germany was in the pisser to get the Germans on the kill-all-Jews horse. That kind of thing doesn't happen unless anti-Semitism is already pandemic.

So no. I believe that any other nation, given the same circumstances would have done much the same thing, though perhaps not with the kind of professionalism the Germans put into it. I do not think it is fair to say that the Germans all on their own decided to commit genocide, nor would I say that Germans were unique in having attempted genocide in world history.

Who's saying Germany's attempted genocide was unique? I'm totally not even talking about that. It's not, but that doesn't matter here. And of course the Germans "all on their own" decided to commit genocide. No one else would have. Was France or Italy or Denmark or something all up in Germany saying "Hey, time to start killing Jews!"? No. It was a decision made by the German people, led by Adolf Hitler.

To summarize and reiterate, it isn't successful genocide if the Jews aren't all dead, and no, the Germans aren't the only ones to have done this, nor the most successful ones.

Considering nearly every Jew within Hitler's grasp died, and considering I don't care and haven't even talked about whether or not the Germans were the only or most successful ones to kick our asses or any other group's asses, yes, you're wrong, and pretty much an ass.

PLH

17-10-04, 08:47 AM

i don't get it. the germans aren't so bad, but at the same time the americans are?

you don't blame germans for more violent behavior, but blame american citisens for less extreme behavior?

undsputed1

17-10-04, 09:25 AM

"Ironically, it seems to me that the Jews who are in Isreal are doing their damnedest best to kill off the Palestinians. What was that about genocide being terrible again?"

I'll take this low-blow Ultra :) Now, I'm not Jewish, just so you know, but I am well aware of what happened and, living near DC, have had the oppotunity to see the holocaust meusem there. I think what makes this comparison terrible is that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is two-sided. Jews in 1935 were not blowing up German buses full of children and the elderly. Palestinians, however, are taking part in that and worse yet, lie to their children with false promises of rewards in the afterlife for commiting murder against Israeli citizens. Note, not all Palestinians buy into this, of course, but there is a very substantial fanatical arm of the Muslim religion that does, much larger than fanatical Christians or any other type of religion. If I didn't hear about buses being INTENTIONALLY targetted and blown up, then you'd have a better argument there.

What made Germany's situation so bad was the amount of control and the brutality of it all. I mean, you think about a genocide in terms of a Serb shooting a Albanian and digging a mass grave, that is terrible. But then you think of German troops rounding them up into groups, starving them over time and keeping them in filthy conditions, and thinking of some of the sickest ways to kill someone, such as an acid shower........well, that is why Germany gets a worse reputation. And it makes sense when you put it like this huh?

Glurin

17-10-04, 11:12 AM

OMG. Scrub, if ever I need an example of someone blinded by hate, its you.

"Germans arn't so bad. They only nearly wiped out the jews. They didn't kill all of the jews on earth. But America is evil incarnate because they don't fight Gentleman's Wars and sometimes have problems with soldiers acting badly in other countries."

Your trying to hold America to impossibly high (and at times totaly ludicrous) standards. Then you turn around and set the bar way too low for other countries. I realize that America is a superpower and thus should set an example, and I also realize that the u.s. doesn't exactly have a perfect record, but come on. Your worse than the people who insist on calling french fries "freedom fries".

PLH

17-10-04, 12:41 PM

why should the americans set an example for anyone else. that is silly talk.

xShadowleavesx

17-10-04, 12:56 PM

You have an incredibly warped perception of the world, Scrub Human. Britain was civilized in it's imposition of Empire? Tell that to the millions of displaced natives who colonizers forced from their ancestral lands, and to the millions more who died trying to fight the Empire. What about the villagers of Mesopotamia bombed by the RAF in the 1930's when they refused to pay taxes? And then there is the Irish issue as well. The list of British transgressions is at least as long as America's, but it was in a far more accepting age.

Anyway, i found this interesting quote by Geogre Herbet Walker Bush written five years ago:

The British gave much to their former colonies though, and laid the groundworks for modernization in backwards countries. While they could be brutual and ignorant regarding other cultures and peoples, the British were far more benevolent with their Empire than any other civilization has been with there's; before AND since.

Glurin

17-10-04, 02:52 PM

why should the americans set an example for anyone else. that is silly talk

Being a superpower is like being a celebrity. Don't you think celebrities should set a good example?

Slay

17-10-04, 03:39 PM

"Its heavy with liberal junk." What does that tell you? Seems preaty clear to me that it means "too liberal".

Saying that it is "heavy with liberal junk" is an opinion, it is not a fact. You still have to back that statement up, as the only thing I am willing to accept from your remarks is that Kerry's record is indeed liberal. How liberal Kerry is still up for debate, but I think it tells you something when he runs on the platform of fiscal responsibility.

Thats some twisted logic you have there. We lose money when our companies accept contracts for rebuilding parts of Iraq? Then why were other countries so upset about not being able to bid on contracts? They'd just be loseing money too, according to you. Hey, if its the case that we just lose money on the deal, why didn't they just go "Ok. Have fun." since they disagreed with the war in the first place? Thats what I would do if the deal really was that bad.

I don't think it's twisted logic at all. When you have other companies that can complete the job mroe efficiently and quicker and cheaper, that means that you can rebuild Iraq faster with less losses and that means you can get out of Iraq quicker. I'm not saying that taking the contracts themselves is a cause for $$ loss, otherwise nobody would take the contracts, I'm saying that not taking the best contract is a loss of money.

Well, well. Thats an very interesting statement you just made. Am I to take it that you prefer the greater evil to the lesser?

Actually, it was a joke. You see, the greater evil would send you to hell, whereas the lesser evil would send you to heck. *rofl*

Thats not oversimplifying anything.

It's oversimplifying everything.

The vote comes down to YES or NO. There is no maybe, perhaps, kind of, sort of, well..., or anything else. Its just yes or no.

Actually, no, there's also abstaining. But it doesn't matter, becuase when a person thinks that one part of the bill is good, and the other part is bad, the default is NO.

The summation of those votes indicate a person's possition on political issues,

Perhaps. But you've also failed to account for every side of the issue. In the particular case at hand, Kerry views that fiscal responsibility is more important than helping the troops in Iraq. In no way does that mean he's against the troops in Iraq, IN NO WAY.

and Kerry's votes put him deep into liberal territory.

Are you ever going to prove it or are you going to continue to condense his 20 year history as a senator into a single vote for a bill whch I've already clarified.

But IMO you've focused on the part rather than the whole. In other words, missed the big picture.

Seriously, man, what is the big picture? Are you talking about Kerry's voting record, or are we talking about something ethereal?

But, being a heavy leaning liberal or conservative does mean that your going to have a lot of trouble getting everybody behind you. Now you already commented on this, but what you forgot to factor in is the political climate right now. With things as divided as they are, trying to please everyone by going back and forth on the issues while still trying to achieve your agenda is not a good idea and will only serve to further divide the country.

You make a completely correct point, but you are talking about this country. I believe that the original discussion was on international support if the US ever needs to go smack around some country. Europe and Asia are very liberal right now, with the exception of Italy, Israel, and a few other places which I probably forgot about. When it comes to domestic support, there's nothing this country can do short of JFK or FDR and another World War to unite this country. BUt when it comes to international politics, you would have a better chance of getting allies with a liberal president as opposed to a conservative president. I'm not saying this is absolute, but seeing as how Michael Moore won the Palm d'Or for political reasons, I would think it would be a pretty safe bet to assume that Europeans and Asians would embrace a insanely liberal US president more than a moderately conservative president.

In less divided times, its only a short term solution. Pacifying people for the moment, but dividing them later.

In less divided times, I would agree with you in that choosing a president based on whether or not they are liberal is facetious. But the country and the world is realyl divided, and that changes things.

Frankly, there is little either one of them can do to be a true uniter. In order to do it, they would have to truely be one of the best damn presidents we've ever had, and they just arn't.

Absolute truth.

Thats just sad if it were true. Surely we can do better than a monkey and a weasel, don't you agree?

Are you insulting monkeys and weasels?

Thats right. They are gifted leaders. Bush is gifted with getting right to the point and Kerry is gifted with good speaking skills. But these skills alone do not a good leader make.

I disagree. That has everything to do with how well they lead. If they have smooth mouths or they can get straight to the point, people will follow them a lot more than a mushmouthed president. That makes them good leaders, but it doens't validate the decisions they make.

Sorry if I totally just repeated what you said, have to make sure we're on the same page.

Wasn't clean slate. Remember Gore? Also, the tension did not simply end for four months, or have you also forgotten the continued controversy over bush's victory. And, I'm not fooling myself. Despite what you might think, I don't believe that the tension will simply disappear one night. But, a clean slate would significantly cool the blaze. After that its up to whoever is elected at that time to let it finish cooling.

What makes you believe that in the next four years, there wil lbe a clean slate? Suppost Cheney or Powell decides to run, and beats out the more moderate candidates like McCain. Even if McCain wins the spot, the country will still be obscenely divided because Bush makes things heated and split up like I havent' seen anyone do.

First of all, their both losers. There isn't a winner to pick from. Second, I'm not suggesting that you should vote for bush JUST to release the tension four years from now. Its just a plus if he is indeed reelected. Third, Clinton was NOT a great president. Fourth, odds are not that good there will be a real winner to pick from in the next election either. But with Kerry running for reelection in that one, unless he was outstandingly good or bad, it will simply fuel more division. With two brand new people, there is no old fuel to feed on. Thats how the tension is greatly released.

1: Yes. So, are you going to vote for Bush?
2: But surely it factors into your decisions. Otherwise you wouldn't really care.
3: Clinton was a great enough president to be re-elected. And that's what matters.
4: Chances are, if any of the Bush administration tries to run for re-election, the Democratic oppoents will have so much dirt on them that it probably will be a landslide. That means, that smart Republican voters will aim to hit the moderates and the non-sucky people no matter if Kerry is elected or not.
5: If Kerry runs for re-election, and he's either good or bad, it won't matter, the country will still go 50/50. Republicans will hate the fact that he's making Democrat moves and vice versa.
6: Again, with two new people, there's still the flaming division and they'll just dig up dirt on the other guy.

How did they not?

The short answer to your question is that it heavly limited what the military could do and ultimatly resulted in a compleate breakdown of command.

Let's end this right now. Since the war was ended 20 years before I was born, I'll source everything I say.(I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me)

First off, military personnel had been warning since 1950 that a ground war in Asia would not turn out well at all for us. (http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/v/vi/vietnam_war.html) Secondly, we had hoped to achieve limited warfare, as in we go in there, try not to make a ruckus, and then go out. Surgically. It failed miserably and the troops lost mounted up. Thirdly, the lack of troops made a draft necessary. (http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Vietnam/VietnamWar/VietnamWar.html) These factors occurred long before the really vicious antiwar protesting began, these factors started the antiwar protests and the subsequent propoganda-ing of the American people. The war was doomed to begin with. Politics just delivered the finishing blow.

Not quite. Like I said, if this has been happening for a while, I'd tell them to hold up for a bit. If it happened yesterday, good bye Sadam and good riddance. Anyway, on to the second question. Basicly the same answer. Time is still very much a factor. I might have to step in to keep the conflict from spreading, but its not to defend either country.

Okay, now besides your opinion, which scenario would the American people approve of?

You answered your first comment with the second.

Now you're just being needlessly cryptic.

The surface appearance as it is recorded in history is what happens over time. Its a watered down answer from the popular perspective rather than the historians.

And I suppose you, as Master Historian, should fill me in with the firsthand account of the Civil War.

Anyway, what was the heart of the issue when it comes to the Civil War? When all is said and done, what was the war really about? State rights. That is the core.

And I suppose now I'm in the position of finding sources that disagree with you because you fail to back up your statements with any kind of sources. Let me find some:
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
http://www.us-civilwar.com/cause.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

There you go: four respectable Civil War statements, one a primary document, that fail to attribute how the Civil War boils down to State's rights. Find me a source that does.

I didn't ask you to. I just wanted you to prove to me that you really thought Kerry's plan was better than Bush's. I've gotten "Bush's ideas suck, Kerry's ideas are better." before. Nine out of ten times, when I ask them what Kerry's plan is, they respond "Uh, I donno. But its better than Bush's!" You actualy posting it and haveing spent time looking for Bush's proves to me that you arn't just saying the words, and thats all I asked.

BTW, if your thinking of trying to turn that around on me, you should note that I haven't said one word about Bush's Iraq exit strategy, what I thought of it, or which is better.

So, what are your opinions on Bush's exit strategy as opposed to Kerry's? So we can get straight down to who would be better to lead our troops out of Iraq.
-Slay

Slay

17-10-04, 03:40 PM

Okay, my reply was a bit too long, so I guess I'll just post the rest here.

