| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: January 03 2008 at 09:52 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Reagen swept the country two times as a extreme right wing candidate. That's exactly what would be a good idea. Don't you think the people in the country are a little sick of getting nearly two nearly identical canidates running for office. |
_popupControl();
If you consider Reagan to be extreme right, then Bush is ultra-extra-super extreme right. At least Reagan's agenda didn’t include gay rights and abortion. As to his victories, he defeated Carter because of the economy (the Iran hostages affair was just an icing on the cake), and was re-elected because of the economy. For similar reasons Clinton won his two terms (even the successful war didn't help Bush the elder). The situation now is completely different because of the protracted war. In terms of the economy it's a mixed blessing. The war keeps the economy afloat (barely though) because of the huge additional military expenditures. On the other hand this economically unsubstantiated creation of additional money results in the terrific inflation we're experiencing. People are tired of both the war and inflation. An extreme right candidate would be construed as a continuation of the same policies which have been unpopular fro quite some time. Bush would have been voted out of office last time if not for the Dems tactical mistake of nominating Kerry. I agree with you that the difference between two candidates is marginal, but no extreme (or a perceived-to-be-extreme) candidate will get a nomination on either side.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Look at Hiliarly, she's pretty far over to the left and she's had a deadlock on the democratic nomination up until the last week where Obama caught up. And that was more of a tactical mistake of participating in Iowa although she really had nothing to gain by doing so. |
_popupControl();
Both Hillary and Obama are to test waters for the eventual nominee. Whatever they do or say is to see the public reaction and design a sound strategy for the candidate-designate.
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 10:06 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Hirgwath wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.
And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East. |
How was it immoral?
NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.
|
The undeclared, unannounced, and unapproved by congress bombing of Serbia to destroy an indigenous people who were fighting for their freedom is moral? Regardless, what does it have to do with US political concerns? The only thing our intervention did was to make us uglier in the eyes of the world and to aggirvate relations with Russia. That is not letting Russia and China influence your foreign policy, it is simply not making uneccessary interventions especially at the cost of damaging relations with a country housing the world's second largest nuclear arseonal. That's just good foreign affairs and not in anyway having our policy dictated by the country. |
_popupControl(); THe Serbs weren't fighting for their freedom but to preserve the federation. With all negative side effects concerning Russia, it was probably a necessity. Clinton did that very reluctantly though as he was afraid it would be construed as his attempt to distract attention from the impeacment proceedings |
I don't know how it was a neccessity. The United States was not at threat, nor was any NATO country. |
_popupControl(); The influx of refugees threatened the stability of Europe as they had to finance the additional humanitarian help they could hardly afford. They kept sheltering refugees from different parts of Yugoslavia since 1991, but if the exodus continued at the same pace, in a few years the Europeans would go bankrupt. Since Western Europe is our most vital trading partner, it became a necessity to end the war. Taken into consideration Clinton's record of impotence and inaction, there was probably no other way out as even he resorted to use of force. The Russians most likely realized the need of that too since they did not help their long time ally Serbia in any significant way, but they used it for propaganda purposes
_popupControl();
Edited by IVNORD - January 03 2008 at 13:48
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 11:17 |
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Hirgwath wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.
And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East. |
How was it immoral?
NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.
