OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
That is not side stepping the issue. That is the ACTUAL issue the OP raises. Maybe you should read it again, because again it is obvious you are headed in the wrong direction wrt this thread.Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: OrByte
OHH I guess THIS is the part where you claim to be a smart thinker! I see.
but since you cannot even grasp the simple concept of a 'legal war' then I do not think you are very smart.
There absolutely exists this concept of "legal war" meaning waging war that is sanctioned and approved through the laws that exist. There is a process by which the US wages war. We aren't a bunch of gorillas that go around slapping other gorillas...well, maybe we are now but...
Congress has the powers to vote for war. The executive 'executes' that war.
Through my observations, since you cannot comprehend this grade school level civics idea, then I do not think you are so smart. Sorry.
The OP raises questions that I don't think you are smart enough to answer.
Ahh, nice side step. you mean the USA has a legal way of declaring war. Ok, did congress not give Bush power to take military action? Have they voted to take it away over 5 years later? Within the boundries of US law, this is a "legal" war.
Now, between countries, there is no law. And what little international treaties exist, what if one country disregards them? What law applies then? There is none, therefore lagality one way or the other does not exist. Hence the whole idea of "an illegal" invasion is just tag line used by the oponents of the current admin.
And preemptive war? Want to tackle that one?
No one is arguing international laws were violated. The OP is raising the issue of a preemptive war of agression against a foe that was no threat. We will get back to that in a minute.
back to your legality issue. Congress did grant Bush the authority to use force against Iraq with preconditions. Do you remember those preconditions? here is a hint: War was supposed to be the final option...only the last resort. The argument is that Bush did not act in good faith with the authority granted him, by kicking out the UN inspectors Bush failed to exhaust all diplomatic resolutions to the Iraq inspections stalemate. The Administration simultaneously hyped up the WMD threat and Terrorist ties that Iraq supposedly was involved in...funny how kicking out the very means to investigate those WMD accusations (UN inspectors) meant we had no actual evidence that Iraq was doing what our Administration said it was doing. Unless you want to count the various already proven to be false evidence that we were sold on by Colin Powell in his address to the UN. All of this is evidence as to why some people believe he acted illegally with regards to the war resolution with Iraq. This information is nothing new, there are probably 1000 thread posts on this issue. try reading some of them. I haven't done the best job of explain it, only because I (and probably many others like me) am DAMN tired of having to explain over and over again!
Now back to "preemptive." A Preemptive war against a foe requires rationale that is a function of "ability" relative to the level of "threat" of said foe. You can argue that Iraq was a threat, and that we have argued over and over again. But the facts do not support the need to have conducted a preemptive war against Iraq, because Iraq did not have the capabilities that we were intitially told prior to war. Iraq did not have a nuclear program, or weapons. Iraq had NO means to conduct war against the US. Iraq couldn't even wage war against its neighbors. I firmly believe that if UN inspections were allowed to continue, and Saddamm had been allowed to cooperate (which I believe he was begginnin to do) then we would have avoided a misguided and costly war. But imho the powers that be didnt want that.
The threat of Iraq and the abilities of Iraq were low, and in many peoples opinions such realities did not require the US to wage war against Iraq. this is not hindsight, this could have been determined at the time when we were at a stalemate with Iraq in regards to UN inspections. the moment the UN inspectors were told to leave Iraq, our country trashed any diplomatic solutions that were still available in favor of military conflict and forcibly removing Saddam. In the link that the OP provided Ron Paul asked open and direct questions prior to the invasion of Iraq. Did you read it?
Anyways you obviously understand what preemptive means by using those WWII examples, so I assume you understand that at the time, the US level of "threat" and "ability" relative to Japan and the axis was considerable (Justifying the axis preemptive strikes)...especially when compared to Iraq and its "threat" and "ability" relative to the US.