Because cost is a factor in the war, and a rather significant one at that. Basicly, how do you save face without getting shafted? A portrait of a different person on T.V. isn't going to do that for you.

I'm not talking about the war on Iraq, everyone's realized how stupid THAT war was and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole right now. I'm talking about the war on terrorism, the real war. The war on terrorism is a war of intelligence, the only way to win it is to get other countries' help. But to tie into cost, when you have the world on your side, your arguments suddenly become a whole lot more potent and you don't look like the callous oppressor. Countries would be more willing to cave into your demands, so you don't have to attack them to get to the good stuff. Also, you'd be able to share intelligence, which means that you don't have to have spies everywhere, being redundant, when you could just get their intelligence and save you money. Thirdly, the war on terror will never end unless we can garner the popular support, and if we alienate the governments that harbor terrorists, there is no hope for us to get those terrorists short of invasion, and that would really suck. The only way to stop the kids from becoming terrorists is for the governments to stop sponsoring it and for the government to maintain credibility after doing so. Both are tough tasks, but they are thoroughly impossible without doing those tasks, and it's a lot harder to get cooperation when there's someone as vilified as Bush behind the wheel.

Enjoy.
-Slay

ScrubHuman2

17-10-04, 06:17 PM

UltraDavid:

Wow, I can't believe you're actually arguing this with me. Hitler eradicated virtually every Jew from the territories he controlled before the end of WWII.

There have been worse incidents of genocide. Incidents that actually succeeded or succeeded to a greater extent than that.

I'm not saying that it's not terrible, I'm saying that it's not that terrible compared to what has occurred in other places in history.

All it took was a leader like Hitler to spout some ill-founded scape-goat rhetoric about how the Jews were why Germany was in the pisser to get the Germans on the kill-all-Jews horse. That kind of thing doesn't happen unless anti-Semitism is already pandemic.

Like you say, anti-Semitism was more common in other countries other than Germany. If Hitler had been born a Russian and not a German, the Russian would have been responsible for the Holocaust. It's not fair that Germans are getting special attention for this when other incidents that were worse aren't getting the same mileage.

Who's saying Germany's attempted genocide was unique? I'm totally not even talking about that. It's not, but that doesn't matter here. And of course the Germans "all on their own" decided to commit genocide. No one else would have. Was France or Italy or Denmark or something all up in Germany saying "Hey, time to start killing Jews!"? No. It was a decision made by the German people, led by Adolf Hitler.

Doesn't it? It's known the world over as the example of genocidal behavior, but it isn't really the worst. After all, there are millions of Jews still alive in the world. I don't believe that Germans were unique in that Adolf Hitler could have persuaded them to commit genocide. Again, if that were true, then Russians and Poles would have to also be somewhere on the same map.

Considering nearly every Jew within Hitler's grasp died, and considering I don't care and haven't even talked about whether or not the Germans were the only or most successful ones to kick our asses or any other group's asses, yes, you're wrong, and pretty much an ass.

Your personal connection with the incident and, perhaps, popular media is blinding you to the many other incidents of this nature that has occurred throughout history. Yes, it's terrible, but other nations have done things equally and even more terrible.

PLH

i don't get it. the germans aren't so bad, but at the same time the americans are?

you don't blame germans for more violent behavior, but blame american citisens for less extreme behavior?

You're getting the wrong vibe. In terms of genocidal behavior, I'm putting the Germans about on equal terms with Americans, though perhaps the Americans are a smidgen better, or a smidgen worse. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just calling it as I see it.

undisputed1:

I'll take this low-blow Ultra Now, I'm not Jewish, just so you know, but I am well aware of what happened and, living near DC, have had the oppotunity to see the holocaust meusem there. I think what makes this comparison terrible is that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is two-sided.

I don't understand why this is a low blow. Was not Isreal established by taking the Palestinians lands away from them and is not Isreal trying to kill Palestinians? I believe that it is to the Palestinian's credit that they are resisting, though the manner of resistance leaves a great deal to be desired. So young children and elderly are killed. So frigging what? If international behavior regarding killing civilians in what these Palestines consider "total war" is any measure, then that's pretty much middle of the line, isn't it?

What made Germany's situation so bad was the amount of control and the brutality of it all. I mean, you think about a genocide in terms of a Serb shooting a Albanian and digging a mass grave, that is terrible. But then you think of German troops rounding them up into groups, starving them over time and keeping them in filthy conditions, and thinking of some of the sickest ways to kill someone, such as an acid shower........well, that is why Germany gets a worse reputation. And it makes sense when you put it like this huh?

No. I think about genocide in terms of people killing people in mass terms. Serbs killing Albanians by wasting bullets is just stupid. If you're going to commit genocide, there are better ways to go about it. Just because the Germans thought about their activities thoroughly and with a mind to efficiency doesn't make them any the worse in my view. All genocide is brutal. The German one was, typically German, well executed and efficient. It's how they made things back then and they have a well-deserved reputation for it. Them committing genocide with attention to detail is completely in character.

Glurin:

Your trying to hold America to impossibly high (and at times totaly ludicrous) standards. Then you turn around and set the bar way too low for other countries. I realize that America is a superpower and thus should set an example, and I also realize that the u.s. doesn't exactly have a perfect record, but come on. Your worse than the people who insist on calling french fries "freedom fries".

You're mistaken. I'm holding them to the exact same standards. I'm not saying that the Holocaust wasn't terrible, or that the Germans are exemplars of martial behavior. Attempted genocide alone makes them pretty bad. But then, Germans in general didn't loot, and didn't ****. According to German military code in WWII, any soldier committing such acts was considered a traitor and must be shot on the spot. That and the high standards of the German military discouraged any such behavior. Again, this does not, in any way make their attempted genocide better, but it does put them a bit better than armies who committ genocide and loot and ****.

UltraDavid

17-10-04, 11:29 PM

There have been worse incidents of genocide. Incidents that actually succeeded or succeeded to a greater extent than that.

Actually, there haven't been. Like I said, and like you continue to ignore, nearly every Jew in the areas Hitler controlled was murdered. More than 6 million Jews died. Never in history has there been a genocide on that scale. That's it. Pretty much the only Jews who survived were just lucky enough to live elsewhere. Since you "think about genocide in terms of people killing people in mass terms," it seems you have to agree with me.

Like you say, anti-Semitism was more common in other countries other than Germany. If Hitler had been born a Russian and not a German, the Russian would have been responsible for the Holocaust. It's not fair that Germans are getting special attention for this when other incidents that were worse aren't getting the same mileage.

But that totally doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that oh, maybe this could have happened if some other thing had happened or not happened. What matters is that the German people were the ones who committed genocide. Of course it's fair that Germans are getting special attention for this. I definitely give attention to the various pogroms and whatnot of the Russians and Poles etc, and I definitely give attention to things like the Turks murdering the Armenians and the genocide in Rwanda, but the German genocide of the Jews is the worst. What matters is that they did do it, not that there was a chance that Poles could have maybe done it.

I don't understand why this is a low blow. Was not Isreal established by taking the Palestinians lands away from them and is not Isreal trying to kill Palestinians? I believe that it is to the Palestinian's credit that they are resisting, though the manner of resistance leaves a great deal to be desired. So young children and elderly are killed. So frigging what? If international behavior regarding killing civilians in what these Palestines consider "total war" is any measure, then that's pretty much middle of the line, isn't it?

Well, no and yes. Israeli territory was obtained mainly through entirely legal purchases of Palestinian land. There were some instances of shady behavior, but it was relatively rare. In fact, there were almost no problems between the Jews and Palestinians in the area until about the 1920s, so there was a good 40 years there where there was peace. It wasn't until some unfortunate Palestinian mob action was riled up by leaders with lots to gain from having an uneducated populace afraid of outsiders that problems began. Since then, you're right, Israel has tried to kill Palestinians, but it's hardly one-sided. Palestinians have killed an awful lot of Israelis as well; I've seen statistics saying that nearly every person in Israel knows someone either first- or secondhand who was killed in a suicide bombing. Today both sides are wholly accountable, neither is the protagonist and neither the antagonist. Undsputed is correct, and I thank him for bringing it up, in saying that this is a low blow because of how different the situations are. Unlike in Germany, the Palestinians are doing their damnedest to kill as many Israelis as possible as well, and there is real and substantial anti-Israeli hatred among them. The same thing can't be said for Jews in the Holocaust. It's also a low blow because you mean it to take focus away from how terrible the Holocaust was by pointing to unrelated modern day transgressions, and I think that's pretty weak.

ScrubHuman2

17-10-04, 11:55 PM

UltraDavid:

Actually, there haven't been. Like I said, and like you continue to ignore, nearly every Jew in the areas Hitler controlled was murdered.

How am I ignoring it? Did I not say that it was a terrible event? Nevertheless, there are still Jews alive today so the genocide was unsuccessful in terms of wiping out the Jews, correct?

I definitely give attention to the various pogroms and whatnot of the Russians and Poles etc, and I definitely give attention to things like the Turks murdering the Armenians and the genocide in Rwanda, but the German genocide of the Jews is the worst. What matters is that they did do it, not that there was a chance that Poles could have maybe done it.

No. I disagree with that. Given that the Poles and Russian had greater anti-Semitic sentiment, I think it's naive to think that if circumstances had been just a little different, the Germans would not have been the ones to commit the Holocaust. Stressing that the Germans were the ones to do it is the mark of one who lives in the past. I use the past to interpret the present and augur the future. In that sense, since Germans were not the most Anti-Semitic, yet they did commit the genocide, it's entirely possible that these other people were just such on a level, and are capable of the same things themselves.

Now I'd like for you to compare the genocide of the Jews to the genocide of Native Americans in terms of relative success regarding number of that people left in the world against the numbers they had before, and especially in terms of how they are in the present and how they will fare in the future.

It's altogether possible that you would still see the Holocaust as being worst, and I wouldn't blame you, since you seem to be Jewish.

There are other instances of genocide in the past, recorded in history both in biblical terms and in archeological terms, as well as in normal history. Whatever happened to the Amalekites or the reisdents of Jericho? The Aztecs, what happened to them? The Aborigines of Australia, what of them? This genocide thing isn't something only the Germans did, and in terms of how the Jews are in the world today(highly successuful in the countries they reside in, owning Israel), I'd say they were miserable failures.

Since then, you're right, Israel has tried to kill Palestinians, but it's hardly one-sided. Palestinians have killed an awful lot of Israelis as well; I've seen statistics saying that nearly every person in Israel knows someone either first- or secondhand who was killed in a suicide bombing. Today both sides are wholly accountable, neither is the protagonist and neither the antagonist. Undsputed is correct, and I thank him for bringing it up, in saying that this is a low blow because of how different the situations are. Unlike in Germany, the Palestinians are doing their damnedest to kill as many Israelis as possible as well, and there is real and substantial anti-Israeli hatred among them. The same thing can't be said for Jews in the Holocaust.

So you're saying the Jews in the Holocaust were better because they didn't have the capability to group together and fight? Or that the Germans were worse because they went about the genocide more efficiently (not allowing the Jews room or morale to fight)?

It's also a low blow because you mean it to take focus away from how terrible the Holocaust was by pointing to unrelated modern day transgressions, and I think that's pretty weak.

You're completely mistaken. I fully agree that the Holocaust was a terrible, terrible event, but I'm not that convinced that it was the number one all time terrible genocide it is being made out to be given that the targets of this genocide are doing very well today in terms of world influence and population, or even some years after WWII. In terms of being a massive civilian massacre, it may have some better merit.

undsputed1

18-10-04, 03:47 PM

It's kinda funny your talking about the "efficiency" of the Germans......I don't know...seems outta place in this context.

KaySeaGee

18-10-04, 04:31 PM

We didn't succeed in wiping out all of the native people of North America, so everything is just dandy:)

mojojojomo

18-10-04, 05:50 PM

I think I’m going to ignore the argument that was going on between me and Scrub. Frankly, it was getting rather stale, and felt about as productive as talking to a wall (rejoice Undy, you have been trumped).

There are very few genocides that can compare with the Holocaust, and none were carried out with the clinical intentionality of the Nazi party. There has been no other event in history that was such a deliberate and successful attempt to wipe out an entire culture. You see, where as Israel is considered the ancestral homeland of the Jews, Mittleurope and the old Eastern bloc was where much of the Jewish intellectual movements found definition.

When Hitler ordered the Final Solution, almost the entirety of this scholarly tradition was expunged on the European continent. Most Jews were driven into the heart of a Stalinist USSR, which itself was certainly no haven for the children of Israel. A lucky few managed to escape to America or Britain, but it signaled the death knell of Jewish intellectualism and culture in Europe itself.

