01-29-2006, 08:54 PM | #101 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
What I'm suggesting is just this: we have some broad principles that we stand for. Let's take promotion of democracy as an example. In some cases in the past we have decided to compromise that principle for what looks like immediate necessity (overthrowing democratic governments that oppose us or our interests). This has sometimes come back to haunt us (Iran). I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't interact with the rest of the world, but maybe we should not be so quick to jettison our basic principles in pursuance of immediate benefits. Maybe we should consider why we hold those principles to be important in the first place and realize that there may be bad consequences for ignoring them. This could be applied to arming and supporting terrorists and religious extremists (School of Americas, Al Qaeda) or supporting dangerous dictators (Iraq) or to the use of torture, etc., etc. The question is not whether we should act on the international stage, but how we should act. Lofty principles generally attain their high status for very sensible reasons. We would do well to remember what those are. But neither would I suggest that we never make compromises, but just on a scale from perfect adherence to principle to complete abandonment, we've leaned a bit to far towards abandonment for my tastes. |
|
01-29-2006, 10:36 PM | #102 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
To be fair to Cam, this is a reasonable point to make - and one the critics are apt to ignore. Geopolitics, by its very nature, is a field that lends itself to extreme hindsight - the usefulness of which is often more limited than it appears at first sight. Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows sometimes. My point (and it may have been in this or the Hamas thread - hard to tell in the last couple of days) is that's lets at least acknowledge the realpolitik for what it is, as opposed to bullshitting about a "moral imperative". What the administration tried to do in Iraq is change the rules of the game - the initial arguement was based almost primarily on WMD's, and then it came it full circle to the terrorism and "moral imperative" bit (I don't think these facts are disputable - and I'd be curious if you will try and make the case that WMD's were not the initial focus). What hindsight can tell us is that one ought to carefully evaluate the decisions made - and it appears as if there was some pressure on the CIA to produce certain answers - the right questions weren't being asked - rather, the right answers were being sought. Look, I believed Iraq had WMD's, and general evidence had suggested that most people (including, for the most part, the Europeans and even the Indians/Chinese/Russians) thought they had, or were gaining the capability. However, the means for making the decision (and the flat out ignorance of opposing evidence) is what is worrysome, and is open to criticism, above and beyond the decision itself. Cam, doesn't it terrify you that the propoganda after the war started was such that 40% of Americans (and a significantly higher proportion of self-identified Republicans) thought that Sadaam was responsible for 9-11 ? If this is a war of ideas (one thing Bush is dead-on about), than does not one bear the responsibility to full portray those ideas, as opposed to hiding behind fig leaves (my primarily problem with the Dutch's of the world, as opposed to the JIMGA's) ? Last edited by Crapshoot : 01-29-2006 at 10:39 PM. |
|
01-29-2006, 10:51 PM | #103 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
And to be clear, we did not find WMD's, we did not prove they did not exist or still exist.
|
01-29-2006, 11:04 PM | #104 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
That's not really the argument, Cam. I know we can't see everything in advance, but a lot of the people running this war have repeatedly made mistakes that they were warned about at the time. This isn't a case of nobody knew any different. Lots of people warned that what we're in the middle of was the most likely outcome and nobody in authority listened. But its no surprise since a lot of these folks ignored the warnings about Afghanistan in the eighties. Read Charlie Wilson's war if you want a good history. We were warned not to back some of the extremist warlords that we supported and we ignored it. We could have allied ourselves with the resistance without pouring millions in cash and weapons to extremists that we assumed would turn against us. We were also warned to stop supporting the Mujahideen after the Soviet withdrawal, but we didn't and continued to give money and weapons to many of the guys we're either hunting or have already killed. For all of the talk of putting the grown ups in charge, this has been a disaster not of intent but of planning, the very thing that the adults should have been doing.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
01-30-2006, 09:25 AM | #105 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-30-2006, 09:58 AM | #106 |
Solecismic Software
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
|
And 45% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, speaking of statistics that just blow the mind.
|
01-30-2006, 10:23 AM | #107 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
It doesn't bother you that 40% of Americans (or wherabouts) believed in a demonstarted falsehood ? That's worrysome, IMO. If you have faith in your ideas as winners, than why aren't you bothered by the need to misguide in order to support it ? |
|
01-30-2006, 10:24 AM | #108 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
You're kidding - right ? No way. |
|
01-30-2006, 11:40 AM | #109 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
In 1964, only 38% of Americans knew the Soviet Union wasn't a part of NATO.