|
The undeclared, unannounced, and unapproved by congress bombing of Serbia to destroy an indigenous people who were fighting for their freedom is moral? Regardless, what does it have to do with US political concerns? The only thing our intervention did was to make us uglier in the eyes of the world and to aggirvate relations with Russia. That is not letting Russia and China influence your foreign policy, it is simply not making uneccessary interventions especially at the cost of damaging relations with a country housing the world's second largest nuclear arseonal. That's just good foreign affairs and not in anyway having our policy dictated by the country. |
_popupControl(); THe Serbs weren't fighting for their freedom but to preserve the federation. With all negative side effects concerning Russia, it was probably a necessity. Clinton did that very reluctantly though as he was afraid it would be construed as his attempt to distract attention from the impeacment proceedings |
I don't know how it was a neccessity. The United States was not at threat, nor was any NATO country. |
_popupControl(); The influx of refugees threatened the stability of Europe as they had to finance the additional humanitarian help they could hardly afford. They kept sheltering refugees forom different part of Yugoslavia since 1991, but if the exodus continued at the same pace, in a few years the Europeans would go bankrupt. Since Western Europe is our most vital trading partner, it became a necessity to end the war. Taken into consideration Clinton's record of impotence and inaction, there was probably no other way out as even he resorted to use of force. The Russians most likely realized the need of that too since they did not help their long time ally Serbia in any significant way, but they used it for propaganda purposes |
If I was in Congress and the President came to me with that as a reason for US involvement I'd laugh him out of the capital. And this is probably a reason why Clinton didn't seek any authorization. We have some pretty different philosophies, and that does not speak anything near close enough for US justification to enter to me.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 11:30 |
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Reagen swept the country two times as a extreme right wing candidate. That's exactly what would be a good idea. Don't you think the people in the country are a little sick of getting nearly two nearly identical canidates running for office. |
_popupControl();
If you consider Reagan to be extreme right, then Bush is ultra-extra-super extreme right.
How? Bush is a moderate at best. He engages in a arrogant and empiric foreign policy. He's for amnesty for all illegals in the country, refuses to close our borders, embraces free trade as a religion, is attempting to bring about a full economic integration with Canada and Mexico. He signs over our sovergnty to internation organizations, and has run the largest deficits the country has ever seen. As well as expanding the secrecy and power of the executive branch and bloating the federal government in general. Not to mention to usurptation of personal liberties. This doesn't classify him as conservative. I think you need to rethink what conservative and liberal are. Bush is not even close to being a conservative. Barry Goldwater is turning in his grave.
At least Reagan's agenda didn’t include gay rights and abortion.
Gay rights wasn't really a talking point then, and abortion certainly was on his agenda, read his diaries.
As to his victories, he defeated Carter because of the economy (the Iran hostages affair was just an icing on the cake), and was re-elected because of the economy.
Yes, and the economy certainly ties into his right wing politics.
For similar reasons Clinton won his two terms (even the successful war didn't help Bush the elder).
Clinton won more because of his charisma than anything else. And because of Ross Perot spliting the republican vote taking 20,000 votes from Bush Sr who only trailed Clinton by 6,000.
The situation now is completely different because of the protracted war. In terms of the economy it's a mixed blessing. The war keeps the economy afloat (barely though) because of the huge additional military expenditures. On the other hand this economically unsubstantiated creation of additional money results in the terrific inflation we're experiencing. People are tired of both the war and inflation. An extreme right candidate would be construed as a continuation of the same policies which have been unpopular fro quite some time. Bush would have been voted out of office last time if not for the Dems tactical mistake of nominating Kerry. I agree with you that the difference between two candidates is marginal, but no extreme (or a perceived-to-be-extreme) candidate will get a nomination on either side.
I disagree entirely about the war which has bankrupted us. I don't see it keeping the economy afloat I see it sinking us. We'll see how the dice tumble tonight, but Rudy is already sunk most likely to Romney in Iowa and McCain in NH. Rudy stronghold is Florida, but if Romney could manage to steal NH from McCain that wouldn't matter much for Rudy. Regardless, pollsters see disgruntled independents as having a large impact on these early caucases and I tend to agree. I see Ron Paul making a very strong third place showing which will realy reaffirm he can do more than just raise money.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Look at Hiliarly, she's pretty far over to the left and she's had a deadlock on the democratic nomination up until the last week where Obama caught up. And that was more of a tactical mistake of participating in Iowa although she really had nothing to gain by doing so. |
_popupControl();
Both Hillary and Obama are to test waters for the eventual nominee. Whatever they do or say is to see the public reaction and design a sound strategy for the candidate-designate. |
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 12:18 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Hirgwath wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.
And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East. |
How was it immoral?
NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.
|
The undeclared, unannounced, and unapproved by congress bombing of Serbia to destroy an indigenous people who were fighting for their freedom is moral? Regardless, what does it have to do with US political concerns? The only thing our intervention did was to make us uglier in the eyes of the world and to aggirvate relations with Russia. That is not letting Russia and China influence your foreign policy, it is simply not making uneccessary interventions especially at the cost of damaging relations with a country housing the world's second largest nuclear arseonal. That's just good foreign affairs and not in anyway having our policy dictated by the country. |
_popupControl(); THe Serbs weren't fighting for their freedom but to preserve the federation. With all negative side effects concerning Russia, it was probably a necessity. Clinton did that very reluctantly though as he was afraid it would be construed as his attempt to distract attention from the impeacment proceedings |
I don't know how it was a neccessity. The United States was not at threat, nor was any NATO country. |
_popupControl(); The influx of refugees threatened the stability of Europe as they had to finance the additional humanitarian help they could hardly afford. They kept sheltering refugees forom different part of Yugoslavia since 1991, but if the exodus continued at the same pace, in a few years the Europeans would go bankrupt. Since Western Europe is our most vital trading partner, it became a necessity to end the war. Taken into consideration Clinton's record of impotence and inaction, there was probably no other way out as even he resorted to use of force. The Russians most likely realized the need of that too since they did not help their long time ally Serbia in any significant way, but they used it for propaganda purposes |
If I was in Congress and the President came to me with that as a reason for US involvement I'd laugh him out of the capital. And this is probably a reason why Clinton didn't seek any authorization. We have some pretty different philosophies, and that does not speak anything near close enough for US justification to enter to me. |
_popupControl();
This is why you're not in Congress. And this is why the public is given lame excuses like fighting for human rights, freedom and democracy. It doesn't sound funny to them. Most wars have been and will be fought for economic reasons. Only a handful of wars have purely religious or other causes.
For the record, what do you think WAS the reason for the US involvment in Kosovo?
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 12:52 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Reagen swept the country two times as a extreme right wing candidate. That's exactly what would be a good idea. Don't you think the people in the country are a little sick of getting nearly two nearly identical canidates running for office. |
_popupControl();
If you consider Reagan to be extreme right, then Bush is ultra-extra-super extreme right.
How? Bush is a moderate at best. He engages in a arrogant and empiric foreign policy. He's for amnesty for all illegals in the country, refuses to close our borders, embraces free trade as a religion, is attempting to bring about a full economic integration with Canada and Mexico. He signs over our sovergnty to internation organizations, and has run the largest deficits the country has ever seen. As well as expanding the secrecy and power of the executive branch and bloating the federal government in general. Not to mention to usurptation of personal liberties. This doesn't classify him as conservative. I think you need to rethink what conservative and liberal are. Bush is not even close to being a conservative. Barry Goldwater is turning in his grave.
You are the first person who calls Bush a liberal. Illegal immigration was going on under Reagan too and ended up with a huge amnesty. The same free trade policies were in place back then too. Reagan ran humongous deficits, the national debt quadrupled during his reign (to his credit, the cold war was won because of that). The secrecy surrounding the Iran-contra affair was legendary. Is he a moderate too? By your definition almost anyone in Congress is a liberal.
At least Reagan's agenda didn’t include gay rights and abortion.
Gay rights wasn't really a talking point then, and abortion certainly was on his agenda, read his diaries. Actually abortion wasn't a talking point in 1980 either. The religious right gained power to push it thru by the end of Reagan's first term as I recall. By the late '80s it was in full swing, and it hurt the Republicans in the early '90s.
As to his victories, he defeated Carter because of the economy (the Iran hostages affair was just an icing on the cake), and was re-elected because of the economy.
Yes, and the economy certainly ties into his right wing politics. Yeah right, his Reaganomics resulted in the S&L crisis and the bailout cost us an arm and a leg
For similar reasons Clinton won his two terms (even the successful war didn't help Bush the elder).
Clinton won more because of his charisma than anything else. And because of Ross Perot spliting the republican vote taking 20,000 votes from Bush Sr who only trailed Clinton by 6,000. And who do you think those 20,000 voters would vote for if there was no Ross Perot? How about "it's the economy, stupid?"