The idea that the Holocaust could have happened somewhere else is probably correct. Anti-Semitism was a central notion to European history, and it doesn't take much digging to reveal numerous pogroms. Indeed, it was even feared that the Doctor's Plot, late in Stalin's rule, would herald a second Holocaust. However, the fact remains that, despite the potential for bloodshed, such a catastrophe didn't happen anywhere other than Germany. In this way, Germany does bear the sole distinction for carrying out the most effective intentional genocide known to man.

Now, loathe am i to belittle the plight of the indigenous populations of America, but I’m afraid the comparison isn't a very good one. The main difference between the two lies in intention. The Holocaust was a deliberate, clinical attempt to wipe out a culture so as to further the interests of a master race. By and large, the tragedies of the Americas were accidental. The majority of the deaths were caused by the introduction of diseases to which Native Americans had no immunity (though there are cases of intentional infection). The survivors were usually rounded up into reservations, but very rarely were they systematically killed once there. Historians estimate that 9million Native Americans died as a result of European contact. How much of that was accidental and how much intentional is impossible to tell, but when you compare it with the calculated cruelty of the Holocaust, which killed over 10million people, including 6million Jews and approximately 1.5million Roma, there is a considerable difference.

The final point I’m going to touch on is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now, normally in these kinds of arguments, I empathize with the Palestinians, but to say that Israel is perpetrating genocide is ludicrous in the extreme, particularly when you specifically define genocide as the total annihilation of a race or culture. You see, being Palestinian is a national, not ethnic, cultural or religious division. For Israel to be genocidal, it would have to be engaged in the systematic eradication of the entire Arabic Middle East, which obviously is not the case. The deaths of 3000ish national Palestinians, out of a population of several million, is hardly on a genocidal scale either.

Glurin

18-10-04, 07:52 PM

Saying that it is "heavy with liberal junk" is an opinion, it is not a fact. You still have to back that statement up, as the only thing I am willing to accept from your remarks is that Kerry's record is indeed liberal. How liberal Kerry is still up for debate, but I think it tells you something when he runs on the platform of fiscal responsibility.

So does just about every single other candadite in every single election, including Bush. Kerry running on that same platform tells me nothing. Face it. It sounds good when campaining.

I don't think it's twisted logic at all. When you have other companies that can complete the job mroe efficiently and quicker and cheaper, that means that you can rebuild Iraq faster with less losses and that means you can get out of Iraq quicker. I'm not saying that taking the contracts themselves is a cause for $$ loss, otherwise nobody would take the contracts, I'm saying that not taking the best contract is a loss of money.

Ok, this is probably a "half-full or half-empty" difference of opinion. Lets say I bought a block of wood for $5 and carved a little statue out of it. A freind offers me $10 for it, and someone else offers $20. For whatever reason, I give it to my freind. Did I lose money? According to you, I lost $10, but I'm actualy ahead $5.

It's oversimplifying everything.

Your just trying to overcomplicate everything.

Actually, no, there's also abstaining. But it doesn't matter, becuase when a person thinks that one part of the bill is good, and the other part is bad, the default is NO.

Abstaining is a NO vote without actualy voteing NO.

Are you ever going to prove it or are you going to continue to condense his 20 year history as a senator into a single vote for a bill whch I've already clarified.

Seriously, man, what is the big picture? Are you talking about Kerry's voting record, or are we talking about something ethereal?

Did you even look at the link I gave you? I'm not condenseing his voting history to a single vote. Your just confusing the issues now.

You make a completely correct point, but you are talking about this country. I believe that the original discussion was on international support if the US ever needs to go smack around some country. Europe and Asia are very liberal right now, with the exception of Italy, Israel, and a few other places which I probably forgot about. When it comes to domestic support, there's nothing this country can do short of JFK or FDR and another World War to unite this country. BUt when it comes to international politics, you would have a better chance of getting allies with a liberal president as opposed to a conservative president. I'm not saying this is absolute, but seeing as how Michael Moore won the Palm d'Or for political reasons, I would think it would be a pretty safe bet to assume that Europeans and Asians would embrace a insanely liberal US president more than a moderately conservative president.

Ehh... Maybe. Support just because your a liberal or conservative is empty, if its not tainted. Frankly, I think it would be very dangerous for Europeans and Asians to just embrace an insanely liberal president just because he's not conservative. Thats not just because of the far left or right issue, but also the "anyone but..." issue. Its a very easy way for very bad people to get into power. Like I said before, I'd much rather that they be for Kerry instead of against Bush.

Are you insulting monkeys and weasels?

Your right. I apologise to the monkeys and weasels out there. These two monkey and weasel lookalikes give monkeys and weasels a bad name. :y-thumbsu

I disagree. That has everything to do with how well they lead. If they have smooth mouths or they can get straight to the point, people will follow them a lot more than a mushmouthed president. That makes them good leaders, but it doens't validate the decisions they make.

Meh. This is probably just a foggy topic. Hitler was an excelent leader in terms of rallying people to his cause and inspireing his followers. You don't even have to speak a word of German to be moved by his speaches. Thats just how good he was at it. But he wasn't so good at being a leader in that he ultimatly led his country to ruin and caused tons of problems all around.

What makes you believe that in the next four years, there wil lbe a clean slate?

Nothing. Just the open possibility if Bush is reelected.

1: Yes. So, are you going to vote for Bush?
2: But surely it factors into your decisions. Otherwise you wouldn't really care.
3: Clinton was a great enough president to be re-elected. And that's what matters.
4: Chances are, if any of the Bush administration tries to run for re-election, the Democratic oppoents will have so much dirt on them that it probably will be a landslide. That means, that smart Republican voters will aim to hit the moderates and the non-sucky people no matter if Kerry is elected or not.
5: If Kerry runs for re-election, and he's either good or bad, it won't matter, the country will still go 50/50. Republicans will hate the fact that he's making Democrat moves and vice versa.
6: Again, with two new people, there's still the flaming division and they'll just dig up dirt on the other guy.

1: Yes, but only because I agree with him more than I do Kerry, not because he's "anyone but Kerry" or because I totaly support everything he does.
2: True, but its a minor factor. Not one I'm basing my decision on.
3: Clinton was good at speaches. He was not a good president. He's even historicly rated as being so-so, and my personal opinion of the man is a little lower than that.
4: Not necessarily. The Democrats have managed to dig up a lot of dirt on the Bush admin already, yet the race is still neck and neck. And its not like Kerry is clean either.
5: Exactly. It means a total of at least 8 more years of this crap instead of the possible limit of 4 if Bush wins. There is an even smaller chance that Kerry won't run for reelection, thus netting the same result, but that chance is significantly smaller than the other.
6: True, the division will still exist, but it will have no old fuel to build on. It will have to run entirely on new fuel. As such, there won't be much fuel to begin with, and as long as whoever is elected doesn't fan the flames, the reletivly small fire thats left will for the most part burn itself out.

First off, military personnel had been warning since 1950 that a ground war in Asia would not turn out well at all for us. (http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...ietnam_war.html) Secondly, we had hoped to achieve limited warfare, as in we go in there, try not to make a ruckus, and then go out. Surgically. It failed miserably and the troops lost mounted up. Thirdly, the lack of troops made a draft necessary. (http://members.fortunecity.com/stal...VietnamWar.html) These factors occurred long before the really vicious antiwar protesting began, these factors started the antiwar protests and the subsequent propoganda-ing of the American people. The war was doomed to begin with. Politics just delivered the finishing blow.

You almost proved my point for me. The only problem is that you've once again confused politics with protests. Maybe if you answer this one question, you'll get a better understanding of what I'm talking about. Why did we try to go with "limited warfare"?

Okay, now besides your opinion, which scenario would the American people approve of?

The politicly correct answer is whatever the idealistic, cute, happy puppies answer is. The real answer is they won't care unless the media decides to draw a lot of attention to it (and then not by much) or if we decide to send troops for whatever reason, which frankly could go either way depending on what spin gets put on it by the media.

And I suppose now I'm in the position of finding sources that disagree with you because you fail to back up your statements with any kind of sources. Let me find some:
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
http://www.us-civilwar.com/cause.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

*sigh* You missed the point entirely. A historians job is to record all the details. Its their job to list every factor in every event. What I'm talking about is NOT listing every factor in what caused the event to happen. What I am talking about is the core issue.

Lets try this. Why did you go to Sizzlers last night? Your answer is because it was only a few miles away, they have good food, you wanted chicken and salad for dinner, you had $15 in your pocket, your freind works there, blah blah blah. But what was the core issue? You were hungry. Thats it. All else is details. When you look at the core issue, you realize "Hey, I can just as easily solve my problem at a McDonalds or a Pizza Hut. Or I could just eat that leftover pasta in the fridge." Thats where the problem is. Its nice that people are looking at the details, but they are doing it to the extent that they get bogged down in them. The core issue is forgotten in favor of the minute.

The world is shades of grey, but black and white both exist as well.

So, what are your opinions on Bush's exit strategy as opposed to Kerry's? So we can get straight down to who would be better to lead our troops out of Iraq.

Based on his statements and actions durring his presidency, Bush's exit strategy is to create a new Iraq government and train Iraqies to police themselves ASAP and bug out. Simple enough, but not much room for a contingency plan or what happens afterwards, and no word on how to go about it. Now the president, being the top man on the ladder, doesn't have to give a lot of details. His job is to tell the lower tier men what to do and then they figure out how to do it. Thats how a hierarchy works. But this plan is a bit too lacking in the details. Simplifying things is both his greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Bush's plan will either work or it won't. Unfortunatly there is no way to tell until several years after its conclusion. The advantage/problem of this plan is that its highly adaptable. Its like if I tell you to bring me a new stove. Its entirely up to you how to go about it, thus its entirely up to you whether its a good deal or not.

Kerry's plan is much the same as Bush's, except that it provides more details. Overall, thats a good thing, but looking through it, it has a distinct feel of being the standard political BS that appears every time an election rolls around. Plus much of whats in it has great potential to get bogged down in the political game.

Kerry's plan seems good on the surface, but once the other factors are considered, it will more than likely put Iraq in a perpetual state of what certain neighboring countries are like now. The problem is that his plan hinges on everyone agreeing on everything, and thats near impossible even when things aren't this divided. The good news is that if it does work, and he gets everyone agreeing on everything, it will work well.

Slay

21-10-04, 01:48 PM

So does just about every single other candadite in every single election, including Bush. Kerry running on that same platform tells me nothing. Face it. It sounds good when campaining.

Bush does not run on a 'cutting taxes and stop spending' rhetoric the way Kerry does. But it doesn't matter, because you say he's very liberal, but a very liberal person wouldn't be going on that kind of rhetoric. And, if you want more proof that he's not so liberal as you think he is, just check out the newest factcheck document:

http://factcheck.org/article284.html

Ok, this is probably a "half-full or half-empty" difference of opinion. Lets say I bought a block of wood for $5 and carved a little statue out of it. A freind offers me $10 for it, and someone else offers $20. For whatever reason, I give it to my freind. Did I lose money? According to you, I lost $10, but I'm actualy ahead $5.

A useless alanogy. You forgot to include two more pertinent pieces of information, that you're heavily in debt and that you have to feed a wife and kids. Then which do you pick?

Abstaining is a NO vote without actualy voteing NO.

That's like saying the 5th Amendment is like confessing your guilt without actually confessing your guilt.

Did you even look at the link I gave you? I'm not condenseing his voting history to a single vote. Your just confusing the issues now.

I looked at the link, but I'm not sure what precisely you want me to look at. He's surely a liberal, I don't think you need to prove that much. How is he a really big liberal? If you want to ask what you're arguing about, let me remind you that you originally said:

You haven't looked at kerry's voting record yet, have you? I have. He is as radical as bush, if not more so.

And you still haven't given me any ****ing proof that he's as radical or mroe radical than Bush.

Ehh... Maybe. Support just because your a liberal or conservative is empty, if its not tainted. Frankly, I think it would be very dangerous for Europeans and Asians to just embrace an insanely liberal president just because he's not conservative. Thats not just because of the far left or right issue, but also the "anyone but..." issue. Its a very easy way for very bad people to get into power. Like I said before, I'd much rather that they be for Kerry instead of against Bush.

I wholly agree with you here. But note that I'm using the 'not Bush' as just one of many qualities of which I like Kerry for. I'm saying, he's not Bush, which can help tremendously in the war on terror due to the extreme liberalism of some countries, but on the other hand, he's not an extremist and rather a moderate so saying that he's not Bush cannot be a bad thing.

Meh. This is probably just a foggy topic. Hitler was an excelent leader in terms of rallying people to his cause and inspireing his followers. You don't even have to speak a word of German to be moved by his speaches. Thats just how good he was at it. But he wasn't so good at being a leader in that he ultimatly led his country to ruin and caused tons of problems all around.