Now you can continue with your questioning, and I know you will. But I must say I am not impressed with your argument up to this point:
"there is no such thing as an illegal war"
"Preemptive war is an oxymoron"
"History will judge who is the good guy and who is the bad guy"
where the hell did you get your material?! Do you not understand the legitimate questions raised by the OP and Ron Paul? you aren't even addressing those questions only sidestepping the issues and attempting to look intelligent in the process. again not impressive.
Iraq was no threat
We were sold a war
We are stuck cleaning up a damn ugly mess in Iraq
come up with some new material.
That sums up a lot of what I was gonna say, but I would take it a bit further.
First, generalizing the word preemptive is a bit disingenuous. Whether you use the word or not, there absolutely is a difference between a war started as a response to aggression by another nation against us and a war started for any other reason.
whether you call it legal war, just war, non-preemptive war, defensive war -- the name doesn't matter and there /are/ differences between wars.
i'm surprised, based on some of your views Train, at how relativist you are. that's a whole other issue really, but you are right that the "winners" write history. but the winners don't write reality.
despite what we are taught and shown reality happened and it is possible to dig deeper and try and find the truth in things.
just because we "won" doesn't mean that what we did to native americans was in any way "right" ... even if Hitler had won, it wouldn't mean that the holocaust didn't happen or that it was justified -- it would always be wrong and it takes people who care about truth to look deeper and try to find it.
we can't justify doing wrong things and winning because it'll be labeled "right" in history.
anyway -- on to my point ...
i contend that responding to an attack is a justifiable reason to go to war. i also contend that attacking someone for any other reason is not justifiable, should not be done, is wrong no matter how history writes it, and should be condemned.
aside from ethical moral or religious justifications (of which there are many) there are practical and political justifications for my stance as well.
First, intelligence can be wrong.
Attacking someone because we believe they may be a threat leaves us open to make mistakes in ways that responding to aggression cannot.
Second, broadening the justification to go to war is a slippery slope.
If we allow ourselves to aggress other nations for reasons other than responding to an act of aggression, we allow ourselves a temptation that has the potential to grow. We've already been sold one war. The reasons we went to war should not have been justification enough to go to war in the first place in my mind (because no preemptive war should be justifiable), but now we are being sold justifications for the war based on spreading our style of government, spreading our culture, spreading our businesses, stabilizing a region, removing a government that oppressed its own people ... If we are sold these reasons well enough, they may be enough to justify a war next time -- one you can't call preemptive but an outright act of aggression.
Third, supporting a war for reasons that may prove false can end political careers.
Despite the spin, there are people who pay attention. politicians can't hide their voting record and even if they are good at spin, political opponents pay a lot of attention and will be good at pointing out where their competition has been wrong. especially if the politician supported something proven false to enable an unpopular war.
...
I kinda indicated my surprise at how many people agreed with some things that Ron Paul said.
At this point, I'm fairly surprised at how many people are not fundamentally opposed to preemptive war or preventative war (or really any war not in response to an act of aggression or in defense of an ally responding to an act of aggression).
I definitely appreciate the discussion you guys have had here -- it's been very insightful.
You were whining so much about nobody responding to your post that I went back to read it. It's just awful. An excellent combination of ignorance and poor reasoning skills.
Actually there is such a thing as a legal or illegal war. A war not undertaken in self defense is a violation of the UN charter to which we are signatory. All legal frameworks are simply an agreement that everyone decides to abide by, and we have prosecuted people for exactly the sort of war that we undertook in Iraq. Just because we can violate the law and get away with it doesn't mean that we didn't violate international law. So yes, there are legal wars and illegal wars. If I steal your TV and get away with it, I still stole your TV.
Your attempt to define 'preemptive war' out of existence is also faulty. Of course all wars preempt something, but that's not what the term means. A preemptive war as defined by the US in justifying the invasion of Iraq (and the definition that is pretty much universal) is that we believed that Iraq was going to attack us in the near future, so we would attack them first in order to defend ourselves. Your description of the reoccupation of the Rhineland and Japanese justifications for their attack on Pearl Harbor do not show that preemption doesn't exist, they show that you don't understand the definition of the term.
