-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Economist: The one thing Bush got right
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Stunt
Diamond Member
Iraq in my opinion was a mistake; however that decision long done; now we must accept the mission and work towards success for all Iraqi's.
My country is Canada.
And yes, what I am avocating applies for all peoples and countries. I am merely making recommendations, agree with them or not.
feralkid
Lifer
O.K., so as a Canadian you feel sending your troops to Afghanistan is "sitting on the sidelines"?
I'd love to discuss issues, but you seem to always be saying two opposing statements at once.
Are you Dari?
😉
I mean, the duplicity in some of your posts is quite puzzling.
🙁
Oh, well...Best regards.
Over and out.
Stunt
Diamond Member
My country hardly ever advocates democracy in the middle east; Afganistan while a worth while cause (well you don't think so) is a very small part of the big picture.
Where are the Canadian leadership to speak out against Iran's actions, Syria, Egypt, Hamas, etc.
Sitting on the sidelines yes...and the only duplicity is when you put words in my mouth...I don't think I could ever have a reasonable discussion with you. But you are over and out...good to hear 🙂
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Democracy was never a driving pricniple behind the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, and the United State has a long, ongoing history of not supporting democracy, just like every other nation in the west has (they're just bigger and more infuential).
Our governments and businesses act in a manner consistent with believing that we are the chosen few who should actually have freedom; paying anything more than lipservice to promoting that freedom elsewhere is a last resort and I suspect will remain so for the forseeable future.
homercles337
Diamond Member
So you make a claim this HUGE and then say that youre not going to share? Even given illegal wire taps and things like the "patriot act?" If you think it might derail the thread then start a new one. Any arguments that support this notion will be handily discarded.
Back OT, can you refeute ANYTHING the book i quoted claims? (Not to mention the huge number of arguments/evidence that support them).
Stunt
Diamond Member
I've already shared this information and was advised to remove it, to cover my a$$.
I am not going to dispute a book I've never read, so don't even try to use that as an argument. I have no idea what the points are, who the authors are, how factual the information is, or how credible the book is.
Your exaggerations; "huge", don't help the book's cases.
Indefinitely man, it is spelled: "INDEFINITELY"
How can a person (with a bullshit name like RightisWrong) that cannot spell at a basic level attempt to analyze foreign policy issues?
Anyway, a big reason I voted for Bush has to do with the idea that American power should be used to increase the opportunity for democratic governments around the world as a long term strategy with both noble and practical aims.
Mansfield's argument is one of many, certainly not the only argument and not necessarily the best. Like I said in my earlier post I've read some of his stuff before, he has some interesting ideas and I may read this book as well. But, just by examining the summary of the page you linked I have a number of questions (the main of which being, how does one promote the rule of law among lawlessness?) on how pragmatic that approach is in the real world. Just linking a book and the basic theory doesn?t provide much basis for argument, especially considering I would venture to say many in this forum have not read it.
I agree, there is always a balance to strike (although it may not be as straight forward as "liberty vs security"). However, I think the two issues are really seperate, if you are striking a balance, you are indeed striking a balance. It may be the correct choice to curtail some liberty in favor of increased security, but you can't then argue that you are promoting liberty. What you are doing is promoting security. You may be doing this with as much respect for liberty and democracy as possible, but in the end you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Organizations like the ACLU and the EFF take it on the chin from conservative groups convinced that the "liberal" groups are making us less safe. And perhaps that is true, but they too have made their choice. Their primary concern is promoting and protecting civil liberties, national security concerns are secondary. Likewise, the conservative groups that oppose the ACLU and the EFF, including the Bush White House, seem to feel national security comes first, and civil liberties will be protected to the extent possible without interfering with their primary concern.
I realize I'm in danger of oversimplifying the situation here, but I think that on this issue, you really can't have it both ways. I happen to believe that our security isn't harmed by following the judicial process when spying on terrorism suspects, or not torturing people, but even if I didn't, I still would support those things. Everyone has their priorities, and it's pretty obvious when it comes down to making a choice. We are right now faced with the potential of hurting the government's ability to track down terrorists vs the dangers posed by fewer checks on the executive branch and fewer protections for our civil liberties. Everyone is entitled to whatever opinion on the matter they feel is right, but they only get one choice.
You really think terrorism has made us live under fear worse than that the fledgling American republic lived under that the British would be victorious? That those who had advocated the revolution would be rounded up and summarily executed? That the Brits would come into say Boston harbor with cannons blazing? Please. And yet, they put all of these protections in the Constitution they wrote that basically allowed anyone who wanted to be a Tory to get away with it pretty much undetected. And the Brits did eventually come back and invade the upper Chesapeake area, but the Constitution was still the law of the land.
Now we have a group of radicals who are mostly 1000s of miles away and nowhere near as powerful, relatively, as the Brits were in the late 1700s and we need to give up our rights to protect ourselves from them. BS
homercles337
Diamond Member
How LONG TERM are you willing to pay to see these "benefits?" The US started by giving ALL priviledges to white, male, land owners. What is the Iraqi equivalent? Arabic, male, Shi'a? Wait, that is what is happening. This new "democracry" is soon to become a theocracy--enjoy.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
You're aware of how pathetci this sounds, when you are the one with information 'so sensitive it can't be posted' right?
😛
Then he probably shouldn't be posting on the forum that he 'has knowledge he will give out to anyone that PMs him, but it's too evil to post in public' either. If it's too 'dangerous' to post in public, it's too 'dangerous' to post that you'll talk about it in private in public.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