Actually, I would think that running the country into theground would qualify you for being a better leader. Think about it: a leader's prime goal is to motivate people to do things they don't really want to do. How good a of a motivater(sp?) do you have to be to convince people to follow with you when you go on a course of action that probably will drive you into the ground? In that way, you can say that he was both an incredibly gifted leader but also sorely lacking in foresight.

1: Yes, but only because I agree with him more than I do Kerry, not because he's "anyone but Kerry" or because I totaly support everything he does.
2: True, but its a minor factor. Not one I'm basing my decision on.
3: Clinton was good at speaches. He was not a good president. He's even historicly rated as being so-so, and my personal opinion of the man is a little lower than that.

Personal opinion, so I'm not goign to bother with that.

4: Not necessarily. The Democrats have managed to dig up a lot of dirt on the Bush admin already, yet the race is still neck and neck. And its not like Kerry is clean either.

But you fail to realize that parties evolve. Both the democrats and the republicans get smarter as elections progress, and they realize that this election is between two supposed scumbags. You might note that, like CTM said, the Democrats choosed to move towards the middle when they selected John Kerry, instead of the heavily favored Howard Dean. If the republicans ever elect someone from the Bush Administration, you can expect more of the same mudslinging. And if the election goes Kerry's way, like it did Clinton's, I don't think that the Republicans woudl be eager to see another mudslinging contest.

yet the race is still neck and neck.

That's just a testament to the absolute cleverness of the Bush administration in dodging the real issues. The first two anti-Bush books that were written by major political figures in the Bush govt were met by personal attacks and claims that it's an election-year trick. Barf.

5: Exactly. It means a total of at least 8 more years of this crap instead of the possible limit of 4 if Bush wins. There is an even smaller chance that Kerry won't run for reelection, thus netting the same result, but that chance is significantly smaller than the other.

That's crap, and you know it. If Kerry does a crappy job, I'll probably be looking to sing the praises of a Republican candidate.

6: True, the division will still exist, but it will have no old fuel to build on. It will have to run entirely on new fuel. As such, there won't be much fuel to begin with, and as long as whoever is elected doesn't fan the flames, the reletivly small fire thats left will for the most part burn itself out.

THat's utopian thinking. The only way that the fire will burn out is if moderates keep getting elected. And Kerry is the more moderate of the two, based on the simple logic that CTM has already provided. You said otherwise, but you stil lhavent' given me proof.

You almost proved my point for me. The only problem is that you've once again confused politics with protests. Maybe if you answer this one question, you'll get a better understanding of what I'm talking about. Why did we try to go with "limited warfare"?

We went with limited warfare because we didn't want to all-out attack them. But then again, perhaps we vary on our definitions of politics in war. Yours seems to be that politics in war is any time that we aren't being as ruthless as possible to exterminate all the bad guys. Do I even need to say how ridiculous of a policy this is?

The politicly correct answer is whatever the idealistic, cute, happy puppies answer is. The real answer is they won't care unless the media decides to draw a lot of attention to it (and then not by much) or if we decide to send troops for whatever reason, which frankly could go either way depending on what spin gets put on it by the media.

I didn't ask wha the politically correct answer is. I asked what the correct answer is. If you were to poll Americans, how many woudl want to support Iraq and how many would want to support Israel?

*sigh* You missed the point entirely. A historians job is to record all the details. Its their job to list every factor in every event. What I'm talking about is NOT listing every factor in what caused the event to happen. What I am talking about is the core issue.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU ****ING PROVE TO ME THAT STATES' RIGHTS WAS THE CORE ISSUE INSTEAD OF ****ING GOING AGAINST ALL THE EVIDENCE I'VE BROUGHT YOU WITHOUT EXPLAINING ****??

Lets try this. Why did you go to Sizzlers last night? Your answer is because it was only a few miles away, they have good food, you wanted chicken and salad for dinner, you had $15 in your pocket, your freind works there, blah blah blah. But what was the core issue? You were hungry. Thats it. All else is details. When you look at the core issue, you realize "Hey, I can just as easily solve my problem at a McDonalds or a Pizza Hut. Or I could just eat that leftover pasta in the fridge." Thats where the problem is. Its nice that people are looking at the details, but they are doing it to the extent that they get bogged down in them. The core issue is forgotten in favor of the minute.

But why didn't I have Pizza Hut or McDonald's or the pasta in my fridge? I'll tell you why. It's because Sizzlers was only a few miles away, they have good food, I wanted chicken and salad for dinner and I had $15 in your pocket. That's why. The course of action that was taken was due to many complicated issues, solely because one issue does not lead to exactly one possible outcome. If it was just a matter of states' rights, and not slavery, and not economic issues, there would have been many different outcomes that could hve happened. It was the slavery and economic issues that led to the only possible outcome of war. *** marriage is also a states' rights issue, but I don't see people seceding form the union over that.

The world is shades of grey, but black and white both exist as well.

You only see the black and white when you are too blind to see the greys.
-Slay

Slay

21-10-04, 01:49 PM

Bloody hell! My post was yet again too long. Here goes the rest of it:

Based on his statements and actions durring his presidency, Bush's exit strategy is to create a new Iraq government and train Iraqies to police themselves ASAP and bug out. Simple enough, but not much room for a contingency plan or what happens afterwards, and no word on how to go about it. Now the president, being the top man on the ladder, doesn't have to give a lot of details. His job is to tell the lower tier men what to do and then they figure out how to do it. Thats how a hierarchy works. But this plan is a bit too lacking in the details. Simplifying things is both his greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Bush's plan will either work or it won't. Unfortunatly there is no way to tell until several years after its conclusion. The advantage/problem of this plan is that its highly adaptable. Its like if I tell you to bring me a new stove. Its entirely up to you how to go about it, thus its entirely up to you whether its a good deal or not.

Here's the problem with giving too little details, and I'll use the stove example since I think it pretty relevant. You give me $300, and tell me to go get a stove. I go out to the Maytag store and look to buy a stove, but I find that when I get to the store, the best stoves cost at least $350. Now, if I go back to you, and explain the situation, not only are you without stove for a bit longer, but since you haven't done any research on the situation, you'll probably always keep in the back of your mind "Isn't $300 enough?" and you'll be reluctant to give me the extra $50. With all of that in mind, and with the knowledge that a human will naturally stray towards whatever is the most convenient, I may just buy a substandard $300 stove that breaks down 2 months into its use.

Whereas, if I do my research, I can find out that I want a stove with X,Y,Z features, and I know it will cost at least $450. SO I give you $500 and tell you to go wild. That would give much better results than the previous example.

However, there is a flaw in this analogy, like all analogies. The flaw is that a stove store probably wouldn't have a very generous return policy. SO let's assume that the store has a very good return policy. If that's the case, with the $300 stove, you could go return it and try again, hopefulyl with a larger budget so you can get a better stove. However, it's still on a trial and error basis until you do the research and hammer out exactly what you need. Now, with the $450 stove, if you don't like it because of feature Z, you can go out and get a stove for $450 with features X and Y on it. While the choices are lessened, you are able to get a stove that you like a lot quicker.

Kerry's plan is much the same as Bush's, except that it provides more details. Overall, thats a good thing, but looking through it, it has a distinct feel of being the standard political BS that appears every time an election rolls around. Plus much of whats in it has great potential to get bogged down in the political game.

Kerry's plan seems good on the surface, but once the other factors are considered, it will more than likely put Iraq in a perpetual state of what certain neighboring countries are like now.

I am not as naive to deny what you are saying. I will say, however, that a defined plan is a lot better to have than an undefined plan, no matter how flawed that defined plan is*. The simple reason is that the plan is a starting point, from which it can branch off in different directions.

*Of course, when I say this, I mean that we should err on the side of caution. For example, in the ensuing chaos after the war, the US decided not to shoot into crowds. The result was that some US soldiers died, and gang warfare started to ensue. Then, the US decided to shoot everyone who wasn't complying with US military law, and the gang warfare stopped.In retrospect, that was the right move to make, but if we had gone with that original action in the first place, we might have shot someone really important and the entire country would unite to drive us out. This is just a tangent, as evidenced by the asterisk, but it shows how I am not favoring a flawed document that's really hostile.

The problem is that his plan hinges on everyone agreeing on everything, and thats near impossible even when things aren't this divided. The good news is that if it does work, and he gets everyone agreeing on everything, it will work well.

However, this is only the international community that has to agree with the actions taken by the USA. The country will probably remain to be split and we'll keep getting recruits for the war from dumb jocks who don't have anything better to do with their life. That's always been how the military works. The problem is that it's just not enough influx, so it would be best to try and convince international communities to play a part in all of this.
-Slay

Glurin

21-10-04, 07:18 PM

Lets try and cut this down some, shall we?

And, if you want more proof that he's not so liberal as you think he is, just check out the newest factcheck document:

Excuse me, but did I say he was the most liberal person in the senate? Nope. Did I say he was the most liberal person in history? Nope. Did I say he was too liberal. Yep. A factcheck artical disputing the BUSH campain ad's claim that he is the most liberal person in the senate does not debunk MY claim that he is too liberal. Try not to confuse us again.

A useless alanogy. You forgot to include two more pertinent pieces of information, that you're heavily in debt and that you have to feed a wife and kids. Then which do you pick?

Its not an analogy. Its a hypothetical situation to illustrate our difference of opinion on the subject. You view the glass as half empty, I view it as half full.

That's like saying the 5th Amendment is like confessing your guilt without actually confessing your guilt.

It is. It's an important right, but if you refuse to explain evidence linking you to the crime scene, you don't defend your resonable doubt.

he's not an extremist and rather a moderate so saying that

Whoa, if Kerry is anything, its definetly NOT a moderate. He is very firmly in liberal territory. You even admited it yourself and it IS stated in that factcheck document you posted as being such.

That's crap, and you know it. If Kerry does a crappy job, I'll probably be looking to sing the praises of a Republican candidate.

Yeah. If he does a really crappy job, you'll be in line with the republicans. Then again, you seem to think Clinton was a great president. And still others think Bush is a great president. Kerry has to do the kind of job that EVERYBODY thinks is crappy before you'll be voteing for the other guy.

We went with limited warfare because we didn't want to all-out attack them. But then again, perhaps we vary on our definitions of politics in war. Yours seems to be that politics in war is any time that we aren't being as ruthless as possible to exterminate all the bad guys. Do I even need to say how ridiculous of a policy this is?

Sorry dude, but your 100% wrong on my definition of politics.

BTW, your just begging the question. "We went with limited warfare because we wanted to go with limited warfare." Why did we go for "limited warfare"?

I didn't ask wha the politically correct answer is. I asked what the correct answer is. If you were to poll Americans, how many woudl want to support Iraq and how many would want to support Israel?

I gave you the correct answer after I gave you the politically correct answer. They won't care. Unless you give it a ton of constant attention in the media, or more importantly if you send troops over there, I wouldn't doubt that the public wouldn't even know where the two are. In fact even after sending troops, as long as the media didn't go on a crusade to report every single death or injury as front page news, (just like what they are doing now) the public would quickly forget about it for the most part.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU ****ING PROVE TO ME THAT STATES' RIGHTS WAS THE CORE ISSUE INSTEAD OF ****ING GOING AGAINST ALL THE EVIDENCE I'VE BROUGHT YOU WITHOUT EXPLAINING ****??

No. How are you going to learn something if I do it for you? :y-sneaky:

Sum up the civil war for me in three words or less.

But why didn't I have Pizza Hut or McDonald's or the pasta in my fridge? I'll tell you why. It's because Sizzlers was only a few miles away, they have good food, I wanted chicken and salad for dinner and I had $15 in your pocket. That's why. The course of action that was taken was due to many complicated issues, solely because one issue does not lead to exactly one possible outcome. If it was just a matter of states' rights, and not slavery, and not economic issues, there would have been many different outcomes that could hve happened. It was the slavery and economic issues that led to the only possible outcome of war. *** marriage is also a states' rights issue, but I don't see people seceding form the union over that.

The problem is not ignoring the details. On the contrary. Its that you get so immersed in the details that you compleatly miss other options. The thought of Pizza Hut, McDonald's, or leftover pasta didn't even cross your mind.

Oh, and if there is $15 in my pocket, its mine, not yours. You keep your hand out of there. :g tongue:

You only see the black and white when you are too blind to see the greys.

No, that is only one extream. The other is only seeing greys because you are blind to the black and white. What you don't realize is that black and white is what makes grey.

Here's the problem with giving too little details

Don't have to explain it to me. I'm well aware of the problem.

The simple reason is that the plan is a starting point, from which it can branch off in different directions.

