Discussion in 'Politics' started by ARogueTrader, Nov 24, 2003.
Optional, go ahead and joke about me in the Guard. I could care less. If that's the best you can come up with to disagree with my statements, go ahead.
And come on, how shall we all go about participating in security? It makes a good slogan, but I think average Joe Citizen is quite prepared to call 911 if he sees something strange going on, don't you? We hardly need Gary Hart to tell us that.
Instead of claiming I'm getting emotional, which is laughable, counter my arguments instead. As usual, you're the one who gets worked up when people respond to your requests to comment on a topic you've started. For some reason, when people reply to your threads with a strong opinion that differs from yours, you decide to label them as "emotional."
Who's screaming, other than you? And what is the use of your evading the points I stated? Instead of making vague assertions, get specific.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I disagree that Hart's essay has value. I fail to see which of his points are worth considering.
Well, one could argue that their "hard line approach" has prevented their enemies from destroying their homeland. And how exactly do you "stop" terrorism? If you can come up with an answer or point to arguments that go beyond Hart's and the libs proposition that the US is to blame and we need to look at ourselves and trust in the poor enemy, please enlighten us.
I never said we should.
If you don't like bush's view/ muinpulation, why do you remain a part of it?
War = killing the enemy. The definition isn't the problem, defining the enemy, and finding them so we can kill them is the problem in Iraq. But if we go around killing all the Iraqis, that isn't war, that's genocide.
What does this statement mean? Are you Spiro Agnew reincarnated? "America..love it or leave it"?
Change comes from within. Not running away. Your statement is as un-American as can be. What is frightening is that you don't understand that.
Hey, Thursday is Thanksgiving Day. I suggest you find a copy of Arlo Guthrie's song (pre-rap, rap) "Alices Restaurant". A traditional Thanksgiving song. Maybe it will enlighten you to your own politics.
(hey, I thought you said you were using the spell checker...what's "muinpulation"???? Good word, rolls right off the tongue..but what does it mean?)
Exactly right. Tripack has a habit of being right. Even when he's wrong, at least he makes sense. Sulong...listen to this man!! You can and will be better off for it.
I disagree with this generic statement. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is not. My view is that if FDR had seen the Axis threat for what it was instead of leaving our ally Britain hanging out to dry it would have been a much better outcome (far fewer dead, much shorter conflict), rather than waiting for an attack that nearly decimated our Naval fleet in Pearl Harbor.
Taking preemptive action against Noriega was not a failure of policy but another example where we did the right thing even though it involved military conflict. Vietnam and Korea argue more in favor of the statement, but I don't think that war = failure of policy is an absolute truth. War to prevent larger losses is a good policy, not a failed policy.
Was this the case in Iraq? I think in Gulf War I, you could probably argue that war was good in the sense, that it prevented larger losses in the form of Iraq invading Saudi Arabia or Israel, but then you could also say the war plan was a failure because it did not deal with Saddam Hussein. Gulf War II people have argued either way. Those in favor say it prevented WMD from getting into terrorist's hands, and Iraq from being an aggressor. Those opposed will say that Iraq may not have become an aggressor, and the WMD threat was overstated or nonexistent. Those who are isolationists would ask, why should we care if Iraq is an aggressor as long as it isn't directly attacking us? But quite frankly, isolationism doesn't work in a world with terrorists.
This is a major delineation between the two sides. I simply reject the idea that you can eradicate evil from someone's heart. You can't make people make decisions any more than you can make them feel or think how you want them to feel or think. It simply isn't possible to do so, no matter how pure the intention. You can merely give them incentives or disincentives for certain types of behavior, and then attempt to insulate yourself in the case that the terrorists make the wrong choice.
Open discussion of course is what democracy is all about. But when one of the US' major political parties offers no solutions but only criticisms to the current policy, I have to think that either their criticisms are politically motivated, or that they are in fact either advocating doing nothing, or reversing course. In which case it seems only fair that we evaluate the merits of doing nothing / reversing course with the same vigor that the current policy is being evaluated by the Democratic party. And if doing nothing or reversing course makes no sense, then we should be able to tell the whiners to either provide something constructive, or stop whining!
There are always some who go too far, surely no logical person will reason that we must kill all those who hate us.
I don't see this. Checks and balances remain in place. When 70 in the senate vote in favor of going to war in Iraq, I don't see how you can make the logical jump that GWB is acting like a dictator. If he truly started acting like a dictator, I'm sure members of both parties would jump on the other side of the issue with the same type of overwhelming majority. I actually think the politics of fear are being used more by those who would compare GWB to Hitler, or who quote Goering to justify demagoging Bush and his policies, rather than presenting anything of substance.
Why do you distort the Bush doctrine into a theological issue? It makes me wonder if you really understand what the Bush doctrine is all about. If the above doesn't relate to the Bush doctrine then my apologies for misunderstanding how this relates to the rest of the post.
All those incoming missiles that were shot down with the Patriot I and Patriot II missiles were developed as a result of this research. The ability to shoot down enemy missiles has saved hundreds of lives already and as the technology is improved will save thousands more. Maybe we don't need a "Star Wars" type system as envisioned by Reagan, but it isn't hard to imagine how positioning mobile anti-missile missile launchers around key targets when combined with specific intelligence can save lives.
