I hope a President Obama learned the right lessons from Bush and Clinton

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

You're a moron. You're a caveman trying to beat back hornets with a stick. All you'll get in the end is an angrier swarm and a few bruises to show for your efforts.

If you think the Iraq War was in any way justified by your doctrine, then you're a fool. America SHOULD deal with threats, but attacking a nonexistent threat like Iraq is idiocy.

Did you make that quote up yourself? I can't find where I wrote it.

You forgot that you blamed Clinton for the Iraq War? Here, allow me to bring up the actual quote

Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

You're a moron. You're a caveman trying to beat back hornets with a stick. All you'll get in the end is an angrier swarm and a few bruises to show for your efforts.

If you think the Iraq War was in any way justified by your doctrine, then you're a fool. America SHOULD deal with threats, but attacking a nonexistent threat like Iraq is idiocy.

Did you make that quote up yourself? I can't find where I wrote it.

You forgot that you blamed Clinton for the Iraq War? Here, allow me to bring up the actual quote

Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars

So you did make it up. That sentence was a general reference to previous conflicts between America and Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. I have no idea how you were able to extraplate your wild conclusion from what I wrote. Hillary, is that you?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Dari

The point is for us to kill problems early on before they turn into much bigger ones. I wasn't advocating war against Russia and I'm not saying that the Bush Administration has done everything right. But we should always take care of problems fast, aggressively, intelligently, and decisively. There will always be regional superpowers (like Iran, China and Russia) but eternal vigilance is required and we must never give our enemies an opportunity to flourish. If they're going to grow, it should be on our terms.

LOL, what do you propose, a draft or just keep dropping those million dollar bombs?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Dari
CLINTON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRAQ WAR

You're a moron. You're a caveman trying to beat back hornets with a stick. All you'll get in the end is an angrier swarm and a few bruises to show for your efforts.

If you think the Iraq War was in any way justified by your doctrine, then you're a fool. America SHOULD deal with threats, but attacking a nonexistent threat like Iraq is idiocy.

Did you make that quote up yourself? I can't find where I wrote it.

You forgot that you blamed Clinton for the Iraq War? Here, allow me to bring up the actual quote

Clinton (and Presidents before him) did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars

So you did make it up. That sentence was a general reference to previous conflicts between America and Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. I have no idea how you were able to extraplate your wild conclusion from what I wrote. Hillary, is that you?

Learn English. Here are some links to get you started. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase

Seriously, you have no idea how I went from

Clinton did it half heartedly and America is now paying for it in terms of two wars

to this?

Clinton is responsible for the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan

Did you really not mean that? How could someone NOT extrapolate (Firefox has a built-in spell checker for God's sake) that? All I did was literally read what you wrote: that Clinton's lack of action resulted in our involvement in the Iraq War.

Mind explaining yourself a little better if you really didn't mean to imply that? I'm certain that I'm not the only one who read your words and drew that conclusion. When someone says "Clinton didn't do action X, so now we're in Iraq..." what else could that mean?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You're an idiot.

To be a little more specific and address the points that you and the neocons have been trying to peddle as something worthy of discussion:

1. Someone will always have the upper hand and/or be in a stronger position. To say that you have to fight and/or kill to get into the position is to be completely ignorant of reality. We were a relatively peaceful nation at many different times throughout our history and it didn't take us instigating or warring to still hold the upper hand. Switzerland is another example of a peaceful nation that still positions itself to be in a power position without the need of force.

2. Peace through war? I'm sure that if the cops really want to stop crime, they should be out arresting random people so that they don't have the opportunity to commit any crimes. Maybe the government here in the US should act like the Russian government during their hayday? We can randomly have citizens disappear but it will all be okay. We will understand that they must have been plotting against peace and the government had to address the situation before it got out of hand or be forced to address it later when the situation was graver. :roll:

3. If you think that heading towards a cliff and then revving the engines instead of trying to steer clear of it is so admirable.....I don't even know what to say. I'm sure that Vietnam would have turned out so differently if only we would have stayed another couple decades using your logic.

Edit: From his campaigning and his voting record, I would say that Obama has learned the lessons well from his predecessors and we will be out of Iraq shortly (at least as much as possible) and we will use diplomatic pressure to get our way instead of thinking that we can deliver peace via missile a la the Neocon mentality.

So sorry for your ideological death that you are about to experience. Actually....I'm pretty thrilled by it so I am rescinding that obligatory sympathetic apology.

lol. I think you may have missed my point entirely. Good luck trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb by talking to them or via surgical strikes.

Like I said, if you want world peace, you have to be willing to fight for it. In the late 19th century Europe was mainly a nation of equals. Look at how many wars they had during that period. You must be a revisionist.