Ah, but so is a simple "go buy me a stove" plan. Perhaps a bit more so, due to its increadable adaptability.

However, this is only the international community that has to agree with the actions taken by the USA.

Thats who I was talking about.

we'll keep getting recruits for the war from dumb jocks who don't have anything better to do with their life. That's always been how the military works.

STOP! The "dumb jocks" are the cannon fodder (ie. infantry). If you think thats the only thing the military works on, your dead wrong.

ZergyPoo

22-10-04, 05:34 AM

Actually, there haven't been. Like I said, and like you continue to ignore, nearly every Jew in the areas Hitler controlled was murdered. More than 6 million Jews died. Never in history has there been a genocide on that scale. That's it. Pretty much the only Jews who survived were just lucky enough to live elsewhere. Since you "think about genocide in terms of people killing people in mass terms," it seems you have to agree with me.

No, he doesn't have to agree with you. At the same time that the holocaust was happening, even before the war started, Joseph Stalin had mass killed far more people than Hitler ever did. Stalin ordered the systematic starvation of almost 13 million people in the Ukraine. On top of that he sent millions upon millions of people to starve and die in the Gulags in Siberia, which aren't any nicer than the Nazi Concentration camps. Before world war II, Stalin had committed genocide that had killed over 20 million people.

How is that not worse than killing 6 million?

My point is, the Holocaust is not the worst example of genocide that has taken place, and yet it is still the most taught. I feel that the terrible things that took place in the Stalinist Soviet Union should get just as much, if not more attention than the Holocaust.

This is not even mentioning the things the Japanese did to Indonesia and China... and then later the Cultural revolution in red China. Or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia that was responsible for killing at least a third of the population of the country.

The Holocaust is not the only example of Genocide that took place at that time, nor is it the worst... so no, he does not have to agree with you.

mojojojomo

22-10-04, 12:35 PM

undsputed1

22-10-04, 01:56 PM

I can't say I'm surprised with Zerg's response....

Kingcrazygenius

22-10-04, 02:29 PM

No one gives a **** about the 4-6 million non-Jews who were killed

ZergyPoo

23-10-04, 11:19 AM

None of those are examples of genocide though, but rather the indiscriminate slaughter of anyone who disagreed with the current state of affairs, or anyone who was thought might present a threat in the future.

Just so we're clear, the Holocaust killed between 10-12 million people, of which 6 million were Jews. It was a far greater tragedy than some books would have you believe.

You don't think that starving 13 million Ukrainians to death because they didn't want to move to collectivised farms was not genocide?

In any case, even if you don't accept that both examples are genocide, is the indescriminate killing of 20 million people somehow better than the systematic killion of 10-12 million?

I did not go to high school in the United States, but my Girlfriend did, and she tells me that every year in history class there would be a unit on the Holocaust. I learned about the holocaust once, and about the Cultural Revolution, and the Stalinist purges all equally.

I'm not saying that the Holocaust wasn't a terrible and sickening event, I'm just saying that there are more examples of mass killings that don't get nearly as much attention.

I don't think labelling the Holocaust as "the worst" is helpful in any way. In fact, in some cases it is harmful, as many right wing Zionists use the Holocaust as an excuse to settle on land that they have stolen from other peoples.

I can't say I'm surprised with Zerg's response....

I can't say that I really follow you, undisputed.... If you're inferring that I'm antisemitic, which is completely untrue and unfounded, then just come out and say it instead of being a dumbass.

mojojojomo

23-10-04, 04:14 PM

You don't think that starving 13 million Ukrainians to death because they didn't want to move to collectivised farms was not genocide?

I was under the impression that Stalin starved the Kulaks, many of whom were Ukranian. If this is correct, then it was a more class motivated thing then ethnicity. If i'm wrong, then i apologize.

In any case, even if you don't accept that both examples are genocide, is the indescriminate killing of 20 million people somehow better than the systematic killion of 10-12 million?

There seems to be some misunderstanding between us. I'm not saying that the purges were better than the Holocaust. I was simply pointing out that they were not genocide, as they were largely aimed at enemies of the revolution and not at any specific ethnicity (assuming, of course, i'm right about the kulaks).

undsputed1

23-10-04, 08:50 PM

Kingcrazygenius

23-10-04, 08:53 PM

Explain to me what is right about Israel.

Slay

24-10-04, 06:44 AM

Lets try and cut this down some, shall we?

Why? I love detail. Your fault for arguing with me if you want succinct posts to respond to.

Excuse me, but did I say he was the most liberal person in the senate? Nope. Did I say he was the most liberal person in history? Nope. Did I say he was too liberal. Yep. A factcheck artical disputing the BUSH campain ad's claim that he is the most liberal person in the senate does not debunk MY claim that he is too liberal. Try not to confuse us again.

GIVE ME YOUR ****ING DEFINITION OF TOO LIBERAL RIGHT THE **** NOW.

Its not an analogy. Its a hypothetical situation to illustrate our difference of opinion on the subject. You view the glass as half empty, I view it as half full.

What's your point? I look at the glass that's half empty and say "hey, how can we fill the glass to the top?" while you look at the glass that's half full and say "why bother, it's already half full?"

The president should serve his country to the absolute utmost extent and never, ever cut corners just to give his friends a little boost.

It is. It's an important right, but if you refuse to explain evidence linking you to the crime scene, you don't defend your resonable doubt.

*coughMcCarthyismcough*

Whoa, if Kerry is anything, its definetly NOT a moderate. He is very firmly in liberal territory. You even admited it yourself and it IS stated in that factcheck document you posted as being such.

I didn't say he wasn't a liberal. I said he was a rather moderate liberal, when you compare him to everyone else. ESPECIALLY Bush.

Yeah. If he does a really crappy job, you'll be in line with the republicans. Then again, you seem to think Clinton was a great president. And still others think Bush is a great president. Kerry has to do the kind of job that EVERYBODY thinks is crappy before you'll be voteing for the other guy.

When Clinton's second term was up, I was in seventh grade. I have no idea what Clinton did during his span of presidency. I do know that he was a great enough president to get re-elected, and that's precisely what matters.

All Kerry needs to do to be a crappy president is not reform the healthcare system, not create jobs, and not create a better intelligence community. He promised to do those things, and I have his promises saved in Word on my computer.

Sorry dude, but your 100% wrong on my definition of politics.

Well then, asshole, why don't you get off your high ****ing horse and give me your ****ing definition of politics?

BTW, your just begging the question. "We went with limited warfare because we wanted to go with limited warfare." Why did we go for "limited warfare"?

We went with limited warfare because we didn't want to all-out attack them. That's why.

I gave you the correct answer after I gave you the politically correct answer. They won't care. Unless you give it a ton of constant attention in the media, or more importantly if you send troops over there, I wouldn't doubt that the public wouldn't even know where the two are. In fact even after sending troops, as long as the media didn't go on a crusade to report every single death or injury as front page news, (just like what they are doing now) the public would quickly forget about it for the most part.

Well, I would assume that it's a given that the media will report on the issue. Let's put it like this: The longstanding ally of the United States and most hostile and outspoken country in the world goes on an unprovoked preemptive attack on a longtime enemy of the United States that has recently become a stellar example of a reformed country. The media is completely neutral in this. The public is aware of all the facts. Who do they back if Saddam is still in power? Who do they back if Saddam is not in power?

No. How are you going to learn something if I do it for you? :y-sneaky:

Sum up the civil war for me in three words or less.

Okay, here we go: You're ****ing stupid. Does that answer your question? Complex answers cannot be reduced to simple three-word blurbs no matter how much you want them to be. And all I'm learning from this is it's a great stres relief when I abuse you when you do something really stupid like that.

Now how about you sum up the civil war yourself, asshole?

The problem is not ignoring the details. On the contrary. Its that you get so immersed in the details that you compleatly miss other options. The thought of Pizza Hut, McDonald's, or leftover pasta didn't even cross your mind.

Did you completely ignore the options, or did you subconsciously eliminate the otions?

No, that is only one extream. The other is only seeing greys because you are blind to the black and white. What you don't realize is that black and white is what makes grey.

You're a fool. Black and white only mke greys in a color sense. If your analogy can be translated, care to explain to me why fanatical Zionism (white) and fanatical Palestinian nationalism (black) failed to create a workable road map to peace (grey)? In the real world, the greys make the black and white. And the black and white is for stupid people.

Don't have to explain it to me. I'm well aware of the problem.

Then why the **** aren't you trying to fix it? When you recognize a problem with an idea, you don't just give up after recognizing it, you actively try to fix it. How the **** do you aim to fix the problem then?

Ah, but so is a simple "go buy me a stove" plan. Perhaps a bit more so, due to its increadable adaptability.

While both plans ar hit-or-miss, it is a logical conclusion for the increased details plan to hit a lot more than it will miss, whereas with your plan, if there are 50 stoves out there and 2 stoves that have the features you want, you will have to return probably 24 stoves before you find the one that you want. Bottom line, increased details makes it a far superior plan.

Thats who I was talking about.

Then what are you talking about? The international community isn't divided: It's the US and Israel vs. the world! If we just played towards Europe's ideals and Asia's ideals, we would have a lot more friends an a lot more people willing to help us in a time of crisis.

STOP! The "dumb jocks" are the cannon fodder (ie. infantry). If you think thats the only thing the military works on, your dead wrong.

If you knew anything about the military, you'd realize that more cannon fodder is precisely what we need in Iraq.
-Slay

undsputed1

24-10-04, 07:05 AM

"If you knew anything about the military, you'd realize that more cannon fodder is precisely what we need in Iraq."

Again people want to prtend like Iraq is some terrible war when it's really not. No, it's not another Vietnam. It is nothing like that at all. More people probably died in traffic accidents in California alone then did in Iraq.

ZergyPoo

24-10-04, 08:05 AM

"I can't say that I really follow you, undisputed.... If you're inferring that I'm antisemitic, which is completely untrue and unfounded, then just come out and say it instead of being a dumbass."

Let's just say that your opinions are pretty much agains the country of Israel on an almost consistent basis. So, is it that they are always wrong, or is it that your views have somewhat of a....slant?

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated again that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have never expressed being "against the country of Israel." I have never expressed that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

What I have expressed on a consistent basis is criticism of their action in the occupied Palestinian territories.

I was under the impression that Stalin starved the Kulaks, many of whom were Ukranian. If this is correct, then it was a more class motivated thing then ethnicity. If i'm wrong, then i apologize.

You're right that the Kulaks were targetted quite a bit during the Stalinist purges, but it was in the Ukraine where Stalin starved 13 million people to death mainly for giving him trouble about collectivisation.

I mean, yes, according to the definition of genocide, this might not count, but I don't feel that it makes it any better than the Holocaust.

Glurin

24-10-04, 03:44 PM

Slay, when you have to take up two posts for one reply, your post is too long. Thats why I say cut it down some.

GIVE ME YOUR ****ING DEFINITION OF TOO LIBERAL RIGHT THE **** NOW.

Anything more than very slightly left of exact center. Before you try an say it, at best Kerry is center liberal, not slightly left of center.

The president should serve his country to the absolute utmost extent and never, ever cut corners just to give his friends a little boost.

Hmm. And how is he doing that by giveing the contracts to rebuild Iraq to OTHER COUNTRIES? Seems to me that if he was really going to "serve his country to the absolute utmost extent", he'd keep the contracts for his country alone.

I didn't say he wasn't a liberal. I said he was a rather moderate liberal, when you compare him to everyone else. ESPECIALLY Bush.

Er, how is that supposed to work? You compair a liberal to a conservative, you get a liberal. What else are you supposed to get? And when you compair Kerry to an extream liberal, of course Kerry appears moderate. Don't be fooled by the illusion of such comparisons though.

I do know that he was a great enough president to get re-elected, and that's precisely what matters.

NO IT DOES NOT! Clinton was a good speaker. He was NOT a great president. Getting re-elected does NOT mean any president was a great president.

All Kerry needs to do to be a crappy president is not reform the healthcare system, not create jobs, and not create a better intelligence community. He promised to do those things, and I have his promises saved in Word on my computer.

Wrong. Failing to come through on your campain promises is not the only condition to being a crappy president. Plus all he has to do is create the illusion that he's done those thing (ie. short term bandaid solutions) and you and about half the rest of the country will think he's a great president. Its been done many times before.

Well then, asshole, why don't you get off your high ****ing horse and give me your ****ing definition of politics?

pol·i·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-tks)
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
2. Political science.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: “All politics is local” (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). “Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night” (Jeffrey Archer).
2. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

We went with limited warfare because we didn't want to all-out attack them. That's why.

:g shake: They could stick that answer in a textbook on logical falacies.

Why did we go with limited warfare?

