quote:I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin...
While conceding that conservative politicians can be pansies . . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
You can quote him where he says something that makes you think he's calling all liberals traitors, but after reading it, I just don't see it.
Now maybe the Republicans should tell him to apologize or resign, but I don't see a reason for this. But as I said before, if the Democrates didn't ask for Durbin, Dean, or Kennedy to apologize or resign from any of their speeches, then they have no business asking it from Rove.
edit And as for dragging 9/11 into a political debate: I don't see what's so wrong about it, especially if it's pretty truthful. Nothing seemed like an out right lie about it. Him and everyone with and against him is in politics, so it of course seems obvious that whatever topic is being discussed will be politiczed.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree, Squicky, that that word "understanding" sure does get misused. "You understand, don't you?" tends to mean, "You're wise enough to excuse this, right?" Sometimes I want to answer, "Yes, I do understand -- all too well!"
quote:The Bush people tried the simplistic "People love freedom." thing and it really, really didn't work out for them. They planned for there to be an Iraq populace greeting us with open arms with only a very few hold out from the old regime resistors.
What the Bush administration said was that the task in Iraq would be tough, that it would not be over quickly, that we needed to be prepared for a long haul.
What we did get was, indeed, an Iraq populace that was happy to be free, with only a few (I'm not sure about very few) holdouts. Of course, a few sufficiently violent holdouts are enough to make it be a tough, long haul, as Bush said it would.
That word "freedom" sure is appealing, to people all over. (Not necessarily to their dictators.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get why 9/11 shouldn't be discussed in partisan politics.
People use "partisan" as a negative word, but I don't know why. We have a 2-party system. Partisan politics is how it works. Is 9/11 not an issue? I sure think it is! Do the parties have any disagreement on what should be done about it? They sure seem to! Why shouldn't these disagreements be discussed?
I can only think of one reason: one of the parties is vulnerable on 9/11, and doesn't want it discussed. (Unless they can find a way to make the other party vulnerable on it, in which case they'll forget that 9/11 should not be a political football.)
Republicans could do the same. If the American public starts saying, strongly, out of Iraq now! (rather than later, as everyone agrees) -- and it may have -- Republicans can say that Iraq should not be a partisan issue. When Bush makes his SC appointments, and Democrats object, he can say that we shouldn't play partisan politics with the Supreme Court. If he does, Democrats will laugh at him. And they should.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin...
While conceding that conservative politicians can be pansies . . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!
Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine it would be difficult to counteract the enemy's recruiting tactics when as the most prosperous, powerful western nation, we're the easiest scapegoat for focusing the anger of the desperate masses. I mean, given where we're starting right now, how exactly could we get to a point at which the common Muslim living in an impoverished region of the world is no longer willing to believe that our position in the world is unfair, illegitimate, and threatening?
Wow Geoff, I didn't know you'd made enough of a study of the common Muslims and their views to make an authoritative statement about them. Could you maybe share some of the experiences and sources that led you come up with this description of them? I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I certainly wouldn't make anything close to definitive statements based on what very little I know about them, but I am aware of some people with a great deal of experience and credentials here than I have who don't necessarily agree that the situation is hopeless. Perhaps we could explore how what you're basing your opinion on trumps theirs.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the "living in an impoverished region of the world" part that I associated with the capacity to be stirred up to resent the West. Not the Muslim part.
And clearly, many people in that situation ARE willing to accept a negative view of America, because as just about every source anyone everyone ever cites around here says, so many people clearly HAVE one.
When the leaders in power over many of these nations, as well as these nations' media, see America as an easy scapegoat, and freely use us that way, for us to actual PREVENT their people from seeing us that way would mean delivering them an alternate view of the world that does not cast us as the unfair victors in an economic battle, the source of lasciviousness and evil in society, the reason for their hardship, etc, etc. I'm not sure how to do that. Apparently, the proper strategy here is so obvious to you that it's beneath mention, but I'm curious about it.
When the first-world lifestyle is widely publicized, yet the majority of people in the world never get to experience it first hand, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of leaders exploiting that unfairness, turning it into resentment and blame.
posted
So you're an expert in that then? Could you explain the basis for your reasoning to me then? I'm quite a bit more knowledgible in that than I am about Muslim culture, however, so you don't need to dumb it down quite so much.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, if you have a counterargument, make it. And if discussing things with non-experts is beneath you, you are free to go somewhere else entirely.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't feel I need need to make a counter-argument to what appears to me to be the watered down version of "They're evil." I think you're asserting something as true in an area that you know very little about. "Oh, we can't do that. It'd never work. I know because of the very simplitic ideas and prejudices I have of this."