The situation now is completely different because of the protracted war. In terms of the economy it's a mixed blessing. The war keeps the economy afloat (barely though) because of the huge additional military expenditures. On the other hand this economically unsubstantiated creation of additional money results in the terrific inflation we're experiencing. People are tired of both the war and inflation. An extreme right candidate would be construed as a continuation of the same policies which have been unpopular fro quite some time. Bush would have been voted out of office last time if not for the Dems tactical mistake of nominating Kerry. I agree with you that the difference between two candidates is marginal, but no extreme (or a perceived-to-be-extreme) candidate will get a nomination on either side.
I disagree entirely about the war which has bankrupted us. I don't see it keeping the economy afloat I see it sinking us. It's not that simple. The war money finds its way into the rest of the economy. Why do you think the stock market is at all time highs? Short wars have a tendency to give a boost to the economy, although ultimately military spendings is a waste. Long wars wreck the economy. THis war has not bankrupt us yet, but it may if it continues. It was ok in 2003, it turned destructive 3-4 years ago when the price of oil started moving up.
We'll see how the dice tumble tonight, but Rudy is already sunk most likely to Romney in Iowa and McCain in NH. Rudy stronghold is Florida, but if Romney could manage to steal NH from McCain that wouldn't matter much for Rudy. Regardless, pollsters see disgruntled independents as having a large impact on these early caucases and I tend to agree. I see Ron Paul making a very strong third place showing which will realy reaffirm he can do more than just raise money. Tonight does not matter. Howard Dean did well in the early going only to end up as the party chairman. I really don't care what happens tonight. The conventions it's really when it all begins.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Look at Hiliarly, she's pretty far over to the left and she's had a deadlock on the democratic nomination up until the last week where Obama caught up. And that was more of a tactical mistake of participating in Iowa although she really had nothing to gain by doing so. |
_popupControl();
Both Hillary and Obama are to test waters for the eventual nominee. Whatever they do or say is to see the public reaction and design a sound strategy for the candidate-designate. |
|
_popupControl();
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 03 2008 at 23:47 |
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Reagen swept the country two times as a extreme right wing candidate. That's exactly what would be a good idea. Don't you think the people in the country are a little sick of getting nearly two nearly identical canidates running for office. |
_popupControl();
If you consider Reagan to be extreme right, then Bush is ultra-extra-super extreme right.
How? Bush is a moderate at best. He engages in a arrogant and empiric foreign policy. He's for amnesty for all illegals in the country, refuses to close our borders, embraces free trade as a religion, is attempting to bring about a full economic integration with Canada and Mexico. He signs over our sovergnty to internation organizations, and has run the largest deficits the country has ever seen. As well as expanding the secrecy and power of the executive branch and bloating the federal government in general. Not to mention to usurptation of personal liberties. This doesn't classify him as conservative. I think you need to rethink what conservative and liberal are. Bush is not even close to being a conservative. Barry Goldwater is turning in his grave.
You are the first person who calls Bush a liberal. Illegal immigration was going on under Reagan too and ended up with a huge amnesty. The same free trade policies were in place back then too. Reagan ran humongous deficits, the national debt quadrupled during his reign (to his credit, the cold war was won because of that). The secrecy surrounding the Iran-contra affair was legendary. Is he a moderate too? By your definition almost anyone in Congress is a liberal.
The Reagan amnesty was pushed by a democratic Congress and not supported by Reagan. He called it what it was, amnesty, and did not try to hide this. He signed the act in a compromise, be it one I disagree with, to grant amnesty at the exchange of tighter border security and harsh penalties on employers of illegals. Bush hid the nature of the amnesty bill, treated it as his firstborn, and rebuked America for speaking its oppossition to it. I honestly don't know enough about free trade under Reagan to really speak, but I've seen no information to suggest his involvement in economicly integrating Canada and Mexico as Bush has. Also, Reagan rejected the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty as an unecessary transfer of American sovereignty, but Bush signed this. I'm not talking about a scandle when I refer to secrecy, I'm referring to a prolonged lack of transparency that's almost a hallmark of his administration.
And yes I believe almost everyone in Congress is a liberal or a liberal in conservative clothing.
At least Reagan's agenda didn’t include gay rights and abortion.