Well, I would assume that it's a given that the media will report on the issue. Let's put it like this: The longstanding ally of the United States and most hostile and outspoken country in the world goes on an unprovoked preemptive attack on a longtime enemy of the United States that has recently become a stellar example of a reformed country. The media is completely neutral in this. The public is aware of all the facts. Who do they back if Saddam is still in power? Who do they back if Saddam is not in power?

With the media neutral on the topic, it gets burried in the middle of the paper. The public will thus not be aware of all the facts if they are aware of the situation at all. (Actualy, it could be argued that they are never aware of all the facts on anything, regardless of the media's standpoint.)

I know where your trying to go with this, but public opinion isn't quite as simple as the surface makes it out to be. There are multiple levels to it, which is why there is the politicly correct answer (which is the one your seeking), and the real answer (which is what you want it to be, but it isn't).

Okay, here we go: You're ****ing stupid. Does that answer your question? Complex answers cannot be reduced to simple three-word blurbs no matter how much you want them to be. And all I'm learning from this is it's a great stres relief when I abuse you when you do something really stupid like that.

I don't care if you think it can or can't be done, I want you to do it. Consider it a classwork excersize.

Did you completely ignore the options, or did you subconsciously eliminate the otions?

Its subconscious ignoring of the other options. (Note: not "elimination") Another word for it is "tunnel vision." You focus on the details so much that other options are outside your view.

You're a fool. Black and white only mke greys in a color sense. If your analogy can be translated, care to explain to me why fanatical Zionism (white) and fanatical Palestinian nationalism (black) failed to create a workable road map to peace (grey)? In the real world, the greys make the black and white. And the black and white is for stupid people.

Because the fanatics are can only see black or white. It takes an artist and/or time to mix the paints and create grey.

Then why the **** aren't you trying to fix it? When you recognize a problem with an idea, you don't just give up after recognizing it, you actively try to fix it. How the **** do you aim to fix the problem then?

Sorry dude. Its not my plan, nor am I in any position to offer solutions. And in any case, that problem is an inherent problem to this style of plan. There is no way to fix it without losing the benifits of this style as well.

While both plans ar hit-or-miss, it is a logical conclusion for the increased details plan to hit a lot more than it will miss, whereas with your plan, if there are 50 stoves out there and 2 stoves that have the features you want, you will have to return probably 24 stoves before you find the one that you want. Bottom line, increased details makes it a far superior plan.

Again, not my plan. Also, whether a plan hits or misses is entirely dependant on what you will accept, not just the ideal outcome. Two of the stoves may be perfect, but I might also accept 20 or 30 other stoves.

Then what are you talking about? The international community isn't divided: It's the US and Israel vs. the world!

Well thats quite the distortion. To keep it proportional you'd have to have "the world" equal France, Germany, and Iraq.

If we just played towards Europe's ideals and Asia's ideals, we would have a lot more friends an a lot more people willing to help us in a time of crisis.

Thats just sickening. "Lets just be 'yes men' and so we can make friends." :g shake:

If you knew anything about the military, you'd realize that more cannon fodder is precisely what we need in Iraq.

Not really. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as the media and most Kerry followers would have you believe. We don't really need more just to replace what relatively few casualties we've had. Mainly whats needed is troops to trade out the ones that are already there. We won't even need that much if we can get Iraq policeing itself sometime soon. All we are really doing over there right now is acting as a temporary police force.

ScrubHuman2

25-10-04, 09:20 PM

mojojojomo:

Well, on the one hand we have mass killing of massive amounts of civilians and on the other hand we have elimination of a certain ethnicity of people. If we choose to view the Holocaust as a mass killing of people, it is not the worst because more people have bene killed by other agencies, and if we view it as a means to eradicate Jews, then again, it is not the worst, because Jews are still around in the millions today, in contrast to other genocidal attempts and successes. Any way you wish to view the event, the Holocaust is by no means the worst unless you're just ignorant of all those other things happening in other portions of the world.

In fact, while the Holocaust is pretty darned horrifying, I have not been access to any kind of data that tells me that this is by far the worst event to have happened in world history. Not at all.

Anyone who tells me otherwise tends to have a vested interest, is ignorant of whole stretches of world history, or somehow just seems to think that Jews are somehow more important than other people are. I can forgive the first and the second, but not the third. If you can provide me concrete data that impresses me about how bad the Holocaust is relatively speaking, then you'd be a first.

mojojojomo

25-10-04, 09:37 PM

Are you stupid or just mind boggling persistant? I've already conceded that it wasn't the worst 'mass killing', in purely human terms, and i may even go as far to say it wasn't the most successful genocide. However, the fact that it took in a supposedly enlightened era and was so systematic and deliberate puts it right up there, not to mention it led to the the third highest death toll ever recorded. As Ultradavid pointed out, the Jewish population is still in the negative in net terms, as is that of the Roma.

Let me put it simply, a deliberate attempted genocide that kills 10 million people (as well as expunging a culture in a region) is worse than a successful one that kills 10 000.

ScrubHuman2

25-10-04, 10:36 PM

mojojojomo:

Let me put it simply, a deliberate attempted genocide that kills 10 million people (as well as expunging a culture in a region) is worse than a successful one that kills 10 000.

And again, we simply disagree. Just because you believe it doesn't make it right or a fact. And again (as I said), we have here a valuation of Jew life and culture as being more important for some reason than other people's culture.

Whether a culture is of 10 million or of 10 thousand, killing every last person of that culture kills that culture equally well. Likewise, a genocide that leaves other groups of similar blood or race in the world is less successful than one which does not. Seems simple, but I guess it's not the same for everyone. Apparently, Jews are more important.

Therefore, for me, an attempted genocide that kills 10 million Jews and takes away a portion of their culture but leaves 2 million still alive and in good positions is better than a genocide that kills every last one of 10 thousand of a people and eradicating every trace of their culture.

Is killing the last Peregrine Falcon better than killing all the roans or half of 10 million cows?

As I said, apparently, some people are more important than others.

Glurin

25-10-04, 10:50 PM

As I said, apparently, some people are more important than others.

Sure looks that way Scrub.

"Therefore, for me, an attempted genocide that kills 10 million Jews and takes away a portion of their culture but leaves 2 million still alive and in good positions is better than a genocide that kills every last one of 10 thousand of a people and eradicating every trace of their culture."

Translation: 10,000,000 < 10,000

You might want to be carefull with the accusations your throwing at mojo right now.

ScrubHuman2

25-10-04, 11:29 PM

Glurin:

Translation: 10,000,000 < 10,000

That's a very bad translation, Glurin. You should pay more attention to either what I'm saying or to your English lessons.

What I said was:

90% extermination < 100% extermination

and I challenge you to say otherwise.

Glurin

26-10-04, 03:47 PM

Bad translation huh.

You've got 10,000,000 people on one side, and 10,000 on the other, and you claim that its better to kill 10,000,000 than 10,000 as long as you don't kill ALL of their culture. Then you hurl accusations at mojo about valueing some people more than others.

There is a word for that, and I'm sure you know what it is.

Slay

28-10-04, 03:53 PM

Slay, when you have to take up two posts for one reply, your post is too long. Thats why I say cut it down some.

Hey, that was a lot of fun!

Anything more than very slightly left of exact center. Before you try an say it, at best Kerry is center liberal, not slightly left of center.

Okay, so now that we have your incredibly strict definition of 'too liberal' which would probably include about 90% of all the liberals in the world, care to explain to me how Kerry is more radical than Bush?

Hmm. And how is he doing that by giveing the contracts to rebuild Iraq to OTHER COUNTRIES? Seems to me that if he was really going to "serve his country to the absolute utmost extent", he'd keep the contracts for his country alone.

I've answered this already. Giving contracts to the best man ensures that the job gets there faster, more efficiently, and enables you to get out of Iraq quicker with less damage done to Iraq that you have to repair, less damage to your troops, and a more solid infrastructure. The money that you save that goes back into the American economy is kind of moot when you consider that you could have saved billions of dollars by being in Iraq for less time. Notice how I say 'could' because I am not an economist, but I am logical, and cutting off a very important option to have is downright foolhardy.

Er, how is that supposed to work? You compair a liberal to a conservative, you get a liberal. What else are you supposed to get? And when you compair Kerry to an extream liberal, of course Kerry appears moderate. Don't be fooled by the illusion of such comparisons though.

Actually, what I'm doing is comparing Howard Dean to Bush, noticing the similarities in rhetoric and positions, and looking at John Kerry, and saying "wow, he's a lot less extremist than a lot of other people out there"

NO IT DOES NOT! Clinton was a good speaker. He was NOT a great president. Getting re-elected does NOT mean any president was a great president.

Clinton was a great president. He may or may not have been a good president. To be good is not a requirement for being great, only in a utopia would that be true. I already think of Bush as a great president, even though I also think of him as the worst thing to ever happen to American politics since Johnson. I've thought that since the midterm elections, when the Republicans pulled an outright coup purely because of Bush's campaigning for them. And how Bush transformed two fantastic failures of intelligence and action(three if you count NK getting nukes) into the right decision, skirting the issue while reinforcing his patriotism. Bush is ridiculously skilled at leading, he's just sucky at doing the right thing.

Considering the rather large amount of undecideds in this election, if Bush sways them, he's a great president, if not, he goes the way of Dean in being someone who can't hide the fact that he's deep down an extremist and people prefer a more moderate solution.

Wrong. Failing to come through on your campain promises is not the only condition to being a crappy president. Plus all he has to do is create the illusion that he's done those thing (ie. short term bandaid solutions) and you and about half the rest of the country will think he's a great president. Its been done many times before.

I'll think he's a great president too if he can pull it off. I just wouldn't vote for him.

pol·i·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-tks)
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
2. Political science.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: “All politics is local” (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). “Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night” (Jeffrey Archer).
2. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

You're an idiot. I didn't ask for the dictionary definition of politics, I asked for YOUR definition of politics. And one that explains why the war in Vietnam would have succeeded had there not been any of the 'politics' involved.

:g shake: They could stick that answer in a textbook on logical falacies.

Why did we go with limited warfare?

*sigh* We've been through this. I stated why an allout attack wouldn't be effective in my original point on the issue, because a general said it would be a bad idea. Thus, the idea was to be like a surgical strike. You ask me things that supercede the knowledge of anyone who hasn't been to West Point yet. You want to explain why we didn't do an all-out attack, be my guest. But so far, your meager, cryptic answers are far less compelling than a general's expert opinion.

With the media neutral on the topic, it gets burried in the middle of the paper. The public will thus not be aware of all the facts if they are aware of the situation at all. (Actualy, it could be argued that they are never aware of all the facts on anything, regardless of the media's standpoint.)

I know where your trying to go with this, but public opinion isn't quite as simple as the surface makes it out to be. There are multiple levels to it, which is why there is the politicly correct answer (which is the one your seeking), and the real answer (which is what you want it to be, but it isn't).

Actually you probably have no idea where I am going with this, because it was a pretty cryptic analogy in and of itself added to the fact that we got bogged down in unnecessary details. So let's get down to the real issue: Does the world hate America, or does the world hate George Bush?

I don't care if you think it can or can't be done, I want you to do it. Consider it a classwork excersize.

Consider my refusal to do this a clear message for you to shut the **** up and stop patronizing my ass.

Its subconscious ignoring of the other options. (Note: not "elimination") Another word for it is "tunnel vision." You focus on the details so much that other options are outside your view.

Who are you to talk to me about tunnelvision when the original argument was on you adamently stating that the only cause for the Civil War was states' rights, and everythign else was details. Hypocrite.

Because the fanatics are can only see black or white. It takes an artist and/or time to mix the paints and create grey.

Again, you're a fool. I didn't say anything about the fanatics, I said only the beliefs which they believe in. If you are unable to incorporate extreme ZionISM and extreme Palestinian nationalISM into a workable roadmap, you have failed to mix white and black into grey. It's simply that easy. White and Black simply create more white and black, and incorporating them into the solution doesnt' create a solution by the people that lean towards the shades of grey.

Sorry dude. Its not my plan, nor am I in any position to offer solutions. And in any case, that problem is an inherent problem to this style of plan. There is no way to fix it without losing the benifits of this style as well.

Ahem. The problem we are talking about is too little details, and the answer is pretty clear: you vote for Kerry, because he's got the plan with more details.

Again, not my plan. Also, whether a plan hits or misses is entirely dependant on what you will accept, not just the ideal outcome. Two of the stoves may be perfect, but I might also accept 20 or 30 other stoves.

If you are willing to accept a subpar result when you are nation-building, you are a fool, and a rather un-humanistic one at that.