However, I could be very wrong and you may be qualified to offer an expert opinion. You may have valid reasons for claiming that this wouldn't work. If so, I would be glad to hear them and how I should reconcile them with the opinions of experts in the region that we are missing out on PR opportunities that would be much more accessible if we had a complex understanding of things.
You made an implicit claim to knowing what you're talking about. I don't think that this is true, but am quite open to being proven wrong. Plus, if you could explicitly support this claim, I think it would provide us with useful, novel information, as informed opinions are in very short supply.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not once did I claim that anyone was "evil", nor did I say that this task is insurmountable. I pointed out what I saw as the most difficult challenge in preventing recruitment — the fact that the United States occupies a position in the world that makes it very easy for people to resent us. LEGITIMATELY SO. I would probably resent the United States if I lived in a third-world country. I even resent it a little bit, and I LIVE here. It's CRAZY that we depend on (and take for granted) a lifestyle that demands so much wealth and so many resources that it is logistically impossible for even a majority of the world to share it. I think that frustration over this fact plays a major part in people's willingness to believe the worst about us, and so far, all you have done is dismissed this idea (which I have drawn from many expert opinions that I have read over time), and failed to provide an alternate view.
I found nothing inherently wrong with your original post on the subject — I just wanted to know HOW you expect to accomplish this thing that seems to difficult from my perspective. If you have ideas, share them. If you don't, say so. But if you're waiting for an audience who is impressed by your credentials before you'll deign to speak, you'd might as well give it up.
If you're not here to discuss this and share your certified Expert Knowledge, then why are you here? Just because empty posturing is so much fun?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, You know, I took an air of "What you're saying won't work." out of your post that looking back on it, I don't think was there. I'm sorry. I was wrong. The way I've been reading Hatrack today is probably not a good idea. My lack of focus isn't doing me any favors. I think I'll log off for now.
---
I don't have expert knowledge and as such don't have a reliable strategy for what we should be doing. My point is that it seems that neither do the people in charge. There should be a great push towards understanding the people, but the very idea of this is being treated like a bad thing. Instead, we're fed simplistic lines like "They're evil." or "This prejudice is why taking a complex view is not going to work." You don't win a war against terrorism within a wide-spread culture on the strength of military force alone, unless you are willing to pretty much wipe out that culture. there needs to be a recognition of this and that understanding our enemies, both the ones now and the ones who may (or may not) become our enemies n the future, is vital to "winning" the war on terrorism.
There are experts with reasons and source and all that good stuff who can provide us with realitic scenarios and plans for achieving this, but they don't seem to be included in the decision-making process and the idea that what they offer could greatly benefit us is ridiculed as being "weak" and almost treasonous.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
I'll take you up on it, if that's the case! Here's what I know: the Constitution suggests eminent domain (in limiting it, in A5, to public use with just compensation), and governments (fed, state, and city) have been doing this ever since, although only recently have they expanded it to non-public use. Congress wouldn't have to pass a law for eminent domain by cities, and in fact would be forbidden to by Amendment 5, which would reserve this for the states. What legislature are you thinking of?
The one legislative body that would have to be involved would be the New London, CT, city council. I am not sure if they use parties in that city council (my city's doesn't). CT is very much a blue state, but I suppose it's possible the legislature is Republican. If so, they've got a lot of people in their party pissed off at them.
Every Republican I've heard from so far opposes this. That's the basis of my comment that conservatives detest the decision. (Most Democrats, too.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
I'll take you up on it, if that's the case! Here's what I know: the Constitution suggests eminent domain (in limiting it, in A5, to public use with just compensation), and governments (fed, state, and city) have been doing this ever since, although only recently have they expanded it to non-public use. Congress wouldn't have to pass a law for eminent domain by cities, and in fact would be forbidden to by Amendment 5, which would reserve this for the states. What legislature are you thinking of?
The one legislative body that would have to be involved would be the New London, CT, city council. I am not sure if they use parties in that city council (my city's doesn't). CT is very much a blue state, but I suppose it's possible the legislature is Republican. If so, they've got a lot of people in their party pissed off at them.
Every Republican I've heard from so far opposes this. That's the basis of my comment that conservatives detest the decision. (Most Democrats, too.)
