What would P&N be like..

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Son, I have seen more of the real world than you can begin to imagine, and I am not about to go into it on some two bit politic forum. Suffice it to say I have been close enough to death to know how it stinks, and I caused some of it. I know how the world works, at a really awful level sometimes. I also know enough that when someone knows their act is starving another then are complicit in that. Bad things happen to good people? Damn, I hope you never have the chance to find out how much that's true. I would have been for more reasoned and principled action. The sanctions were the result of political pressure.

Let me let you in on a little not so secret. When Rumsfeld shook Saddamn hand, it was already covered in blood. He knew it. He didn't care. Know what? I understand it. I don't agree, but I understand.

There is a SF book series call the Wheel of Time. Heard of it? There is a warrior race called the Aiel. One of their concepts is do what you need and take the consequences afterwords. Completely foreign to this administration and many of it's followers.

Actually it's funny you should mention Wheel of Time. I just started it recently; so far, so good! Anyway though, that concept isn't new to WoT. The first place I read it was in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, many years ago.

In any case, I've never disputed or doubted that unethical dealings happen in government, including ours, nor that Rumsfeld didn't know what a bastard Saddam was when he visited Iraq oh those many years ago. I've never imagined for a moment that there is one and only one reason for us being in Iraq and that all the reasons are necessarily honorable, ethical and good. What I HAVE been steadfast about is that the goal of ousting a tyrant and fomenting the seeds of liberty is a GOOD and WORTHY cause even if it is a side-effect or an excuse used to cover up other motives. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I don't think you, me or anyone else here can do much more than hypothesize about Bush and company's thought processes on this issue (or any other, really.) For that matter, the same applies to any and every person you meet in every scenario, every day of your life. You can guess about things based on what you see, but you can't be flawlessly certain of any man's motives.

In respect of that fact, I try to stick as close as I can to the principles of the situation, and I hold it as principle value that man is by nature and ought by right to be FREE from tyranny and oppression, both from his own government and from other people who disagree. If we have the means and the ability to help those who are oppressed, and it coincides with our own needs and goals, I think we should do it. Obviously we shouldn't go in blind, and I don't think any honest person will tell you that Bush shouldn't have gotten better information or at the least planned the war effort better before launching the offensive.

But that's in the past now, and all that makes sense to do is to push forward and make the best of this that we can, and try to fulfill that promise of bringing Iraq to relative stability and liberty.

Jason
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Aimster
Seriously? What would we talk about??

How the sanctions on iraq are killing innocent iraqis. That was a topic before....

Typical expected drivel from the Bush Apologists.

Except that threads on this very subject existed before hand.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it would be a lot friendlier.

Highly unlikely, IMO. I have complete faith in the left to find something to hate Bush or the Republicans for. If it wasn't Iraq - it'd have been something else.
Oh, and it'd be tons worse right about now because Bush would have won by an even larger margin because the left wouldn't have gotten the kook fringe "I hate Bush for the war" votes.

CsG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it would be a lot friendlier.

Highly unlikely, IMO. I have complete faith in the left to find something to hate Bush or the Republicans for. If it wasn't Iraq - it'd have been something else.
Oh, and it'd be tons worse right about now because Bush would have won by an even larger margin because the left wouldn't have gotten the kook fringe "I hate Bush for the war" votes.

CsG

Sometimes I think you confuse people who dislike Bush with the left. I recall you have addressed me with "YOU liberals". Fact is that much of the animosity directed towards Bush comes not from the left, but by those who might have supported a more moderate agenda.

This "leftist" voted for GWB the first time around, but not the second, because I didn't consider him worthy.

Would there be bashing? Yep, but with fewer participants.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it would be a lot friendlier.

Highly unlikely, IMO. I have complete faith in the left to find something to hate Bush or the Republicans for. If it wasn't Iraq - it'd have been something else.
Oh, and it'd be tons worse right about now because Bush would have won by an even larger margin because the left wouldn't have gotten the kook fringe "I hate Bush for the war" votes.

CsG

Sometimes I think you confuse people who dislike Bush with the left. I recall you have addressed me with "YOU liberals". Fact is that much of the animosity directed towards Bush comes not from the left, but by those who might have supported a more moderate agenda.

This "leftist" voted for GWB the first time around, but not the second, because I didn't consider him worthy.

Would there be bashing? Yep, but with fewer participants.

No, I don't confuse what you suggested, you confused and/or assumed more than what was said. Just because some people claim to be "independent" doesn't change what I said anyway. The left would have found something(or rather anything) to hate.

CsG