Thats just sickening. "Lets just be 'yes men' and so we can make friends." :g shake:

You're an idiot. Did I ever suggest being a yes-man? Did I? Ever? Or did I suggest that we don't completely isolate Europe and Asia, by doing what they want us to do in terms of a limited amount of policy changes, most notably in policy about Israel and policy about pre-emptive strikes. In return, they back us up if we ever need them. There's a fine line between sycophancy and diplomacy, and if you can't see that I'm firmly on one side of the line, you're a bigger fool than I thought(tough to do, I might add).

Not really. Iraq isn't nearly as bad as the media and most Kerry followers would have you believe. We don't really need more just to replace what relatively few casualties we've had. Mainly whats needed is troops to trade out the ones that are already there.

While that's probably true ('probably' indicating that since there is no record that I am aware of where Kerry has told us precisely how bad the war is and be overexaggerating), more troops means we can keep things under control longer, even if thigns have to become a military state for a short while, I would argue that if it creates a democracy considerably faster than the way we're working now, it would be worth it.

Of course, the opinion above may be wrong, since I'm nto a military analyst. But the fact is, you agree that we need more troops, because you say we need more replacement troops. Either way, we need more troops.

We won't even need that much if we can get Iraq policeing itself sometime soon. All we are really doing over there right now is acting as a temporary police force.

That's pretty much true.
-Slay

Slay

28-10-04, 03:55 PM

Too long again.

Well thats quite the distortion. To keep it proportional you'd have to have "the world" equal France, Germany, and Iraq.

Let's tak a look at some UN votes. I've taken the last 20 votes on Israel from the General Assembly of the United Nations and condensed them to show you how lopsided things are:

1.
Title: Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/15
Voting Date: 20040720
Voting Summary: Yes: 150, No: 6, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 25, Total voting membership: 191

2.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/229
Voting Date: 20031223
Voting Summary: Yes: 157, No: 4, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 20, Total voting membership: 191

3.
Title: The occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/100
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 163, No: 1, Abstentions: 11, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

4.
Title: Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/99
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 150, No: 6, Abstentions: 19, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

5.
Title: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/98
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 156, No: 6, Abstentions: 13, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

6.
Title: Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/97
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 164, No: 6, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 17, Total voting membership: 191

7.
Title: Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/96
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 87, No: 7, Abstentions: 78, Non-Voting: 19, Total voting membership: 191

8.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/14
Voting Date: 20031208
Voting Summary: Yes: 90, No: 8, Abstentions: 74, Non-Voting: 19, Total voting membership: 191

9.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/13
Voting Date: 20031021
Voting Summary: Yes: 144, No: 4, Abstentions: 12, Non-Voting: 31, Total voting membership: 191

10.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/12
Voting Date: 20030919
Voting Summary: Yes: 133, No: 4, Abstentions: 15, Non-Voting: 39, Total voting membership: 191

11.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/269
Voting Date: 20021220
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 4, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 28, Total voting membership: 191

12.
Title: Occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/128
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 1, Abstentions: 9, Non-Voting: 26, Total voting membership: 191

13.
Title: Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/127
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 148, No: 6, Abstentions: 6, Non-Voting: 31, Total voting membership: 191

14.
Title: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/126
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 154, No: 6, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 28, Total voting membership: 191

15.
Title: Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/125
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 6, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 27, Total voting membership: 191

16.
Title: Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/124
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 86, No: 6, Abstentions: 66, Non-Voting: 33, Total voting membership: 191

17.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/11
Voting Date: 20020805
Voting Summary: Yes: 114, No: 4, Abstentions: 11, Non-Voting: 60, Total voting membership: 189

18.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/10
Voting Date: 20020507
Voting Summary: Yes: 74, No: 4, Abstentions: 54, Non-Voting: 57, Total voting membership: 189

19.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/56/204
Voting Date: 20011221
Voting Summary: Yes: 148, No: 4, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 33, Total voting membership: 189

20.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/9
Voting Date: 20011220
Voting Summary: Yes: 133, No: 4, Abstentions: 16, Non-Voting: 36, Total voting membership: 189

Guess who the constant members of the 1-7 No votes are?
-Slay

HolyCreep

28-10-04, 04:49 PM

Just in case some Americans still don't understand why they are attacked on 911 2001, what slay listed is THE REASON. I am not saying the hijackers did the right thing. But your got to understand the emotions and motives. The "they envy our freedom and wealth" BS is arrogant and ignorant and will result in more attacks.

1.
Title: Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/15
Voting Date: 20040720
Voting Summary: Yes: 150, No: 6, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 25, Total voting membership: 191

2.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/229
Voting Date: 20031223
Voting Summary: Yes: 157, No: 4, Abstentions: 10, Non-Voting: 20, Total voting membership: 191

3.
Title: The occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/100
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 163, No: 1, Abstentions: 11, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

4.
Title: Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/99
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 150, No: 6, Abstentions: 19, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

5.
Title: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/98
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 156, No: 6, Abstentions: 13, Non-Voting: 16, Total voting membership: 191

6.
Title: Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/97
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 164, No: 6, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 17, Total voting membership: 191

7.
Title: Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/58/96
Voting Date: 20031209
Voting Summary: Yes: 87, No: 7, Abstentions: 78, Non-Voting: 19, Total voting membership: 191

8.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/14
Voting Date: 20031208
Voting Summary: Yes: 90, No: 8, Abstentions: 74, Non-Voting: 19, Total voting membership: 191

9.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/13
Voting Date: 20031021
Voting Summary: Yes: 144, No: 4, Abstentions: 12, Non-Voting: 31, Total voting membership: 191

10.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/12
Voting Date: 20030919
Voting Summary: Yes: 133, No: 4, Abstentions: 15, Non-Voting: 39, Total voting membership: 191

11.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/269
Voting Date: 20021220
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 4, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 28, Total voting membership: 191

12.
Title: Occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/128
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 1, Abstentions: 9, Non-Voting: 26, Total voting membership: 191

13.
Title: Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/127
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 148, No: 6, Abstentions: 6, Non-Voting: 31, Total voting membership: 191

14.
Title: Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/126
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 154, No: 6, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 28, Total voting membership: 191

15.
Title: Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/125
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 155, No: 6, Abstentions: 3, Non-Voting: 27, Total voting membership: 191

16.
Title: Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/57/124
Voting Date: 20021211
Voting Summary: Yes: 86, No: 6, Abstentions: 66, Non-Voting: 33, Total voting membership: 191

17.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/11
Voting Date: 20020805
Voting Summary: Yes: 114, No: 4, Abstentions: 11, Non-Voting: 60, Total voting membership: 189

18.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/10
Voting Date: 20020507
Voting Summary: Yes: 74, No: 4, Abstentions: 54, Non-Voting: 57, Total voting membership: 189

19.
Title: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/56/204
Voting Date: 20011221
Voting Summary: Yes: 148, No: 4, Abstentions: 4, Non-Voting: 33, Total voting membership: 189

20.
Title: Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly
UN Resolution Symbol: A/RES/ES-10/9
Voting Date: 20011220
Voting Summary: Yes: 133, No: 4, Abstentions: 16, Non-Voting: 36, Total voting membership: 189

Glurin

28-10-04, 07:07 PM

Okay, so now that we have your incredibly strict definition of 'too liberal' which would probably include about 90% of all the liberals in the world, care to explain to me how Kerry is more radical than Bush?

Again, have you looked at his voting record?

I've answered this already. Giving contracts to the best man ensures that the job gets there faster, more efficiently, and enables you to get out of Iraq quicker with less damage done to Iraq that you have to repair, less damage to your troops, and a more solid infrastructure. The money that you save that goes back into the American economy is kind of moot when you consider that you could have saved billions of dollars by being in Iraq for less time. Notice how I say 'could' because I am not an economist, but I am logical, and cutting off a very important option to have is downright foolhardy.

So instead of getting something out of it, you'd rather get nothing by giveing the job to other countries? Less than nothing actualy, since the initial investment had already been made at that point. The money isn't just saved, its used to stimulate the economy and get it moveing again. By giveing the job to other countries, there is no stimulation and all you have is costs. And besides that, who are you to say those American companies arn't the best man? And then there is the whole thing about those other countries being against the war in the first place. Why should they benifit at all from it?

Actually, what I'm doing is comparing Howard Dean to Bush, noticing the similarities in rhetoric and positions, and looking at John Kerry, and saying "wow, he's a lot less extremist than a lot of other people out there"

Don't be fooled by what Kerry says. He's good at makeing himself sound moderate in his speaches. Its still all rhetoric though. "Increase taxes on the 'rich'" anyone?

You're an idiot. I didn't ask for the dictionary definition of politics, I asked for YOUR definition of politics. And one that explains why the war in Vietnam would have succeeded had there not been any of the 'politics' involved.

You asked for my definition of politics, I gave it to you, and you call me an idiot for doing it. What more do you want from me?

*sigh* We've been through this. I stated why an allout attack wouldn't be effective in my original point on the issue, because a general said it would be a bad idea. Thus, the idea was to be like a surgical strike. You ask me things that supercede the knowledge of anyone who hasn't been to West Point yet. You want to explain why we didn't do an all-out attack, be my guest. But so far, your meager, cryptic answers are far less compelling than a general's expert opinion.

Its a simple enough question. Why? I've already given you my answer. All you've given me so far is whats known as Begging the Question (ie. answering the question with the same question). No, the answer doesn't require you to go to West Point to know.

Actually you probably have no idea where I am going with this, because it was a pretty cryptic analogy in and of itself added to the fact that we got bogged down in unnecessary details. So let's get down to the real issue: Does the world hate America, or does the world hate George Bush?

Yep.

Who are you to talk to me about tunnelvision when the original argument was on you adamently stating that the only cause for the Civil War was states' rights, and everythign else was details.

Because while it is my position that the Civil War was a dispute over states rights I am also aware of the details and do not discount them. On the contrary. They re-enforce the core. Thats the link you seem to be missing.

Again, you're a fool. I didn't say anything about the fanatics, I said only the beliefs which they believe in. If you are unable to incorporate extreme ZionISM and extreme Palestinian nationalISM into a workable roadmap, you have failed to mix white and black into grey. It's simply that easy. White and Black simply create more white and black, and incorporating them into the solution doesnt' create a solution by the people that lean towards the shades of grey.

Didn't say anything about fanatics huh.

"fanatical Zionism (white) and fanatical Palestinian nationalism (black)"

Ahem. The problem we are talking about is too little details, and the answer is pretty clear: you vote for Kerry, because he's got the plan with more details.

No, the answer is not that clear, and thats not an answer anyway. More details != better plan. Nor does different plan = better plan. Nor does different person = better plan. Someone plans to get a new stove and that is preaty much it for the plan. Would you go with someone elses plan to steal a stove from a highly gaurded FBI warehouse just because it has a few more details?

If you are willing to accept a subpar result when you are nation-building, you are a fool, and a rather un-humanistic one at that.

And you are an idealistic fool if you would accept nothing but perfection.

While that's probably true ('probably' indicating that since there is no record that I am aware of where Kerry has told us precisely how bad the war is and be overexaggerating), more troops means we can keep things under control longer, even if thigns have to become a military state for a short while, I would argue that if it creates a democracy considerably faster than the way we're working now, it would be worth it.

We don't want to keep things under control longer. We want to turn over control ASAP. Problem is, we are at a peak on the diminishing returns scale right now. The insergents won't simply surrender because we flew over a few hundred more guys. What needs to happen is training the Iraqies and getting elections going ASAP so that we can leave. Its just going to take time. As one of my professors liked to say, "One woman can have a baby in nine months, but nine women cannot have a baby in one month."

Of course, the opinion above may be wrong, since I'm nto a military analyst. But the fact is, you agree that we need more troops, because you say we need more replacement troops. Either way, we need more troops.

Yeah, more troops. Not more cannon fodder.

Lejond

28-10-04, 08:19 PM

mojojojomo:

And again, we simply disagree. Just because you believe it doesn't make it right or a fact. And again (as I said), we have here a valuation of Jew life and culture as being more important for some reason than other people's culture.

Whether a culture is of 10 million or of 10 thousand, killing every last person of that culture kills that culture equally well. Likewise, a genocide that leaves other groups of similar blood or race in the world is less successful than one which does not. Seems simple, but I guess it's not the same for everyone. Apparently, Jews are more important.

Therefore, for me, an attempted genocide that kills 10 million Jews and takes away a portion of their culture but leaves 2 million still alive and in good positions is better than a genocide that kills every last one of 10 thousand of a people and eradicating every trace of their culture.

Is killing the last Peregrine Falcon better than killing all the roans or half of 10 million cows?

As I said, apparently, some people are more important than others.

So if I kill 1.2 billion Indians and 1.3 billion Chinese and about 25 million Jews (thats how many there are right?). Killing the Jews was the bigger crime?