Gay rights wasn't really a talking point then, and abortion certainly was on his agenda, read his diaries. Actually abortion wasn't a talking point in 1980 either. The religious right gained power to push it thru by the end of Reagan's first term as I recall. By the late '80s it was in full swing, and it hurt the Republicans in the early '90s.
As to his victories, he defeated Carter because of the economy (the Iran hostages affair was just an icing on the cake), and was re-elected because of the economy.
Yes, and the economy certainly ties into his right wing politics. Yeah right, his Reaganomics resulted in the S&L crisis and the bailout cost us an arm and a leg
Well most of the country swears by those reaganomics.
For similar reasons Clinton won his two terms (even the successful war didn't help Bush the elder).
Clinton won more because of his charisma than anything else. And because of Ross Perot spliting the republican vote taking 20,000 votes from Bush Sr who only trailed Clinton by 6,000. And who do you think those 20,000 voters would vote for if there was no Ross Perot? How about "it's the economy, stupid?"
Bush. And the quote is actually, "The economy, stupid."
The situation now is completely different because of the protracted war. In terms of the economy it's a mixed blessing. The war keeps the economy afloat (barely though) because of the huge additional military expenditures. On the other hand this economically unsubstantiated creation of additional money results in the terrific inflation we're experiencing. People are tired of both the war and inflation. An extreme right candidate would be construed as a continuation of the same policies which have been unpopular fro quite some time. Bush would have been voted out of office last time if not for the Dems tactical mistake of nominating Kerry. I agree with you that the difference between two candidates is marginal, but no extreme (or a perceived-to-be-extreme) candidate will get a nomination on either side.
I disagree entirely about the war which has bankrupted us. I don't see it keeping the economy afloat I see it sinking us. It's not that simple. The war money finds its way into the rest of the economy. Why do you think the stock market is at all time highs? Short wars have a tendency to give a boost to the economy, although ultimately military spendings is a waste. Long wars wreck the economy. THis war has not bankrupt us yet, but it may if it continues. It was ok in 2003, it turned destructive 3-4 years ago when the price of oil started moving up.
So you agree that the war is destructive. Thats exactly what I was saying.
We'll see how the dice tumble tonight, but Rudy is already sunk most likely to Romney in Iowa and McCain in NH. Rudy stronghold is Florida, but if Romney could manage to steal NH from McCain that wouldn't matter much for Rudy. Regardless, pollsters see disgruntled independents as having a large impact on these early caucases and I tend to agree. I see Ron Paul making a very strong third place showing which will realy reaffirm he can do more than just raise money. Tonight does not matter. Howard Dean did well in the early going only to end up as the party chairman. I really don't care what happens tonight. The conventions it's really when it all begins.
It does matter to a great degree. Of course anything can still happen, but tonight certainly isn't irrelevant.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Look at Hiliarly, she's pretty far over to the left and she's had a deadlock on the democratic nomination up until the last week where Obama caught up. And that was more of a tactical mistake of participating in Iowa although she really had nothing to gain by doing so. |
_popupControl();
Both Hillary and Obama are to test waters for the eventual nominee. Whatever they do or say is to see the public reaction and design a sound strategy for the candidate-designate. |
|
_popupControl(); |
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 04 2008 at 06:51 |
 38% in Iowa, wow! Munchies for all!
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
bizarro laplace
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Underwater
Status: Offline
Points: 110
|
Posted: January 04 2008 at 15:09 |
|
I heard on the news one of the candidates speaking, and they said something like "we're working to improve first America, then the world..." - why on earth would anyone vote for that? ;P the last eight years of ill-judged intervention have made America a bit of a joke and it sounds like a promise to continue making mistakes...
(someone else who saw that might recall which candidate it was)
|
# for band in doom:
# if indiekids(band): addband(band, "Post Metal")
|
|
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: January 04 2008 at 18:42 |
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. |
Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
_popupControl();
[/QUOTE]
Is that a joke?