In 1970 30% of Americans believed we didn't really go to the moon (Knight Newspapers poll). In 1993 a poll of Ivy League students showed half of them couldn't identify their U.S. Senators. Polls in 2004, according to Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe, showed nearly 65% of Americans didn't know Congress had banned partial birth abortions. So no, I'm not terrified by your statistic. I'm not even surprised by it.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
01-30-2006, 12:32 PM | #110 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
|
Quote:
I'm not a John Kerry fan, but it's hard for me to understand why it terrify you that 50% of the country thought he would be a better leader than George Bush. Both of them are pretty unappealing as far as leadership goes, IMO. George Bush certainly hasn't created any distinction from Kerry, in my mind. |
|
01-30-2006, 12:33 PM | #111 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
|
Quote:
I'm surprised that 45% number isn't even higher, just based on two different factors: -Religion -Lack of education Last edited by rexallllsc : 01-30-2006 at 12:34 PM. |
|
01-30-2006, 01:18 PM | #112 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
|
Quote:
Because Kerry if he was President would personally take Cam's guns away from him. |
|
01-30-2006, 01:41 PM | #113 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
As long as we get laser cannons, I'm on board! Hope someone gets the reference... |
|
01-30-2006, 02:49 PM | #114 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Actually, it's because people like you would be running the country. That's enough to give me the willies.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-30-2006, 03:52 PM | #115 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
On the Kerry bit. I'm pretty sure a good sized chunk of that nearly 50% that voted for Kerry were actually thinking that even Kerry would be better than Bush. |
|
01-30-2006, 05:13 PM | #116 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
VOTE JESSE_EWIAK
|
01-30-2006, 06:50 PM | #117 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Quote:
If I can get a Hovertank, I'm in as well. |
|
01-30-2006, 08:04 PM | #118 | ||||||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Quote:
You're right. I don't believe you. How can you forget any of these gems? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, no one in the administration came out and blamed Hussein for 11 September, but they used every opportunity they could get to link him to al-Qaida. If (al-Qaida=11 September) and (Hussein=al-Qaida), then Hussein=11 September. Quote:
And I'm appalled that over 50% felt that Bush was a better leader. |
||||||
01-30-2006, 08:09 PM | #119 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
01-30-2006, 08:12 PM | #120 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
so... in order to prove the point that President Bush said Iraq was responsible for September 11th, you post a bunch of quotes that don't say that, and then you yourself say that he didn't say that.
Of course President Bush talked about links to Iraq. Hell, Bill Clinton's government talked about Iraq and al Queda's links. Look up Osama's 1998 indictment. It's fairly interesting. And I'm sorry you're appalled at the results of the election. I sincerely hope your candidate in 2008 has a better message than your candidate in 2004 did. I'd love to be torn between who I'm going to vote for.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
01-30-2006, 08:13 PM | #121 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
|
Quote:
Nah. I'm the first to admit that I'm to the left of even large parts of the Democratic Party. BTW, you do realize that according to the rules of how the world works, your kid is going to go to Berkeley and my future child's hero will be Reagan, right? :-) |
|
01-30-2006, 08:40 PM | #122 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
BTW, is it possible for Bush and Clinton to both be wrong, or does agreement equate to being right? You trot out 'Clinton said it too' as if it's self-evident that that proves your point. |
|
01-30-2006, 08:52 PM | #123 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Actually, considering how liberal my wife is, I'm guessing that most of my kids will be completely apolitical. My stepdaughter voted for Kerry last year, but I love her anyway.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-30-2006, 08:55 PM | #124 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
President Bush has declared that the Yazuka is the biggest threat to this country? Well, that's scary. Of course it's possible for both President Bush and President Clinton, and their respective Justice Departments, and their respective CIA's, and their respective FBI's, and their respective NSA's, etc. etc. to be wrong. It's also possible the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Yet you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that premise (or at least as unwilling as I am to accept that they're right).
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-30-2006, 09:07 PM | #125 | |||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
01-30-2006, 09:19 PM | #126 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
I'm going to provide you with a series of links. Yes, they are all from right wing publications, which will allow you to dismiss them out of hand. But considering your side of the political spectrum would never actually admit that there were connections, it's kind of difficult to find a Mother Jones article on the subject.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/033jgqyi.asp http://www.spokesmanreview.com/natio...y.asp?ID=12798 Actually, that last one was from Knight-Ridder syndicate, so perhaps it will meet with your approval. Again, I'm not suggesting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Oh, one more: here's the 1998 indictment of bin Laden: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html Quote:
That information could not have been determined without help from the CIA, NSA, etc., which is why I pointed out that the agencies believe there were connections.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-30-2006, 09:39 PM | #127 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Hey I'm just happy that both Jessie and Giggles have both admitted that Bush never directly linked Saddam with the attacks on 9/11.
Now to bookmark this thread. As for the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Based on the argument the admin was making, all that was required, in my opinion, was that the two had a dialogue. If they are willing to talk, and they both hate the United States, I'm willing to concede that the two of them might find a way to work together. The links that even the liberals will admit to seem to constitute a history of the two entities communicating. |
01-30-2006, 10:30 PM | #128 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Come on, now. Please tell my you guys are smarter than this.
Of course Bush never claimed Hussein ever had anything to do with 11 Sept (although Cheney has come close several times), because that's how politicians speak. They don't come out and say something directly. They let their words dance around the subject and let pundits make the connections for them. You know, that whole "liberal media" you guys are always complaining about. I don't recall hearing anyone in the Bush administration coming out before the war saying definitively that Iraq had nothing to do with 11 Sept. Cam, go read those quotes I posted again and tell me that Bush and Powell don't imply a connection between Hussein and al-Qaida. Quote:
Does this mean that every time two groups that hate America talk to each other that gives us an excuse to invade? If so, we had better get that draft going because there are a lot of countries out there that need to get that good 'ole 'Merican smack-down. |
|
01-30-2006, 10:34 PM | #129 | |||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Obvious logical inconsistency of the argument: Al Queda wasn't formed until later in 1998, after the supposed meeting. Other problems: No evidence is presented in the article, beyond the nebulous 'Iraqi defectors', which were also the evidence that we used to say that Iraq was crawling with WMD's. Solid sources, no doubt. Bonus wingnuttery: Quote:
Yeah, that sounds like them. Quote:
Obvious logical problem: Iraq had no chemical weapons program, hence the person who runs it is a figment of someone's imagination. Bonus wingnuttery: Quote:
That's so accurate, it's nearly prophetic! I don't know why the MSM isn't ALL OVER THIS! Oh right, probably because it's just conspiracy theory. Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 01-30-2006 at 10:38 PM. |
|||||
01-30-2006, 10:53 PM | #130 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
It's so damning that some people don't take unabashedly biased news sources as truth
Quote:
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|