I won't even bother with your oh so edgy description about how the winners write the history books. If you take the time to do a quick read through one sometime you will see that plenty of winners have come off badly in them.
Finally a suggestion to you. When you find yourself typing something like "liberals avoid logic", That should be a sign to you that you're saying something stupid. You are attempting to view people with opposing political views as some sort of caricatured idiot. I'll leave it up to you to find the irony in that.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Nothing in your writing suggests you able to write anything like that.
You can say liberals don't use logic all you like, but you lack any evidence, any proof of your claim. You don't notice the problem with that. Why don't you prove your point?
Let's take a look at your 'factual' comment here.
You get it wrong in pretty much every way, from the accuracy of the quote to who said it to the grammar.
The quote referred to 25 and 35, and it was not said by Churchill. Indeed, as the web page for quotes misattributed to Churchill explains:
The quote was actually said by French politician Francois Guizot in the mid-1800's, about something not quite what you think:
Hm, a "republican" - doesn't that mean, like our founding fathers, someone who supported the 'liberal' notion of the right to vote, rather than the monarchy? Why, yes, it does:
The 'later', purportedly 'conservative' period you want to say happens wonderfully after 35 that he joines, was indeed the one that changed sides to oppose democracy:
So, you get the facts wrong and pretty much the rest of it on what was a nonsensical point to begin with, the childish sort of 'logic' righties use which keeps their blinders on.
Should people over 35 think that ending child labor, giving women the right to vote, ending the 16 hour work day 6 or 7 days a week in dangerous factories for poverty wages, the civil rights movement, the creation of Social Security to switch elder poverty from 90% to 10%, the permanent reduction of poverty in the US by one-third, the creation of healthcare programs for the elderly, and so on, are bad for people by age 35? Of course not, which only goes to show why you use false, distorted quotes to 'prove' your point.
Your equating liberals and the Soviet Union is yet one more piece of evidence that you are not some real 'former liberal' but a yahoo who has a huge amount to learn.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,302
- 144
- 106
There is no better example than Alberto Gonzalez. He lost any chance at a legitmate career in law AND in politics after serving as the Attorney General!
He is disgraced.
You made an excellent point about the excuses for war being legitimized and employed for future wars of choice. If things didn't go so badly in Iraq I believe we would have already marched thru tehran.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,929
- 142
- 106
If you supported the removal of Saddam, then I would challenge you to post your answers to Ron Paul's questions to Congress. I'd be interested to see your line of logic and reason.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I suppose it would be a good read for those who seek emotional affirmation for their thought process but I rather prefer using rational thought - which is why I did support the action to remove Saddam and still do to this day. I have posted my reasoning many times here when people tried to change the history or try to ignore it. Anyway, I'm sure Gore's book is great red meat for the left and likewise - shock doctrine... have at it...
You're the one rejecting reason and choosing ignorance. Why don't you try exposing yourself to a few facts, such as in Klein's book, and then get back to us?
I think Gore's book is good and important as well, but I'm unsure how a righty reading it will react, and not sure I have any chance to find out, since they avoid exposure to it.
rejecting reason? Buahahahaha... sure... if you say so. I've posted many times here why I supported the removal of Saddam and my position on it is entirely based on logic and reason - not emotion like so many of you.
As to kleins book - I could care less about it. I took a gander at her site and read quite a bit of what is posted there. Reason dictates that reading her book would be a waste if it is anything like what is on her site. She might have a few points of interest but I think she lacks the "reality" factor that needs to be present in these sorts of discussions. Just my opinion...
While you consider yourself a logical thinker, Gore's book is good insight on how people who don't use logic were influenced at the core of the amygdala (one of the emotional centers of the brain). He references scientific studies that prove emotional response will outweigh reason, and falls into his logic that faith>fear>reason>faith. It's interesting food for thought, and how reason wasn't given a chance regarding the Iraq war.
but what ?
millions of people have written letters opposing the war;
millions have taken to the streets.
no apparent effect.