I'll just go with what you said, because you seem to know your stuff. Plus I had/have a great friend by the name of William Buchanan whose's now in Iraqi, I think, so that'll be a random bonus point for you. I'll go and read about it when I have the time. Tried a little today, but I wasn't really to find anything helpful. This will be a plus in my eyes to the Republicans, but it won't be enough for me to reconsider becoming libertarian.
Thinkning at the moment
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would never want to dissuade anyone from being a libertarian! Although I might dissuade someone from voting Libertarian, on the grounds that it's nice to have some effect on who gets elected!
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you turn 9/11 into an excuse to bash the other political party you are pissing all over the memories of everyone who cared about what happened there.
He states that liberals cared more about offering therapy than punishing the offenders....that is a fact? That liberals wanted to "understand" their enemies...but where does that preclude punishing the actual guilty parties??
Perhaps it is the Bush's administration lack of motivation and understanding of that people which has cause so many deaths in Iraq, both civilian deaths and the deaths of our soldiers.
What exactly was moveon.org suppose to do, other than a petition? They don't have the resources the government has, but they were right...we lied about proof to get into this war, and are lying about the wars costs right now. Our death tolls are low, but not because people aren't dying, but because the Bush administration changed the rules about what counts as a casualty, and has hired armies of private contractor to go to war for them. None of their injuries appear anywhere in the casualty reports or injury reports because they aren't "soldiers".
We have also ignored our own Constitution, which Conservatives claim to regard so highly, detaining people without right to trials or habeas corpus, or rights to lawyers, for YEARS now. Some of them are very dangerous people, but a lot of them will eventually be released...but it has already been years, and there are years to come still.
All I heard from the Bush administration after 9/11 was cries for non-partisan action, but now that they are having a hard time justifying their actions, like shipping prisoners off to possible torture camps in other countries, they jump all over the Democrats.
I have not heard a Democrat say we are Nazis, but that is how those comments are portrayed time and time again. What he said was that if you removed the context and told the average American some of what is happening in these camps and asked them where they thought those camps had been, they would have guessed that the Germans had done it in WWII, or the soviets in the Gulag.
He expects BETTER than that from our own people, and he is right to do so. For YEARS we complained about other governments doing the VERY SAME THINGS WE ARE NOW DOING OURSELVES..but because "we" decided it was necessary now, that makes it ok?
I don't think so.
I am a proud Veteran, and my whole family has served in the military through the years. My father, myself, my aunt, another uncle, and 3 cousins have served, and more than one lost their life doing so.
But when I hear about some of the things that we are responsible for these days, I am ashamed.
And the funny thing is that I am not even that liberal. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would never want to dissuade anyone from being a libertarian! Although I might dissuade someone from voting Libertarian, on the grounds that it's nice to have some effect on who gets elected!
You DO have an effect when you vote Libertarian. They guy you WOULD have voted for from one of the other parties gets one vote closer to losing Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When you turn 9/11 into an excuse to bash the other political party you are pissing all over the memories of everyone who cared about what happened there."
I think you're being a little overly dramatic there. I'm not saying that's how you don't feel, and I'm not trying to demean what happened there, but it's still possible to be overly sensitive about what happened.
"Perhaps it is the Bush's administration lack of motivation and understanding of that people which has cause so many deaths in Iraq, both civilian deaths and the deaths of our soldiers."
Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration and the military men did not do much research on the enemy they've been fighting for this long. This is a comment that just shouldn't be made.
"I have not heard a Democrat say we are Nazis, but that is how those comments are portrayed time and time again. What he said was that if you removed the context and told the average American some of what is happening in these camps and asked them where they thought those camps had been, they would have guessed that the Germans had done it in WWII, or the soviets in the Gulag."
So, you could pull out from Rove's statements that he was blaming liberals as traitors for not believeing every living thing that the Bush admin. told them, but when Durbin said something like, "When I tell you this, you'd probably expect this to go on in a Nazis camp..." That's not compareing our troops to Nazis?
And just to verify, Newsweek retracted their story about what was happening at Guntanomo, because of lack of sources. Durbin only had, I believe, one source, and that shouldn't be enough to make such a statement.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:, but when Durbin said something like, "When I tell you this, you'd probably expect this to go on in a Nazis camp..."
See, he didn't say something like this. If that is what he said, I'd tend to agree with you. It was much closer to Kwea's paraphrase.