I've come to the conclusion that the type of people that shout "War is never the answer" are simply cowards, long ago lost to the delusions that it's never right to fight for anything if it means sacrifice. If I believe that War can be a just cause but I don't want to go fight, I become labeled a coward, one of the worst labels on human can put on another.

If however, I do not believe that War can be a just cause, then my not going to war can be argued to be a valiant thing. So by being a coward, I can portray myself a hero.

 

[Eeezee]

It's so ironic that you'd quote 1984 in the thread subtitle when describing the successes of the Bush administration. "War is peace" indeed. It's disturbing that you believe an Orwellian dystopia is a valuable goal for the president-elect to seek.

People like YOU are what's wrong with the Republican party.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
It's so ironic that you'd quote 1984 in the thread subtitle when describing the successes of the Bush administration. "War is peace" indeed. It's disturbing that you believe an Orwellian dystopia is a valuable goal for the president-elect to seek.

People like YOU are what's wrong with the Republican party.

There's an element of truth to it. But I don't think you understand it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

If I believe that War can be a just cause but I don't want to go fight, I become labeled a coward, one of the worst labels on human can put on another.

If however, I do not believe that War can be a just cause, then my not going to war can be argued to be a valiant thing. So by being a coward, I can portray myself a hero.

If you think people should go to war but don't have the guts to go yourself, then you are a coward.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
It's so ironic that you'd quote 1984 in the thread subtitle when describing the successes of the Bush administration. "War is peace" indeed. It's disturbing that you believe an Orwellian dystopia is a valuable goal for the president-elect to seek.

People like YOU are what's wrong with the Republican party.

Do you not think it is war when we implement and enforce economic sanctions against other countries?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Eeezee
It's so ironic that you'd quote 1984 in the thread subtitle when describing the successes of the Bush administration. "War is peace" indeed. It's disturbing that you believe an Orwellian dystopia is a valuable goal for the president-elect to seek.

People like YOU are what's wrong with the Republican party.

There's an element of truth to it. But I don't think you understand it.

"War is Peace" is the most basic philosophy of the human race. It is perpetually compatible with our most basic states of being and can be sustained almost indefinitely (until the "bomb"). It thrives on the reality that is the struggle for survival that every living organism faces and provides for our resident consciousness through chemical-pleasure for all humans in the form of aggression.

In my reading of 1984 as a child, it struck me as odd that while the scenario was horrific, it was entirely plausible, and humanity would in many cases be willing to accept it.

In my brief formal study of philosophy and in my continued informal study of it, I have come to recognize the relativity that not only governs the actions of humanity but provides for countless possibilities with respect to schools of thought, social structures, etc. When comparing this to the teachings that I received as a southern baptist, I found that there was a correlation in that facets from both schools advocated the betterment of humanity. The difference was in the motivation. One was motivated by the simple ability to be motivated and by some perceived mental pleasure in expanding the peaceful and intellectual capabilities of humanity and applying it to itself. The other was motivated by doctrine that advocated a set of divine rules that intervened to promote the betterment of humanity for the sake of appeasing God.

Having experienced various doctrines, I find that "War is Peace" is exactly what they are trying to overcome. In many cases our crude state is accepted, and the purpose then becomes to see how high above our flesh, through peace and thought, we can progress.

Just a thought.

Also, I deeply respect the opinions of the framers and their desire to avoid foreign entanglements as per your OP.


edit: typo

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

First this strikes me as children playing at war.

Let me break this bubble right now.

If the US were to adopt the 1930's attitude of the Nazi's or the Soviets in later years (which is effectively what you advocate) there are practical considerations.

War is expensive. Very expensive. We won in Iraq quickly. It was a third rate power full of people who lacked the will and means to retaliate. The TCO of Iraq has been somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Figure on 5 to 10 times to pursue the "war is peace" agenda.

Next question is how to raise the few million troops? You can attempt to draft but that's not going to work. People won't support it. Now you could take over the press and create a propaganda scheme. It would be difficult, but you might be able to keep the public largely ignorant providing that you were to persecute the undesirable elements opposing such action. All at once you have War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery. It's the perfect solution you seek.

America has always been at war with Eurasia, and everyone else.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
First this strikes me as children playing at war.

Let me break this bubble right now.

If the US were to adopt the 1930's attitude of the Nazi's or the Soviets in later years (which is effectively what you advocate) there are practical considerations.

War is expensive. Very expensive. We won in Iraq quickly. It was a third rate power full of people who lacked the will and means to retaliate. The TCO of Iraq has been somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Figure on 5 to 10 times to pursue the "war is peace" agenda.

Next question is how to raise the few million troops? You can attempt to draft but that's not going to work. People won't support it. Now you could take over the press and create a propaganda scheme. It would be difficult, but you might be able to keep the public largely ignorant providing that you were to persecute the undesirable elements opposing such action. All at once you have War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery. It's the perfect solution you seek.

America has always been at war with Eurasia, and everyone else.

I think Dari is making a broader point beyond America. If people want peace, they have to fight for it, because if they don't fight, someone will come and conquer you eventually. There's only 2 things that can save you from being taken over by an agressor, distance and strong deterrence. Destroying evil where it lives is about the best deterrence there is. Co-existing with the likes of Nazi Germany and Islamic extremists is simply not an option when they have deep root hatred and desires for you to be... dead.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I've come to the conclusion that the type of people that shout "War is never the answer" are simply cowards, long ago lost to the delusions that it's never right to fight for anything if it means sacrifice. If I believe that War can be a just cause but I don't want to go fight, I become labeled a coward, one of the worst labels on human can put on another.

If however, I do not believe that War can be a just cause, then my not going to war can be argued to be a valiant thing. So by being a coward, I can portray myself a hero.

I always thought that Ghandi guy was a pussy too.

Man, think before you post.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I've come to the conclusion that the type of people that shout "War is never the answer" are simply cowards, long ago lost to the delusions that it's never right to fight for anything if it means sacrifice. If I believe that War can be a just cause but I don't want to go fight, I become labeled a coward, one of the worst labels on human can put on another.

If however, I do not believe that War can be a just cause, then my not going to war can be argued to be a valiant thing. So by being a coward, I can portray myself a hero.

I always thought that Ghandi guy was a pussy too.

Man, think before you post.

He was and a total idiot. He's lucky he was dealing with British after enlightenment. His adive to the Jews in Germany caused them to stay put and non resist. We all know what happens after that.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
First this strikes me as children playing at war.

Let me break this bubble right now.

If the US were to adopt the 1930's attitude of the Nazi's or the Soviets in later years (which is effectively what you advocate) there are practical considerations.

War is expensive. Very expensive. We won in Iraq quickly. It was a third rate power full of people who lacked the will and means to retaliate. The TCO of Iraq has been somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Figure on 5 to 10 times to pursue the "war is peace" agenda.

Next question is how to raise the few million troops? You can attempt to draft but that's not going to work. People won't support it. Now you could take over the press and create a propaganda scheme. It would be difficult, but you might be able to keep the public largely ignorant providing that you were to persecute the undesirable elements opposing such action. All at once you have War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery. It's the perfect solution you seek.

America has always been at war with Eurasia, and everyone else.

It's really really cheap if you want to be brutal. One trident missile is only $700,000. Taliban and other fundies control whole regions with swords and Ak's.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I've come to the conclusion that the type of people that shout "War is never the answer" are simply cowards, long ago lost to the delusions that it's never right to fight for anything if it means sacrifice. If I believe that War can be a just cause but I don't want to go fight, I become labeled a coward, one of the worst labels on human can put on another.

If however, I do not believe that War can be a just cause, then my not going to war can be argued to be a valiant thing. So by being a coward, I can portray myself a hero.

I always thought that Ghandi guy was a pussy too.

Man, think before you post.

He was and a total idiot. He's lucky he was dealing with British after enlightenment. His adive to the Jews in Germany caused them to stay put and non resist. We all know what happens after that.

The actions of the Jews in Germany and the actions of the Indians under Ghandi were very different. Call Ghandi an idiot all you want, but all you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

My advice to you is the same as to Duwelon, think before you post.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
First this strikes me as children playing at war.

Let me break this bubble right now.

If the US were to adopt the 1930's attitude of the Nazi's or the Soviets in later years (which is effectively what you advocate) there are practical considerations.

War is expensive. Very expensive. We won in Iraq quickly. It was a third rate power full of people who lacked the will and means to retaliate. The TCO of Iraq has been somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Figure on 5 to 10 times to pursue the "war is peace" agenda.

Next question is how to raise the few million troops? You can attempt to draft but that's not going to work. People won't support it. Now you could take over the press and create a propaganda scheme. It would be difficult, but you might be able to keep the public largely ignorant providing that you were to persecute the undesirable elements opposing such action. All at once you have War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery. It's the perfect solution you seek.

America has always been at war with Eurasia, and everyone else.

I think Dari is making a broader point beyond America. If people want peace, they have to fight for it, because if they don't fight, someone will come and conquer you eventually. There's only 2 things that can save you from being taken over by an agressor, distance and strong deterrence. Destroying evil where it lives is about the best deterrence there is. Co-existing with the likes of Nazi Germany and Islamic extremists is simply not an option when they have deep root hatred and desires for you to be... dead.

Correct. And peace has to be on certain terms (the victor's). However, even the loser can appreciate this peace, even though he'll take whatever opportunity to strike should the peacemaker display signs of weakness.