Nixon did state in his memoirs that the Vietnam anti-war protests
did affect his judgment, and scale back some attacks.
i doubt that the Bubble Chimp will be making any similar statements.
speaking of Paul, there's another Paul who was a serious obstruction
to a second Iraq War. Paul Wellstone. died Oct. 26, 2002.
one of the local newspapers in Minnesota published an article stating
that, regarding the FBI team that went to investigate his crash, the
van left the office before the plane left the ground.
one person who does come to mind in terms of stopping the Vietnam
war is - Daniel Ellsberg. he showed what an insider can do when they
find their country deviating from the 'motherhood and apple pie' principles
that we are taught as Americans.
i would say Cindy Sheehan has been impactful, though i couldn't
state exactly what her impact has been. got a sunburn in Texas ?
she's challenging Pelosi, but ... i would be surprised if SF ousts Pelosi,
who has been quite active in enabling Bush & Cheney's war plans.
getting involved in the republican party (the dems may have vocally opposed the war but haven't done much to stop it -- changing the direction of the party that vocally supports the war is imperative), getting involved in the republican liberty caucus, blogging, networking, supporting candidates that oppose the war and oppose an interventionist foreign policy in general, and preparing to run for congress (possibly by going back to school to earn degrees in history and political science).
since i pulled my head out of the sand, I have begun to do all of these things.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Iraq is now fact, and no WMD were found. If they were found, would that change your mind about the justification for preemptive/preventative war?
I think decisions are far easier, and more clearly seen with hindsight. They are far more difficult when pressure is applied and perfect info not available.
I ask that you indulge me a hypothetical, make a decision and explain it in the context of your current position against preemptive/preventative war.
Let's say there is an aggressive terrorist-supporting regime in the ME. We'll call it Fernistan.
Fernistan has radical Islamic rulers, it engages in aggression/violence against israel through 3rd party proxies it funds. It seems to hate the USA , calling it the Great Satan and making verbal threats ect. Many say it engaged in violence against American troops using clandestine means.
Fernistan has demonstrable missle technology. We know it, we've see it with our satellites; and in fact they boast about it.
We have good reason to believe that they are developing nuclear weapons.
What do you do?
1. Wait until they do develop AND attack us (or our allies) before attacking back? This, of course, will outrage many who criticize the unnecessary delay causing 100K's of deaths and tremendous destruction.
Or
2. Based on imperfect info, and making asumptions about their intentions, preemptively/preventativly attack them hoping to avoid the great death and destruction described above.
Or
3. Something else?
Tough call, IMO.
If you always stick with choice #1 (no preemptive war), odds say you enventually get hit first and suffer great casualties - and the blame, political and otherwise.
If you always stick with #2, odds say you will eventually attack a nation that was bluffing - i.e., didn't really have the WMD (e.g., Iraq). However, I would say your diplomatic hand is strengthend. You will not be perceived as bluffing, and this could be a great deterent.
Which choice is right? IDK. But recognizing that, I cut leaders some slack. They're just humans, acting under a great deal of pressure all the while knowing the consequences will be on their heads.
What say you?
Fern
is it not clear from my previous posts that my answer would be no?
many nations have WMDs. many more have the capacity to develop them. the possession of weapons is not a justification for invasion -- and even less so is the suspected possession of weapons.
even when the UN has made resolutions to try and ascertain the status of WMD programs and to eliminate the same, not even the UN supported the idea of an attack to enforce this resolution.
another reason not to allow anything but a response to aggression (and a congressional declaration) to initiate war.
okay
I'll answer this in a second ... but first ...
Iraq was actually not bluffing when it said emphatically that it did NOT have WMDs. To chalk this up to a bad response to a bluff is really giving our government more credit than it deserves. War is also not diplomatic but the complete breakdown and failure of diplomacy.
It is better to deter people with a strong national defense -- not to let them know that we'll fuck them up if they step out of line, but that no matter how hard they try an attack on our soil would not succeed and our response would be the utter destruction of their nation. Isn't this more logical? isn't that more justifiable? isn't that easier to implement with less loss of life?