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: January 05 2008 at 01:02 |
|
I'm extremely happy that Clinton placed 3rd in Iowa, whether it matters or not, seeing her try to spin it as 'Iowa is historically a bad predictor of the winner' hahaha, Wrong! From what I've seen, it's been a good indicator in recent primaries. I just hope that Edwards can make a surge to challenge Obama and that Hillary stays behind (wiping the smug look off of her face). Obama vs. Huckabee, (or even Romney) has to look very good for the dems...I don't think the latter can carry any northern states and probably out west as well...McCain would possibly be a better matchup, but that still presents problems because he looks like a grumpy old man next to Obama's youthful exuberance. I think it will all come down to whether we want change and fresher faces, or whether we give in to the status quo...let the establishment continue to run things.
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 05 2008 at 11:49 |
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam. |
Is that a joke?
|
Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky
_popupControl();
Edited by IVNORD - January 05 2008 at 12:33
|
|
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: January 06 2008 at 17:06 |
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam. |
Is that a joke?
|
Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky
_popupControl();
|
I was referring to the green text. Last time I checked, they have found no evidence supporting that Saddam-was-in-on-9/11 theory. Nor have they found any weapons programs. Bush's justifications are more or less McCarthyisms as far as we can tell. Bush's public reason for invading Iraq were weapons, 9/11, and despotism. One of them was quite obvious, but we've installed dictators at least as bad. The other two were blatantly wrong unlikely (notice how I can't say not, because the justification relies on the old logical trick: you cannot prove a negative). Speaking of Afghanistan, we made the problem there in the first place. Serpent swallowing its own tail? Chickens coming home to roost? The U.S. has its share of bad karma either way.
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: January 06 2008 at 17:16 |
|
The US's policy of interventionism comes up and bites our ass all the time, we now see. But as long as it's a rather moderate and justified policy, it's probably the better option than letting genocide and despotism occur. But it also seems the US thinks it's the only capable country of being the leader of the free world, so a lot of the time the interventionism is to protect interests and gain advantages to lord over less powerful countries, and not to protect freedom. Iraq is the case-in-point. Since the WMD justification was bunk, we had other minor justifications to rely on (mainly ridding the world of a despot), but there are plenty of other countries with despots (Burma, practically all of central Africa), so why not invade and free them? Because Iraq had oil, and it was to be the stage to revamp the middle east to serve Western interests.
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 07 2008 at 10:18 |
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam. |
Is that a joke?
|
Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky _popupControl(); |
I was referring to the green text. Last time I checked, they have found no evidence supporting that Saddam-was-in-on-9/11 theory. Nor have they found any weapons programs. Bush's justifications are more or less McCarthyisms as far as we can tell.
Bush's public reason for invading Iraq were weapons, 9/11, and despotism. One of them was quite obvious, but we've installed dictators at least as bad. The other two were blatantly wrong unlikely (notice how I can't say not, because the justification relies on the old logical trick: you cannot prove a negative).
Speaking of Afghanistan, we made the problem there in the first place. Serpent swallowing its own tail? Chickens coming home to roost? The U.S. has its share of bad karma either way.
|
_popupControl();
They found no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq either, but the entire world knows Saddam had had them. It looks weird that nothing was found. Sometimes I think that some findings were classified for some strange reason. As for 9/11, it seems unlikely that Osama planned and executed it on his own. Too professional an operation. Some intelligence service could be involved. Iraqi?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 07 2008 at 21:18 |
stonebeard wrote:
The US's policy of interventionism comes up and bites our ass all the time, we now see. But as long as it's a rather moderate and justified policy, it's probably the better option than letting genocide and despotism occur. But it also seems the US thinks it's the only capable country of being the leader of the free world, so a lot of the time the interventionism is to protect interests and gain advantages to lord over less powerful countries, and not to protect freedom. Iraq is the case-in-point. Since the WMD justification was bunk, we had other minor justifications to rely on (mainly ridding the world of a despot), but there are plenty of other countries with despots (Burma, practically all of central Africa), so why not invade and free them? Because Iraq had oil, and it was to be the stage to revamp the middle east to serve Western interests. |
I think you're being a little critical of Bush. Though her perpetuated maybe the biggest strategic blunder in US history and is overall a pretty terrible president, I don't think he invaded Iraq for oil. I believe he was more of a pawn than anything. He found himself a mission after 9/11 to democracize the middle east and to rid it of radical Islam. He has a downright religious belief in democracy and thinks hes doing a great thing. Of course nearly everyone sees how disasterous it is, but I don't think he's the devil for doing it.