That said, there is a comparison, but he was obviously talking about a limited facet of all or militaries missions. He was talking specifically about Gauntanamo. As often as some conservative-minded folks claim that liberal-minded folks are oversensitive, I think this is a fairly clear case of the reverse.
As for Rove, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to figure out what he meant by the "motives" of Democrats/liberals (which aren't cleanly overlapping groups anyway).
Bush has essentially called terrorists evil, on numerous occassion... Does Rove not think that these comments could be used to help recruit people to terrorist groups?
quote:You DO have an effect when you vote Libertarian. They guy you WOULD have voted for from one of the other parties gets one vote closer to losing
That's the effect you see if you're only thinking in the very short-term. Here's what I have to say about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration and the military men did not do much research on the enemy they've been fighting for this long. This is a comment that just shouldn't be made.
I have some land to sell you in Florida too, if I say it came from a Republican will you buy it sight unseen?
I have the right to say this, because it is true. More than one military leader objected to this plan, claiming it was the wrong way to do an invasion...not the actual war, but how to deal with the aftermath of it.
Bush and Rumsfeild fired them for disagreeing.
I am sure he studied them as well as he did other intelligence reports, like the ones about the WMD we never found.
He and his administration ignored or marginalized every single critic of their plans or their intelligence reports, and now claim that no one objected. Or if they did it was because they were "oversensitive", or empathized with our enemies....
Bullshit.
I was wrong about what was said in that speech, although I still strongly disagreed with it. I was thinking of another speech given about he same topic, and it mentioned a lot of the same things but went further.
But the implication was there, the whole point of that back patting, self congratulatory speech was that they were somehow "better" with their response, and while he may not have said directly that the Democrats did nothing, and acted like traitors, you can't sit there and tell me that other prominent Republicans have not done so.
Recently.
As far as being oversensitive to 9/11 references, did YOU lose anyone there? If so, you would probably have a clue.
As it stands now, you don't.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came close to letting this thread go away, but I just couldn't.
"See, he didn't say something like this. If that is what he said, I'd tend to agree with you. It was much closer to Kwea's paraphrase."
I really didn't see much of a difference between the two. I guess it makes it okay that he didn't say it directly, but rather that people would think some horrible regime did these thing. But not to me. Anyway, I'm done talking about it unless something knew comes up. I'd just think he should apologize more than, "I'm sorry if you misunderstood me..."
"I have some land to sell you in Florida too, if I say it came from a Republican will you buy it sight unseen?"
Was that really neccesary? I've already stated my faith in Republicans has become small.
"Rant about WMDs"
You know... I have become sick to death about liberals saying things like, "But there were no WMDs!" and far worse, "War for oil! War for oil!" (You know, I think it would be a GREAT thing if Iraq gave us some oil to help pay for the cost of the war. It has been quite expensive.) It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrafices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
I don't know about you, but during the voting day I was very happy with what was happening. Some Americans won't go to vote, because they'd have to wait in line for a few hours. Iraqis went to vote under threat of death!
It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not. What matters is, at the end of the day, did it matter? The war is still going on, so I suppose we can't truly know, but so far the answer seems to be yes. Other nations in the Middle East have already started voting without having our military swarm in, and to me that's a very powerful message that great things may be on the rise.
Yes, numerous lives on both sides have been lost. I don't know much about military and I don't know if what these military leaders adviced were good or not. Maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, maybe Bush went with one who came up with something better. I know I can't completely trust the media, the Democrates, or the Republicans. Everyone has an agenda and will use big or small lies to get it.
"As far as being oversensitive to 9/11 references, did YOU lose anyone there? If so, you would probably have a clue.
As it stands now, you don't."
I wasn't aware that if an event didn't have as strong an impact on me than others then I could not have an opinon on it. Or maybe that gives me better insight, because I'm not blinded by rage when I hear it used in a context that I simply don't agree with. Sorry for being harsh, but it's hard not to be with your begining and ending statements.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I actually tempered what I said because I am tired of listening to arrogant a$$holes on BOTH sides of the aisle trying to use 9/11 to further their political aims.
I didn't say you had no right to an opinion, but there is a big difference between knowing something (or thinking you do) intellectually and knowing something from experiencing it yourself. You seem to feel that it is OK to politicize something like this, but then you claim to have the moral high ground and clarity of thought on this topic?
Hardly.
quote:It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not. What matters is, at the end of the day, did it matter?