...
okay so ... as for Fernistan ...
#3 ... something else ...
I pull all my foreign aid to all other countries including the dictators we prop up, the insurrections we support, and israel and divest their actions from our own national security -- in other words i tell israel that she can defend herself as she will and act in her best interest even when we don't agree that it is our best interest. all other nations are now also only able to act under their own power instead of using funds from america to either enrich their government or further oppress their people.
I bring home all US soldiers from all bases outside the US and employ them to secure our borders and act as a standing army for national defense (as outlined before I started talking about Fernistan). I also end the drug war and repeal the controlled substances act and encourage regulation and taxes ala alcohol and tobacco for all formerly scheduled drugs.
I open diplomatic relations with all governments of all nations, I lift all trade restrictions and embargoes and withdraw from the UN, NATO, and the WTO and I end NAFTA and all other "free trade" agreements that really aren't. I would attempt to understand the impact of our foreign policy and adjust our actions so as not to incite the wrath of other peoples. I would attempt to disable the ability of terrorist organizations from easily recruiting people to fight against the US by making the US into the bastion of freedom and liberty that we purport to be who does not inflict its will upon the rest of the world.
I relax travel restrictions while requiring payment for tax funded services for all foreign nationals or illegal immigrants. I enforce immigration laws and encourage reform for the same to remove red tape and bureaucracy and to implement logical requirements.
I endorse a strong position of non-interventionism with no entangling alliances and encourage other nations to follow our lead and our example. If they choose to carry on fighting each other then that is their problem, but if they decide to attack us then my god have mercy on them.
encourage private organizations and religious groups to take on the task of helping the needy around the world -- foreign aid makes oppressive governments stronger while real people doing good things for others is what makes the all the difference.
promote the use of letters of mark and reprisal for use in the war on terror -- enabling the government to authorize the seizure of life and property of a specific individual or entity that is an enemy of the US, and engaging military and private resources to properly respond to attacks by non-government entities that engage us in guerilla warfare tactics.
... ...
you know what ... just read Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" and that'll about sum it up for you
But basically -- no, preemptive/preventative war should never be an option. ever. period.
But we also need to take our national security seriously and not disregard the safety of our own people in order to push our agenda on the rest of the world.
People have short memories and need a good kick in the ass from time to time. The way I see it, in this example, we would have the moral high ground -- trying to prevent a possible nuclear or chemical attack that could kill 100s of thousands. Consider the collateral damage of innocents to the country we preemptively attack tragic, but necessary to protect our own people.
Remember that Bin Laden and others believed the USA did not have the stomach or will to fight anymore -- what with our withdrawal from Mogadishu, and unanswered bombings and terrorist attacks during Clinton's terms. Well...the despots sure got a wake up call when we struck Iraq. And I'm sure if we elect the right person (McCain), they won't think we're bluffing next time either.
A funny thing about what made bin Laden convinced that the US would back off if attacked: it's not the examples you cite to fit a pre-determined ideological story that had that effect, the actual incident that led bin Laden to that conclusion especially was when your beloved 'great' President Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon after the car bombing of thei barracks.
Funny enough too, I already mentioned that incident earlier. Believe it or not, bin Laden noticed US policy in Lebanon more than a small mission in Mogadishu.
Having made that point you will refuse to accept because you base your conclusions on ideology, I'll say I don't much care what leads bin Laden to reach that conclusion.
Our policies need to not rest on the mood of others, but rather on defending ourselves assuming that they might be in a bad mood.
If you really want to help, you should recognize that your own determination to always prefer the more violent choices (it seems) can cause mre problems than it solves.
But again, you don't care, because you base your views on ideology. As long as you can be standing for 'strength' and using it, and against 'weakness', you're happy whatever the cost.
Pursuing peace takes more strength than pursuing the use of force.
Your thoughtless ideology is the danger to the nation and the world.
You show even greater ignorance of how these issues work when you claim, without any evidence, that 'despots got a message' when we invaded Iraq. Oh, really? Who? How did they improve their behavior because we invaded Iraq? No, weaker forces have always had to use alternate strategies against stronger foes.