Your conclusion that conservative thought = stagnant thought is in error. Conservatism is not synonymous with stagnant thinking. If anything right now in politics, the liberals are the ones who are stagnant in their thought, while (like it or not) it is the conservative ideas that are setting the agenda for foreign relations and domestic security. You are right, we do need more progressive thought and less politicking (fighting against ourselves).
Many of the "fundamental freedoms" that are being so widely touted were actually fabricated by judges who wrote law through ruling and precedent over a period of decades, and do not flow from our constitution at all. Miranda rights are an example where "rights" that didn't previously exist, were created by judges as an interpretation. I'm not saying that Miranda rights are bad, just using that as a well known example. The problem is that without the balance of the legislative body, too many rights are given to criminals and terrorists by activist judges who think they are legislators.
Are Judaical laws inalienable rights, guaranteed by our constitution, or can they be superceded by legislation that is written and passed by elected officials to meet the present needs? If those new laws are unconstitutional, the checks and balances again kick in and laws are struck down by the judiciary because they infringe on the constitution. It's a beautiful system but so often when a new law is enacted that takes away rights that do not devolve from the Constitution, those complaining are quick to say that the Constitution is in shambles and that freedoms are being eroded, when in fact the Constitution is alive and well and the checks and balances are working well.
Not all germans in germany wanted to kill us, but we practiced genocide on them, same with japan, same with north and south
( civil war)
What people call the cold war, was not a war, it was a pissing match over a land grab between USA and USSR.
It could have escalated in to a war, but did not.
North Vietnam was fighting a war, the USA was not, we were still in a land grab, which is why we retreated from the area.
In Iraq, if we are not willing to beat the Iraqis into submission,by causing maybe millions of deaths ( genocide?), then WE are again, not at war. The iraqi resistance is at war, along with al- quida.
The way I see it the problem is, our political leaders like to use the word WAR for anything that results in a little bloodshed. And the result of that is we become numb to the realities of war, and divides the population amongst it self because everyone has a different view of what war is.
I believe that WAR and genocide, go hand in hand.
I also believe that calling this fiasco in Iraq a war is wrong.
Call it what it is, a land grab.
This is why I say,conduct it like a war or get out and come home.
Its supposed to mean just what you said "Change comes from within"
If you don't like the term unamerican, then don't use the word.
If you don't like the war with Iraq, don't call it a war.
the more people use these terms in relation to/with George,
just like George dose, the stronger he becomes.
"(hey, I thought you said you were using the spell checker...what's "muinpulation"???? Good word, rolls right off the tongue..but what does it mean?) "
Can't get nothing past you It's not in the spell checker.
For a reason I cannot fathom, you seem to believe that I have a picture of Bush on my mantle next to my imagined NRA card. This may come as a surprise to you, but I do not worship the ground GWB walks on. Although I believe he is doing the right thing on Iraq, I also disagree with his administration on other issues.
Being "supportive" of the Guard, which I am, has nothing to do with their capability, which is not as effective when compared with regular professional soldiers. How could it be otherwise when the Guard trains for a fraction of the time and with (generally) older equipment, not to mention the morale issues when Guardsmen actually have to deploy beyond their monthly and two weeks a year requirements?
What are you talking about? "Regional level"? Are you speaking globally or just referring to regions of the US? If you mean on a global scale, I don't know how much more proactive you can get, unless you advocate that we invade Syria and Iran next week.
LOL! I don't know how much clearer I can be as far as "reasoning" than my first post. You call me unreasonable, fine. I find your posting behavior characterized by vagueness, baiting, and an inability to see beyond your own views. You claim to want to start a discussion, yet become become bothered when the discussion arrives at points you do not agree with. Clearly you are the emotional one here.
No, you label ideas that differ from yours as emotional. Again, instead of making these blind assertions, get specific.
It's not that Op, it's merely that we have seen these same points Hart mentions over and over since before the war started. Even before Afghanistan. All Hart and co. are able to do is spout the understand-your-enemy-change-from-within-fix-the-US-because-we're-responsible-for-everything mantra, and not come up with any solutions of their own. When he and they do, I'll listen.
Hart and his ilk do, albeit not directly. When they proselytize about understanding why we are hated and changing those reasons, they are operating under the assumption that if we eliminate those reasons we will not be hated and, by extension, not attacked. My point (again) is that eliminating those reasons are not realistic nor would doing so eliminate the threat of terrorism.
???? I was referring to your statement on Israel, not US soil.
The President is doing his job as he sees fit. There will never be a consensus when it comes to foreign policy. I have not heard him call those who disagree with him traitorous or unpatriotic. If anything, when faced with criticism I've heard him state that we are all fortunate to live in a country with freedom of speech. However, if he has called people traitors or unpatriotic for not agreeing with him, I would have to say doing so is definitely wrong and misguided.
The "problem" you seem to have with Bush is ironic, because you suffer from the same mindset you accuse him of having: one-sided and extremely sensitive to differing opinions.
Separate names with a comma.