It does matter, and for more than one reason. If you can't see that then there is no point talking to you about it any more. Things matter, things like lying to the public, outing secret agents because their husband doesn't toe the party line on the WMD, and firing anyone who disagrees with you and then publicly claiming that no one told you you might be wrong.
I don't swallow anything anyone tells me, from any source, but I know a lot of things are not right with this administration, and Bush isn't the only one guilty.
But like it or not he IS President, so he IS responsible for these "mistakes".
I don't think he is a horrible person, but I have found plenty of things that lead me to believe he isn't very honest. I don't hate him, but I wish he wasn't President.
But I would have voted for McCain over any of the other candidates, at least until he sold his honor pimping for the very people who destroyed his chances 4 years ago.
Now I doubt I will vote again, which is sad considering how many of my family members fought and died to protect our right to vote.
They are all sellouts, so I don't think it really matters anymore.
quote: It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrifices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
Where did I mention the troops at all? Where have I tried "to demean what is happening there" in this post, or any other?
I don't blame the soldiers who are over there, for the most part, because a few years ago it would have been me over there, just following orders like they are doing.
But I am sick of Conservatives (not all of them, to be sure) telling me that it is Un-American to question this war and how it started, and that I am harming the troops by questioning the very man who lied to get them into harms way in the first place.
There is very little that is MORE American that to question authority, at least when there are serious questions about the legality of the actions of the government that purports to represent them. Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes this country worth fighting for, and trying to get everyone to toe the party line simply because it is the party line is ignorant and insulting to anyone who bothers to read a history book.
I don't doubt that many of our soldiers are doing everything they can to help people over there, and I am sure that we can make things better over there if they let us...but don't they have a right to decide for themselves without having our troops over there forcing change upon them? If we force democracy on them, won't they just note the same sort of people into power just to get rid of the "foreign threat" that we have become? What right do we have to force them to do anything in their own country...besides the right of arms, that is...
posted
Okay, you may not have said that I couldn't have an opionon, but you did pretty much say I had no idea about the subject, which sounds to me as if I was wrong, because I didn't know anyone who died in the attack.
---
Many other people, in other countries, believed that Saddam had or at least would have WMDs if no one stopped him. Bush may or may not have been wrong, but he didn't lie when he truly believed they had them. There's a differnce.
---
I don't agree with Convservaties who say that people who are UnAmerican who don't support the war.
However, whenever I hear people talk about there being no WMDs like it's the most important thing I still believe it demeans the troops. It's like saying, "We're sorry troops, that our President is too inept and stupid to do his job and that you're over there dying while looking for WMDs that don't exist, please just stay safe as your fellows die pointlessly."
Other than, "Well, there were no WMDs, but you've done so much good that it would have been pretty okay with me if that was the reason we went over there, and I hope you feel the same. If you don't I'm so sorry, just please stay safe."
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bush Administration did lie. That's indisputable. They said they knew that Saddam had WMD and where they were. That was a lie.
Various cases have also come up, as fugu and I have pointed out, that shows that either they lied or they were extremely incompetent. The Downing Street memos show that the Bush administration regarded going to war in Iraq inevitible after 9/11 and were molding their information around this goal and trying to provoke Saddam Hussein to provide a more favorable context for war.
It may not matter to you that your President set out to deceive you into a war that he wanted to fight for reasons that are still not clear and that he subsequently made enormous mistakes in the conduct of that war, but it should. In fact, I'd venture to argue that thinking that is unimportant could easily be considered un-American. You're putting blindly supporting a specific person ahead of the lives of our soldiers and the interests of America.
And don't you dare tell me I don't care about hte troops because I think that the people leading them lied to get us into the war and put them in harms way without proper supplies or planning. They're my troops, even the ones I didn't grow up with and/or are my family members, more than they are the Presidents. They're real people, not a set of toy soldiers that he can take out of the box and do whatever he wants with. He bears a responsiblity to them even higher than the one he bears to regular civilians to behave in a trustworthy, honorable, and cautious manner when he decides to put them in harms way. Don't you dare suggest that I'm being disloyal to the troops when I try to hold the President to this standard.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't follow you logic...it is OK to go over there even if he did lie, because you tink you might like the results anyway?
BTW, I never said anyone was dying pointlessly, I said they ewre lesd there by a man who was lying fromt the get go, or was so incompetent that he was wrong.
Perhaps the problem lies less with what I am actualy saying and more with what you think I mean.