For example, when the weaker Muslims in the former Yugoslavia wanted something done against the stronger government of Milosevic, they didn't declare war and attack him and lose. What they did was to start murdering policemen and other civic officials that they knew would provoke him into a response, and they counted on it being an excessive response. He did not disappoint. He responded, following your policies, brutally. And they - yes, this is true - hired a US ad agency to promote their cause, which came up with the clever marketing message drawing parallels between Miolsevic as a modern Hitler, with the Muslims who had arranged all this as the Jews. Well, who can refuse to help with that story?
Now, I won't go too far into the analogy and our motives and such, the point is that the blind call for the use of force was what his enemies wanted, and led to his defeat. You need more examples, they're countless in history - our own revolution was spurned on by the supposed overreaction of the British at the 'Boston Massacre', one in which a mob had provoked a handful of frightened young British soldiers, but which provided great propaganda for the revolutionaries. The USSR itself was drawn in to Afghanistan with our manipulation by provoking them to invade, following thinking like yours. Israel is currently suffering problems because of its 'overreaction' in Lebanon in recent history when a few soldiers were kidnapped. It's an old classic tactic, and bin Laden has been reported to have wanted exactly what we did, an 'overreaction' which would weaken us - spending vast sums, making our military vulnerable to easy attack, lowering our reputation in the world - and we couldn't have given him what he wanted much better. Following your policies.
So, we should listen to you tell us the 'right guy' is McCain the guy who has not shown he understand any of the lessons and mistakes of Iraq other than some small tactical errors.
No, we need to listen to voters, and elect candidates, who can do better than your falling for the manipulative appeals to be 'strong' but lead to disastrous policies.
A little 'Bronx Tale' for you:
Calogero: "Is it better to be loved or feared?"
Sonny: "Good question. It's nice to be both, but its very difficult. If I had a choice I'd rather be feared, because fear lasts longer then love."
__________
Despite what you may think I'm actually not a warmonger. Rather I believe I have a fairly informed conscience of what is right and wrong -- partly due to my Catholic faith, my wife, and my upbringing. It's just that human nature is the same no matter what level of development of a society. There are some terrible evil people out there who can't be reasoned with or talked to...and thus have to be exterminated. It's just that simple sometimes -- them or us. And it's irritating to listen to these people who have been educated beyond their intelligence try to make shades of gray out of issues that are many times simply black and white.
Like I've mentioned and conceded elsewhere, there were major screwups with regard to Iraq, but do I believe some good was served by it in terms of projecting a bit of fear again? You bet I do.
Calogero: "Is it better to be loved or feared?"
Sonny: "Good question. It's nice to be both, but its very difficult. If I had a choice I'd rather be feared, because fear lasts longer then love."
__________
Despite what you may think I'm actually not a warmonger. Rather I believe I have a fairly informed conscience of what is right and wrong -- partly due to my Catholic faith, my wife, and my upbringing. It's just that human nature is the same no matter what level of development of a society. There are some terrible evil people out there who can't be reasoned with or talked to...and thus have to be exterminated. It's just that simple sometimes -- them or us. And it's irritating to listen to these people who have been educated beyond their intelligence try to make shades of gray out of issues that are many times simply black and white.
Like I've mentioned and conceded elsewhere, there were major screwups with regard to Iraq, but do I believe some good was served by it in terms of projecting a bit of fear again? You bet I do.
First part:
More of the lightweight phrases that substitute for substance. Let's base our policies - which have killed millions - on the trivial catch phrase from a fictional movie.
Second part:
The irony - you don't recognize that you fit the description of everything you listed.
It's you who think you have address the 'moral issues' but hav done anything but, who are apologists for unnecessary killing, who are the danger people in our human race.
There have never been any warmongers. Just ask them. Every war has been about defense, or revenge, or liberation, if you ask the aggressor, since before Rome.