If the Iraq war was fought for any vested interest it wasn't for oil; it was for Israel.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: January 07 2008 at 21:25 |
|
There's no way oil cannot factor into it. Other things might, but oil's still there.
|
|
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: January 07 2008 at 21:58 |
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam. |
Is that a joke?
|
Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky _popupControl(); |
I was referring to the green text. Last time I checked, they have found no evidence supporting that Saddam-was-in-on-9/11 theory. Nor have they found any weapons programs. Bush's justifications are more or less McCarthyisms as far as we can tell.
Bush's public reason for invading Iraq were weapons, 9/11, and despotism. One of them was quite obvious, but we've installed dictators at least as bad. The other two were blatantly wrong unlikely (notice how I can't say not, because the justification relies on the old logical trick: you cannot prove a negative).
Speaking of Afghanistan, we made the problem there in the first place. Serpent swallowing its own tail? Chickens coming home to roost? The U.S. has its share of bad karma either way.
|
_popupControl(); They found no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq either, but the entire world knows Saddam had had them. It looks weird that nothing was found. Sometimes I think that some findings were classified for some strange reason. Wich should worry you just as much, what did they find that they cant tell us about? Why would they be hiding it unless A) it makes the US look bad or incriminates us or B) its somthing new, that would put the country in panic. Nither of those sound good, its easyer to stick with the nothing found theory As for 9/11, it seems unlikely that Osama planned and executed it on his own. Too professional an operation. Some intelligence service could be involved. Iraqi? Osama is simply a figurehead for a much greater organization, one that is as professional as any intelligence agency, they just use some barberic methods. Of course Osama didn't plan it or carry it out, the people in charge of planning did the planning, Osama has men who know how to wage war |
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 08 2008 at 09:51 |
stonebeard wrote:
There's no way oil cannot factor into it. Other things might, but oil's still there. |
_popupControl();
Oil certainly was there but in a different way. I think it was intended to pay a part of our war expenses. Iraq was supposed to serve as an example to such guys as Quaddafi what punishment they would get if they dare even think of 9/11. Whether Saddam was behind it is rather secondary. Uncle Sam had to punish someone. Afghanostan was an easy target, it wouldn't teach them a lesson. The idea was right, the execution was bad.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 08 2008 at 09:54 |
Proletariat wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization. Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam. |
Is that a joke?
|
Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky _popupControl(); |
I was referring to the green text. Last time I checked, they have found no evidence supporting that Saddam-was-in-on-9/11 theory. Nor have they found any weapons programs. Bush's justifications are more or less McCarthyisms as far as we can tell.
Bush's public reason for invading Iraq were weapons, 9/11, and despotism. One of them was quite obvious, but we've installed dictators at least as bad. The other two were blatantly wrong unlikely (notice how I can't say not, because the justification relies on the old logical trick: you cannot prove a negative).
Speaking of Afghanistan, we made the problem there in the first place. Serpent swallowing its own tail? Chickens coming home to roost? The U.S. has its share of bad karma either way.
|
_popupControl(); They found no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq either, but the entire world knows Saddam had had them. It looks weird that nothing was found. Sometimes I think that some findings were classified for some strange reason. Wich should worry you just as much, what did they find that they cant tell us about? Why would they be hiding it unless A) it makes the US look bad or incriminates us or B) its somthing new, that would put the country in panic. Nither of those sound good, its easyer to stick with the nothing found theory As for 9/11, it seems unlikely that Osama planned and executed it on his own. Too professional an operation. Some intelligence service could be involved. Iraqi? Osama is simply a figurehead for a much greater organization, one that is as professional as any intelligence agency, they just use some barberic methods. Of course Osama didn't plan it or carry it out, the people in charge of planning did the planning, Osama has men who know how to wage war |
|
_popupControl();
It does worry me. That's why I don't want to stick with the nothing-found theory.
What greater organization are you talking about? Sounds sinister.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Political discussion thread