Here is a clue...I say what I mean. I DO think that it is a shame they are over there dying...but that isn't the same thing as thinking they aren't doing their job, or that they are dying for nothing.
I wouldn't pull them out now even if it was up to me, because the job isn't even half done yet. Now that we are there, and have created a vacume of power, we HAVE to try and set it right or we will ahve hurt the people over there at least as much as Saddam ever did.
No one is offering Saddam a medal, or saying he was a great leader. But a lot of what he did to the Kurds, and to others, SI our fault. we chould ahve never gone to war the first time without following through.
BTW, do you know why BushSr didn't go after him and finish him off? Because HE felt that we would be playing right into the terroists hands and possibly cause a severe increase in recruitment of terroists, and because he saw no viable exit stratagy for the American troops.
It was all in his book, which Jr admitted to not reading.
Basically this is all cleanup from the first Gulf war, but that isn't how they sold it to us, is it?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been trying to sound so direct to you Kwea, except for some of the comments you made about me.
And I will apologize for not really saying till now that I wasn't being clear and that it was my fault for not pointing out that it was speaking in general, (since this is a thread about conservative vs liberal), about the one's who continually shout it out like it's the be all end all to the whole war debate. So again, sorry.
Okay, if Bush was lying it would matter, but I still don't think he was. Lying as in, he said something he didn't believe. I think he had reasonable suspicion to suspect Saddam had them, and that's enough.
And I still stand by with how I said it sounds when people only mention the WMDs. Other statements need to be made along with it. I know that only a select few idiots in America, none of which on these boards, would not support the troops, but it just doesn't sound like it the way many people comment on the none existence of WMDs. What does it matter how someone feels if that's all the troops hear? And many Liberals use this in rallys and such. I see it as very damaging to the troops.
Maybe we shouldn't have gone over there, but I feel like we should. To say Saddam wouldn't want WMDs sounds extremely silly to me, and those people really weren't in much of a position to fight for their own freedom. There's a big difference between America fighting for freedom when Britian was an ocean across and Iraqis fighting for freedom against their own military.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, maybe you're using supporting the troops in a different way than I am. For me, it means first and foremost caring whether they die and the purposes for which they risk their lives. You seem to be saying that it means supporting the President and sheilding him from being held accountible. By your definition, I guess I'm not supporting the troops. Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, these are sensitive subjects, for a lot of reasons. I just take offence at anyone who tells me I am not a good American because I have a problem with what I see as unethical behavior from our leadership.
Not you personally, but that is the tone that a lot of these speeches seem to be taking lately, and I am sick of it.
What other possible meaning could theer have been at that recent speech you brought up, when he claimed that all liberals wanted was to spend money, increase the size of the government, and offer to psychoanalyze the enemy.
Never mind that Regan and Bush both spent more than their predecessors, just on different things. Never mind that understanding the reason something happens is necessary if you wish to prevent it from occuring again, and that trying to understand does not preclude taking action where necessary.
I just get tired of people on both sides taking a tragedy that affected ALL Americans, and trying to profit from it politicaly. Not just republicans, but anyone.
I am off to bed, but thanks for the conversation. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. S: "See, maybe you're using supporting the troops in a different way than I am. For me, it means first and foremost caring whether they die and the purposes for which they risk their lives. You seem to be saying that it means supporting the President and sheilding him from being held accountible. By your definition, I guess I'm not supporting the troops. Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying."
Gah, what I'm saying is that alot of what some high up liberals have said is indeed hurting our troops. How would you feel if you were a soldier, and you heard high up liberal senators or the like basically bashing the entire war, because no WMDs have been found? Probably not to good. That is most deffintly not supporting the troops in my opinon. Not because they aren't pleased no WMDs have been found, and they wonder if they were lied to, but because they don't care about anything else.
"Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying."
That seemed a little overly personal to me.
"What other possible meaning could theer have been at that recent speech you brought up, when he claimed that all liberals wanted was to spend money, increase the size of the government, and offer to psychoanalyze the enemy."
There were demonstrations of liberals wanting an understanding of why it occured I believe. So, maybe he should have pointed out he's not talking about all.
But my main reason for bringing it up was the whole, demacrates had no reason to ask... blah blah blah.
"Never mind that Regan and Bush both spent more than their predecessors, just on different things. Never mind that understanding the reason something happens is necessary if you wish to prevent it from occuring again, and that trying to understand does not preclude taking action where necessary."