You think killing people to 'project a bit of fear' is a good idea, and yet say your Catholic faith guides your views.
You are a good example of how insanity is hard to call insane if too many people share it.
And it's too bad that you can't begin to understand how your 'projecting a bit of fear' this way, already wrong, can actually be counter-productive in creating enemies.
Too many like you want to turn the US into King George III era England, only far worse.
Our founding fathers did a great job preparing our nation for internal affairs, but they did not adequately set it up to avoid the 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely' overseas.
It was just a nice little place that wanted to mind its own business then, and nothing in our system has prepared it for being just as the world's leading power.
Indeed, quite the contrary, it's proven very susceptible to small groups gaining power and the public turning a blind eye while they engage in terrible wrongs.
But not every citizen, only a special few like you, are so actively apologists.
Is it just me, or does this thread have some of the longest posts ever. I normally just post neffing one-liners (like this)
)Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Is it just me, or does this thread have some of the longest posts ever. I normally just post neffing one-liners (like this
i'll take that as a compliment -- I consider high post length to be a loose indicator of quality discussion ... don't get me wrong, people can post plenty of drivel and crap and ignorance in a long post as well, but even in taking the time to do so they have to think about what they are saying for at least the length of time they are writing it.
this helps, i think, quell the knee jerk response for someone who feels like they have a lot to say. of course then there's rambling and saying things that are true but useless to the discussion and that detracts from the ...
...
((10 pages later))
...
And that's why I can say with certainty that diverting funding from foreign aid to space exploration, in the proportion of our GDP that Dr. Hawking recommends, is the best way to save the endangered mighty moon worm that we all know the head of Al Gore must ride roughly 1000 years from now.
::EDIT::
also, I'm sad that no one has responded to my post yet ... I'm interested in knowing, because I currently really believe what I said about foreign policy, if that will get me labelled a Paulbot ... is it the ideas and the policy direction, or is it the passion and apparent lack of real research that earns one the label Paulbot?
because I hope the things I've said show that I'm not just a crazy person spouting ideals I don't understand ... I'm not a bot of any sort and yet I do agree with many of the ideas Paul puts forth on the merits.
is that novel? or do I still get a giant thumbs down from most of the people on this board?
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Is it just me, or does this thread have some of the longest posts ever. I normally just post neffing one-liners (like this
i'll take that as a compliment -- I consider high post length to be a loose indicator of quality discussion ... don't get me wrong, people can post plenty of drivel and crap and ignorance in a long post as well, but even in taking the time to do so they have to think about what they are saying for at least the length of time they are writing it.
this helps, i think, quell the knee jerk response for someone who feels like they have a lot to say. of course then there's rambling and saying things that are true but useless to the discussion and that detracts from the ...
...
((10 pages later))
...
And that's why I can say with certainty that diverting funding from foreign aid to space exploration, in the proportion of our GDP that Dr. Hawking recommends, is the best way to save the endangered mighty moon worm that we all know the head of Al Gore must ride roughly 1000 years from now.
::EDIT::
also, I'm sad that no one has responded to my post yet ... I'm interested in knowing, because I currently really believe what I said about foreign policy, if that will get me labelled a Paulbot ... is it the ideas and the policy direction, or is it the passion and apparent lack of real research that earns one the label Paulbot?
because I hope the things I've said show that I'm not just a crazy person spouting ideals I don't understand ... I'm not a bot of any sort and yet I do agree with many of the ideas Paul puts forth on the merits.
is that novel? or do I still get a giant thumbs down from most of the people on this board?
I think Paulbot is generally applied to people who are delerious in actually believing Ron Paul is starting a revolution. There's nothing wrong in agreeing with his ideas or policies. But, when it comes to the point that you take his vote count in primaries after the Republican nomination has effectively been wound up to be a significant indicator of his inroads into American politics, then you start becoming a "Paulbot". Or when you lambast other posters for being 'naive' and being consumed by MSM to fail to see the greatness of Ron Paul's beliefs that you see yourself. As long as you present a balanced argument, I don't think you'll be labeled as a paulbot.