ScrubHuman2

29-10-04, 02:50 AM

In terms of the crime of genocide, possibly. In terms of the crime of killing civilians, obviously not, though some people may qualify that depending on how you killed each person in each group.

Even if you left a substantial portion of the Chinese and Indian peoples alive, if they subsequently die off because of the magnitude of the massacres, then they are just as dead as the Jews.

HolyCreep

29-10-04, 06:31 AM

This "killing civilians is wrong" thing is total BS invented (or at least proliferated) by the US after WW2. In a total war, let it be the Troy war or the Pearl Harbour, it is one entire nation against another. You can say everybody is a soldier.

Right now, that is the situation in Palestine. The suicide bombers are soldiers. The so-called "Jewish civilians" should not be surprise to be attacked, since Isreal not only send troops to attack Palestine everyday, but also let the settlers to reside on Palestine lands permanently. Just imagine China is so strong that it occupies the west coast of the US, would you classify Americans who blow themselves up in either Beijing or the new settlements as terriorsts?

undsputed1

31-10-04, 07:41 AM

"Congratulations, you've just demonstrated again that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have never expressed being "against the country of Israel." I have never expressed that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

What I have expressed on a consistent basis is criticism of their action in the occupied Palestinian territories."

Let's put it this way.....you talk about them much like I've talked about France on this board :) Maybe you just don't know your doing it, which is a realistic possibility.

"Ahem. The problem we are talking about is too little details, and the answer is pretty clear: you vote for Kerry, because he's got the plan with more details."

We listening to the same guy? Bush is the only one with an answer, whether it is the correct one or not. Kerry has failed to clearly state his position in the minds of a lof of people, and that is one reason he will most likely lose. He's demonstrated a willingness to be "flexible" on his beliefs, which basically means he did what was needed to get votes at different times in his career. If that meant voting for the Iraq war, he did it. If that meant saying the Iraq was was bad, hey....he did that too. It's like they tell you in school Slay, you take a position and defend it. You don't fail to take a stance on many major issues, especially terrorism, the most critical issue in the minds of the majority of voters.

"Just in case some Americans still don't understand why they are attacked on 911 2001, what slay listed is THE REASON. I am not saying the hijackers did the right thing. But your got to understand the emotions and motives. The "they envy our freedom and wealth" BS is arrogant and ignorant and will result in more attacks."

Actually, what you need to undenrstand are the problems within Islam right now. There is a rather significant portion of it, more so than extreme Christians or otherwise, that are truly brainwashed into believieng they are obtaining rewards by killing people. It isn't because the US voted in favor of Israel at the UN.....if you want to fix the problem, then it will have to be fixed by other Muslims. They need to take more control and responsibility over their religion. Christinaity once had that exact same problem, but we became more educated and reasonable eventually....

But now that you mention it, they do envy the wealth of the west to some degree. How many wealthy nations do you see suicide bomibng Iran? What's that.....none? Yep. Poverty clears the way for ignorance to win out in a lot of cases. It happened in WW2, didn't it? You tell some guy he can get women....70 something virgins in fact....it must sound pretty good.

Regardless, if the US didn't defend Israel as it does, they would have been unfairly and bloodily removed from their land. Of course, historically, it was their land to begin with....

"Right now, that is the situation in Palestine. The suicide bombers are soldiers. The so-called "Jewish civilians" should not be surprise to be attacked, since Isreal not only send troops to attack Palestine everyday, but also let the settlers to reside on Palestine lands permanently. Just imagine China is so strong that it occupies the west coast of the US, would you classify Americans who blow themselves up in either Beijing or the new settlements as terriorsts?"

If those bombers are killing civilians, including the intentional killings of women and children, then yes, they are terrorists......lol....you call them hero's? And why do you put it in quotes when you say Jewish civilians. There is no doubt or question about this, unless you believe the Jewish media is trying to mislead you, which, you might, looking at your post. These people include the elderly, women, and children who simply get on a bus to get to work or school. These are not military targets, regardless of how you think of Jewish civilians.

Whether you like it or not, Israel was there first and has a right to exist there today. This isn't my opinion, this is historical fact. They have suffered far more than anything you can complain about the Palestinians going through. They were given that property by the rest of the world after WW2. Perhaps people such as yourself felt guilty after WW2 and gave them the property but the guilt has since disappeared?

And the reason they send troops to attack Palestinian areas is because Palestinians do nothing to contain their strikes to only military targets. If they made more effort, Israel would not be forced to take actions like this in order to protect itself........AND THE WILL AND SHOULD DO EVERY THING NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM BARBARIC ATTACKS such as the bus bomiings, because clearly, they can not rely on people like you or the rest of the world to help them this time either.

mulratt

31-10-04, 08:12 PM

Glurin: YOu're right about Americans being the model for the wolrd. As the current economic power, ppl look up to the States to see what to do to get wealth. And so Americans have an added responsibility to be better ppl.

ScrubHuman2: One human life, if we dont take into consideration what they are like (murderer vs philantropist), is of equal worth to any other. Are we to save one person over another simply because that person is the last of his/her culture?
The reason why genocide and hate crimes are despicable is that a person is killed by discrimination, and it has nothing with what this person could have done (ie you dont choose to be black or *** or a woman). Well being a Jew is not only choosing the religion, so...

Actually, what you need to undenrstand are the problems within Islam right now. There is a rather significant portion of it, more so than extreme Christians or otherwise, that are truly brainwashed into believieng they are obtaining rewards by killing people. It isn't because the US voted in favor of Israel at the UN.....if you want to fix the problem, then it will have to be fixed by other Muslims. They need to take more control and responsibility over their religion. Christinaity once had that exact same problem, but we became more educated and reasonable eventually....

I agree that Muslims have internal problems currently, and I think poverty and govt corruption are at the heart of it. When you're poor, it's easy to blame the rich guys. And when you're in the gutter, it's easy for religion to say you're suffering now, but promise a better life.
But pushing for them to solve this thing isnt gonna help much. YOu think they'll suddenly reform? It took Christianity long enough, no?
And you're not acknowledging that the West does screw the world to get richer. There's not an infinity of win-win situations out there. That's how capitalism works. Trade does have benefits, but at the core, business begins as a zero sum game.

Regardless, if the US didn't defend Israel as it does, they would have been unfairly and bloodily removed from their land. Of course, historically, it was their land to begin with....

Hmmm I can think of several peoples who had their land removed from them. Let the Native Americans who are facing cultural annihalation reclaim their fertile lands instead of the cheap reserves they have now. Let the descendants of the Moores reclaim Spain.

If those bombers are killing civilians, including the intentional killings of women and children, then yes, they are terrorists......lol....you call them hero's? And why do you put it in quotes when you say Jewish civilians. There is no doubt or question about this, unless you believe the Jewish media is trying to mislead you, which, you might, looking at your post. These people include the elderly, women, and children who simply get on a bus to get to work or school. These are not military targets, regardless of how you think of Jewish civilians.

As if Israel was always targeting soldiers or terrorists. They take big chances sometimes and often hit civilians. These guys dont play fair because they dont have the choice.
What did the American guerillas reply when the Red Coated british troops complained they werent having a gentleman's war on battlefields?
And recall in WW2 that the people behind the firebombing of Japanese cities were considered heroes. By destroying these homes, they effectively demoralized the Japanese, made it harder for people to go to work and produce things (by killing them of course).
It's a war, and ppl will kill whoever to further their cause. I dont see why Israel wants this West Bank so badly.

Kingcrazygenius

31-10-04, 08:40 PM

They want West Bank because they can, because they are on some ******ed power trip that I hope ends with their utter annihilation.

mulratt

01-11-04, 02:21 PM

They want West Bank because they can, because they are on some ******ed power trip that I hope ends with their utter annihilation.

George Carlin is right. All wars are based on penis envy.

"What? They may have bigger dicks than us? Kill 'em"

Slay

01-11-04, 04:44 PM

Again, have you looked at his voting record?

Again, will you ****ing answer my inquiry as to precisely what parts of his voting record are radical?

So instead of getting something out of it, you'd rather get nothing by giveing the job to other countries? Less than nothing actualy, since the initial investment had already been made at that point. The money isn't just saved, its used to stimulate the economy and get it moveing again. By giveing the job to other countries, there is no stimulation and all you have is costs. And besides that, who are you to say those American companies arn't the best man? And then there is the whole thing about those other countries being against the war in the first place. Why should they benifit at all from it?

1: We get something out of it. We get our troops to go home quicker and stop losing $$ and lives in Iraq.
2: Well, the money is hopefully going to go mostly into Iraq anyways, so the meager portion that's left probably won't do the economy much good.
3: If the American companies were the best, we wouldn't need a uselessly nationalistic plan such as this one.
4: They may benefit from it, but then again, we benefit from it too. Why would we turn down such a win-win situation?

Don't be fooled by what Kerry says. He's good at makeing himself sound moderate in his speaches. Its still all rhetoric though. "Increase taxes on the 'rich'" anyone?

He isn't trying to sound moderate, he's trying to sound like a champion of the lower classes. Total bull****, but that's what candidates do. When anyone ever gives a definitive on taxes they're pandering for votes. Much like Bush Sr. whom the plan backfired for.

You asked for my definition of politics, I gave it to you, and you call me an idiot for doing it. What more do you want from me?

That wasn't your definition of politics, that was a dictionary's definition of politics. Which included seven seperate definitions, and besides that, you give me no explanation towards either of those definitions and how any of them relate to the statement you brought up of politics in war.

Its a simple enough question. Why? I've already given you my answer. All you've given me so far is whats known as Begging the Question (ie. answering the question with the same question). No, the answer doesn't require you to go to West Point to know.

I answered the question with the same question because your question itself was already answered and therefore redundant to the discussion. It's like questioning a math professor's work by asking "why does 2+2=4?"

Yep.

Asshole. Answer my question.

Because while it is my position that the Civil War was a dispute over states rights I am also aware of the details and do not discount them. On the contrary. They re-enforce the core. Thats the link you seem to be missing.

That's some rather circular logic you got going on. All the other issues reinforce states' rights instead of being their own issues. What if I was to say that states' rights merely backed up slavery and was a detail in and of itself in the grand scheme of things? That is precisely the same logic and vagueness you have.

Didn't say anything about fanatics huh.

"fanatical Zionism (white) and fanatical Palestinian nationalism (black)"

'fanatical (viewpoint)' doesn't say anything about the people that carry out that viewpoint. I agree with you that fanatics can only see in black and white. That proves nothing about your point. The viewpoints of fanatical Zionism and fanatical Palestinian nationalism have failed to create a workable peace plan, contrary to your belief that black and white can create gray in the sense of views. Work with that, you pussyfooting son of a bitch.

No, the answer is not that clear, and thats not an answer anyway. More details != better plan. Nor does different plan = better plan. Nor does different person = better plan. Someone plans to get a new stove and that is preaty much it for the plan. Would you go with someone elses plan to steal a stove from a highly gaurded FBI warehouse just because it has a few more details?

Let me quote your post on this matter:

Kerry's plan is much the same as Bush's, except that it provides more details. Overall, thats a good thing,

That's what you said, and that's what I've referred to. When you have the choice between a plan with greater details and a plan with no details, which do you choose, especially considering that at the basic level, they're both(as you admitted) the same plan?

And you are an idealistic fool if you would accept nothing but perfection.

Did I ever once say I would accept nothing but perfection? Once? I said when I have the choice between something that is more perfect and something that is less perfect, I would choose the thing that is more perfect, and anything less than that is unacceptable.

We don't want to keep things under control longer. We want to turn over control ASAP. Problem is, we are at a peak on the diminishing returns scale right now. The insergents won't simply surrender because we flew over a few hundred more guys. What needs to happen is training the Iraqies and getting elections going ASAP so that we can leave. Its just going to take time. As one of my professors liked to say, "One woman can have a baby in nine months, but nine women cannot have a baby in one month."

Few hundred guys? Try few hundred thousand, because that's the level of recruits that's going to have to make a difference. And more guys in Iraq means we can have more guys out hunting insurgents while we keep the same relative amount of guys necessary to maintain control in Iraq. It is going to take time, and for that reason it's best that we take that time to bring in more and new recruits so that we can stabilize Iraq more. Note that we can't stabilize Iraq ourselves perfectly, that's for them to do.

Also a big part in stabilizing Iraq is credibility, such as bringing in more countries to the effort and displaying to the Iraqis that it is not just the US unilaterally playing around in the sand.

Yeah, more troops. Not more cannon fodder.

Eh? Troops are cannon fodder, the job they have is just to maintain stability and do what their commanders tell them to do. That's cannon fodder, as in an affectionate name for base-level infantry. We don't need engineers, nor generals, just cannon fodder.
-Slay