No, I don't approve of all the money that's being spent either. I jumped for joy when I heard about the budget cuts that Bush was apparently going to make that he never did. Freaking ticked me off. If it's because of all the people who whined about it, then it just affirms my belief that Republicans are pansies.
"I am off to bed, but thanks for the conversation. [Big Grin]"
Whew, hopes that mean we're cool. I love talking politics, mostly because so few people agree with me, and it's fun to try and hold my own, but it does tend to get more personal than religion, so it is a hard topic to tread on.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meg, This is not a game. People live and die based on what George Bush does. You don't seem to me to be seeing the soldiers as actual real people. They are very real to me. I know many of their faces. Some of them I know their dreams and their fears. Many of the ones I don't know come from pretty much the same environment I do.
I take it very unkindly when people suggest that I don't care if they die, especially when they do it in such a way that seems to be saying that George Bush and his administration shouldn't be held accountible for their actions. When you argue that supporting the troops means not criticizing the President when he doesn't live up to his responsibilities to them, when you act like the very idea of the President having responsibilities to them is wrong, you make it so that more soldiers will die. This is a serious matter to me, because I do care if soldiers die. I really don't like it when people seem to treat it like a part of some political game.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meg, we are cool, as far as I am concerned. I am a mix of both political views, really, so basically I dislike them all at this point...
I think I am just burned out at this point, perhaps I will feel differently at another time.
I don't know if politics gets more personal than religion, but there is a real reason why the rule exists about not talking about either at parties, you know...
I don't see anything wrong on wanting t know why thiese things happened, and I think you atre wrong...as representitives of the people they have the right, and the responsibility to wonder why, and try to prevent it from happeneing again.
I agree that a lot of what is happeneing over there is a good thing, but I don't think we really ahve a right to go around and force other people to live a lifestyle that we approve of, and I know that if anyone tried to do that to us we would ahve a problem with it, don't you think?
On the other hand, something needed done, and to be honest I thinkk that leaving Saddam alone was a horrible mistake last time around, quagmire or not.
Once you go to war, you stay th couse and get it done as quickly and safely as possible. Keep in mind that most of the people I have heard complain about the war, public figures or private citizens, hae made it quite clear that they are proud of the job that most of the soldiers are doing over there. However, if people feel that they were lied to, they have a moral obligation to fight that, and prevent it from happening again that supersedes the possibility of hurting teh soldiers feelings. I don;t thinkn they are dying in vain at all, but they are dying for reasons other than what was claimed, and those claims were made to secure the approval of people like me, who were pissed but weren't sure of who to balme.
Nopw I still don;t know, but I do know that I don't trust anything the President has to say about it, because most of what he has said has been proven to be either a lie or completely false.
Either he is dishonest, or incompetent. Either way I don't trust him to lead me, not without question at least.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Meg, This is not a game. People live and die based on what George Bush does. You don't seem to me to be seeing the soldiers as actual real people. They are very real to me. I know many of their faces. Some of them I know their dreams and their fears. Many of the ones I don't know come from pretty much the same environment I do.
I take it very unkindly when people suggest that I don't care if they die, especially when they do it in such a way that seems to be saying that George Bush and his administration shouldn't be held accountible for their actions. When you argue that supporting the troops means not criticizing the President when he doesn't live up to his responsibilities to them, when you act like the very idea of the President having responsibilities to them is wrong, you make it so that more soldiers will die. This is a serious matter to me, because I do care if soldiers die. I really don't like it when people seem to treat it like a part of some political game.
One of my best friends is in Iraqi right now last I heard. Unfortunatly I lost communication with him and that scares me. I've already even mentioned him breifly, but you've apparently been too blind to what I've been saying.
I'll try and summarize myself:
I don't think Bush lied, if he did he should be punished.
I think the positive effects of the war is a great thing and high ups in the liberal party won't admit it and bash the war causing harm to our troops.
I never recall saying that I thought you didn't care if they lived or died. Where in the world did you get that? Please quote me so I need to know if I need to apologize or not. I'm going to bed now though, and I suggest you do the same so that you can look over it tommorow and maybe you'll understand what I typed a bit more.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Here's what I know: the Constitution suggests eminent domain (in limiting it, in A5, to public use with just compensation), and governments (fed, state, and city) have been doing this ever since, although only recently have they expanded it to non-public use. Congress wouldn't have to pass a law for eminent domain by cities, and in fact would be forbidden to by Amendment 5, which would reserve this for the states. What legislature are you thinking of?![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