Tthat said, who could've predicted that Obama would be such a tour de force, so one may construe the responses to Ron Paul threads as undue criticism and ignorance. It's all a matter of perspective I guess. Who Knows, Ron Paul and his followers may make a big difference after all.
Also, you may want to include "cliffs" or summary notes in your posts for the ADD people like me
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,442
- 7,506
- 136
Invading Iraq has empowered Iran which is developing nuclear weapons. That's a MAJOR reason to have avoided Iraq. The fact that we have not stopped that nuclear program can be viewed as a direct result of our failure in Iraq.
The consequences of our actions must be weighed. The invasion of Iraq has empowered our enemies.
Not entirely correct...3 years of "talking" has not stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program. If they want to be annihilated, I'm all for it. But I'm trying to stop a nuke from going off in Tel Aviv or somewhere in Europe first before it comes to that.
You are forgetting you are dealing with religious fanatics that openly sponsor terrorists a la Hamas and Hezbollah. I don't believe they are rational like the Russians were during the cold war standoff w/r/t mutually assured destruction.
What actions have they taken that you would view as not rational? It's extremely clear to me that Iran's leadership is completely rational, if I were in their position I would be doing the exact same thing they are doing.
Iraq has discovered oil reserves of 110 billion barrels. with a recovery cost
of $1-$2 per barrel.
what's that worth ?
@ $101.50 per barrel, to make the math a little more straightforward -
$7.7 Trillion.
sarcasm part - no, it wasn't about oil !
regular scheduled broadcasting -
the thing i wondered was, why not just keep buying the oil ?
i think it might have something to do with making sure that the Russians
or the Chinese don't stake a claim to it.
it's very worth educating oneself on the history of Saddam Hussein. there's
a lot more to the relationship (with the US) than one grainy picture shaking
Rumsfeld's hand.
that relationship is part of the history of the Cold War.
of $1-$2 per barrel.
what's that worth ?
@ $101.50 per barrel, to make the math a little more straightforward -
$7.7 Trillion.
sarcasm part - no, it wasn't about oil !
regular scheduled broadcasting -
the thing i wondered was, why not just keep buying the oil ?
i think it might have something to do with making sure that the Russians
or the Chinese don't stake a claim to it.
it's very worth educating oneself on the history of Saddam Hussein. there's
a lot more to the relationship (with the US) than one grainy picture shaking
Rumsfeld's hand.
that relationship is part of the history of the Cold War.
What you need to understand is that as I've said before, brencat's views are based not on rationality and facts, but on ideology, and the 'ultimate evil' demonized enemy is needed to justify his own policies of extreme force being 'ok' against them, and so he'll create that enemy.
This is the typical situation, where someone who thinks they're the side of 'peace' by fighting 'evil' is actually the side of war and evil.
The funny thing is how easy it is for people to see that when it's someone else, such as looking at the people in the Jihad armies, but not when they're doing it themselves.
War should be a horror, but to these people, it's merely a good thing to use to 'protect' them from the terrible evil forces they exaggerate.
It's nuts, of course. It reminds me a bit of the man who is a wife beater, who has rage against her one minute and guilt the next, watching these people trying to call for 'frickin nuking them back to the stone age' one minute while explaining how they're the good guys for peace the next. Like wife beaters, they'll give you a hurt look not understanding what they did wrong, if not lash out with an attack, if confronted, not having any idea what was wrong in their actions.
Nixon called them the silent majority. The silent menace may be more apt. Not out marching and waving AK-47's, but voting for violence that's far greater.
Iraq definitely had WMD's in the '80's. they were provided primarily by
5 countries -
the US
England
Russia
Germany
France
most of them were destroyed in the first Gulf War and were a primary contributor
to the 'Gulf War Syndrome' experienced by troops in that war.
5 countries -
the US
England
Russia
Germany
France
most of them were destroyed in the first Gulf War and were a primary contributor
to the 'Gulf War Syndrome' experienced by troops in that war.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter