Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well-said! I can't add anything to the above summary. But I would dispute any attempt to make a definitive judgment about what the American people want based solely on recent election results. It's impossible to generalize when there is such a vast number of issues people base their decisions on, and so many nuances to most of those issues. It's indisputable that there's a general restless discontent with what's happening in Iraq and people don't like it, but it's such a complicated mess that I don't think most voters are in any way suggesting that they personally have the answers to exactly how we should proceed from here. At best it was a vote of "no confidence" in the way things are being conducted, as you so eloquently stated in the quote above.I agree with that part, but then you said: History rarely proves anything. You can't spell "history" without the word "story" --- and everyone has a different version of it. I'm open to the argument that we should have gone with Goldwater and really bombed the living bejeezus out of the place, then we would have possibly won. I'm not sure what that victory would accomplish, though...? I mean, Nixon actually was brave enough to admit to being defeated, for which I admire him, and the results are now that Vietnam is a rapidly developing and relatively free nation because we got out of there and let them evolve on their own timetable in their own manner. Maybe that's what we should do with Iraq...?
If you want to say history proves anything, how about this: history proves that one nation cannot impose its culture, policitical and economic system on another without completely overwhelming that nation with massive force AND having some commonly shared values from which to build a new nation. I'm talking, of course, about the successful examples of WWII in which the USA was at its best in rebuilding the completely shattered, decisively-defeated nations of the Axis.
But there is no comparison between any of the Axis powers and the current war. "Terrorism" isn't a nation, it's a tactic. A "war on terror" is doomed from the outset because the very concept is completely nonsensical. Who, exactly, are we fighting, and how can we tie it to the beleaguered nation of Iraq? The war there is a war of sectarian violence mixed with anti-western militants, it's a chaotic mess and it will continue even if 100% of Americans stand hand-in-hand singing praises of how Bush and Rumsfeld have handled the war. Balderdash! What evidence do you have that our feelings about the war have anything to do with Sunnis and Shiites committing revenge attacks against each other
You and mb919 have some good points and they are definitely open for debate. I think debates are healthy but after the debate is done and the voting process is complete we need to stick together and see it through. No matter if your opinion was the popular one or not. I guess the real root of my problem with todays way of doing business is accountability. Now I am as guilty of this as the next one. I am trying to make an effort to change though. We need as a nation and individuals to take accountability for our actions. Like you said you admired Nixon for owning up. I am not sure walking away is the answer though. As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites are concerned their problem can be solved. Split them up and give them there own territory. But they are not the big problem Alqaeda is creating the hostility there on top of it all. We have to find a way of extinguishing them completely. They are a virus like the ones we get in our computer. Most of the time we interfere with other countries is because we got sucked in some way or another. Either through a business adventure or through the results of the cold war. All of the countries that hate us hate us for these two reasons, our life style or they are jealous of our power.
Ok so we aren't the Great Satan but we are not God's country either. I agree to both of those statements. So far we agree now.
War is hell nobody likes war and nobody likes killing Iraqi babies, woman and children except the terrorist who use them for human sheilds and suicide bombers and Saddam himself who raped and threw them into meat grinders.
What about what Hitler did to the Jews? If you bring that up on this forum to a few people it's not recognized and not valid. It's funny how liberals like to back murderous dicators who kill for no reason but hate Bush for trying to liberate people.
Is Bush a clod or is he the brillant mastermind behind 911 and this world domination he is shooting for? Which is it? Clod or a brillant evil?
Just an observation, but it seems that again you're taking your assumptions and confusing them with my thoughts. Did I ever say Bush was the mastermind behind 911? I believe it was OBLs boys who did 911, like any sensible person does. So the short answer to your question: Bush is a clod.
Bush hasn't liberated a soul in Iraq, and it's appalling to use Saddam as an excuse for his morally bankrupt, corporate hit job in Iraq. Of course Saddam killed and mutilated his own people, does that give us license to blow them to hell? Saddam didn't claim to be a pillar of justice or promise to liberate anyone, so at least you can credit him for not being a hypocrite. More than you can say for Bush.
And, for the record, I'm no 'lib' as you say. At least in the sense that I believe in balanced budgets, a community that promotes strong traditional families, an America that sticks to its own turf, and a society that values life over death. If that makes me a 'lib', I shudder to think what that makes your President.
Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 12-03-2006 at 01:13 PM..
You and mb919 have some good points and they are definitely open for debate. I think debates are healthy but after the debate is done and the voting process is complete we need to stick together and see it through.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm sticking with all of you, as long as you're decent people who don't intentionally hurt others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecuban
As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites are concerned their problem can be solved. Split them up and give them there own territory.
I've thought that too, but then I read or heard some very good arguments against that. For example, if you split them up then there will be an instant war over the oil, which is mostly in Kurdish territory! Now, speaking only from my emotions, I'd be happy to give the Kurds EVERYTHING because they're the most peaceful and rational of factions in the region. But in all fairness I cannot go with that. Oh screw it. That's what I think, let the Kurds have it! Let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other. That's evolution. The survival of the least insane. Religious fanatics are dangerous to humanity. OK, there, I said it and now someone can slam me for being a bigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecuban
Alqaeda is creating the hostility there on top of it all. We have to find a way of extinguishing them completely. They are a virus like the ones we get in our computer.
The virus analogy is a good one and I would use it in the opposite way --- we will NEVER stop computer viruses because they are always evolving. Just as terrorism is a tactic, so are computer viruses. They will morph into new forms and we will never "defeat" them the way we can defeat a nation-state. To me, your comparison of Al Qaeda to a computer virus is an argument in favor of intelligent covert operations. It's also an argument AGAINST overthrowing governments in unstable places where the only thing keeping the peace is the dictator we installed into power decades ago. You ARE aware that many of the world's dictators are buddies with US governments (Democratic and Republican, it doesn't matter, it's our style), right?
This is the problem I have with this. We went by the information that we got from intelligence. We gave Saddam warning after warning. His time was up we went in. Congress, Senate and the President that we the people voted to make these intelligent decision for us all voted to go in. Mostly all of us including yourself all agree that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that hated America. Right? This is what I am getting at. Knowing his profile of an evil dictator that hated Americans and the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction. Is that not enough reason for you to admit that we are better off without him in power? Now I think I know what you are going to say because of your other post. Quote me please if I am wrong!That you agree that he is scum and he deserves to be put down but economically it has set us back. Now see this is where I agree. Our national debt is hurting big time because of this. Safety wise are we better off? I say a big yes!!! Could it have been run better? Hindsight is 20/20.
Hi,
Actually, I can count myself as one of the few who had 20/20 vision going into this mess.
This is all well-reasoned, but consider the new post-Cold War criteria for starting a war:
By that same calculus we should be invading at least 5 different countries, one of which (North Korea) may have the capability of striking the US mainland.
You and mb919 have some good points and they are definitely open for debate. I think debates are healthy but after the debate is done and the voting process is complete we need to stick together and see it through. No matter if your opinion was the popular one or not. I guess the real root of my problem with todays way of doing business is accountability. Now I am as guilty of this as the next one. I am trying to make an effort to change though. We need as a nation and individuals to take accountability for our actions. Like you said you admired Nixon for owning up. I am not sure walking away is the answer though. As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites are concerned their problem can be solved. Split them up and give them there own territory. But they are not the big problem Alqaeda is creating the hostility there on top of it all. We have to find a way of extinguishing them completely. They are a virus like the ones we get in our computer. Most of the time we interfere with other countries is because we got sucked in some way or another. Either through a business adventure or through the results of the cold war. All of the countries that hate us hate us for these two reasons, our life style or they are jealous of our power.
Accountability is a HUGE issue that needs to start happening sooner rather than later. We need to understand that being the most powerful country in the world, each and every one of our decisions has enormous consequences. The people making those decisions have a huge responsibility, and with that responsbility needs to be accountability.
I would say that the countries around the world who hate us do so out of fear more than jealousy. If you were Iran, or North Korea, and you sat back and watched what the US did to Iraq the past 3+ years, wouldn't you be a little distrustful and feel a need to defend yourself? We are seen by many countries as bullies and meddlers. We need to start holding ourselves and our leaders accountable before the rest of the world decides to do it for us.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm sticking with all of you, as long as you're decent people who don't intentionally hurt others. I've thought that too, but then I read or heard some very good arguments against that. For example, if you split them up then there will be an instant war over the oil, which is mostly in Kurdish territory! Now, speaking only from my emotions, I'd be happy to give the Kurds EVERYTHING because they're the most peaceful and rational of factions in the region. But in all fairness I cannot go with that. Oh screw it. That's what I think, let the Kurds have it! Let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other. That's evolution. The survival of the least insane. Religious fanatics are dangerous to humanity. OK, there, I said it and now someone can slam me for being a bigot. The virus analogy is a good one and I would use it in the opposite way --- we will NEVER stop computer viruses because they are always evolving. Just as terrorism is a tactic, so are computer viruses. They will morph into new forms and we will never "defeat" them the way we can defeat a nation-state. To me, your comparison of Al Qaeda to a computer virus is an argument in favor of intelligent covert operations. It's also an argument AGAINST overthrowing governments in unstable places where the only thing keeping the peace is the dictator we installed into power decades ago. You ARE aware that many of the world's dictators are buddies with US governments (Democratic and Republican, it doesn't matter, it's our style), right?
You are a hard person to read! I am beginning to think you are closer to the center than you have given yourself credit for. You said in a previous post you lean more left. This is my advise! You need to completely separate yourself from both. This is a perfect example of the real you!! In this post you have been totally non biased. Although you disagree with some you have done it elegantly. You have given me a good idea for a thread!!! Thanks
Accountability is a HUGE issue that needs to start happening sooner rather than later. We need to understand that being the most powerful country in the world, each and every one of our decisions has enormous consequences. The people making those decisions have a huge responsibility, and with that responsbility needs to be accountability.
I would say that the countries around the world who hate us do so out of fear more than jealousy. If you were Iran, or North Korea, and you sat back and watched what the US did to Iraq the past 3+ years, wouldn't you be a little distrustful and feel a need to defend yourself? We are seen by many countries as bullies and meddlers. We need to start holding ourselves and our leaders accountable before the rest of the world decides to do it for us.
Fighting the cold war has brought us where we are. Yes we are looked upon as meddlers and bullies to many. But the question lies if we would of picked the other route would we have been a free country? Or would most countries be run by communist including ours?
By that same calculus we should be invading at least 5 different countries, one of which (North Korea) may have the capability of striking the US mainland.
So why haven't we?
Regardless how we got here we are in this up to our ears like it or not. Do we change the direction we are headed? Do we walk away and hope for the best? What is your opinion!! Be nice
You are a hard person to read! I am beginning to think you are closer to the center than you have given yourself credit for. You said in a previous post you lean more left. This is my advise! You need to completely separate yourself from both. This is a perfect example of the real you!! In this post you have been totally non biased. Although you disagree with some you have done it elegantly.
THANK YOU!!! That's such a kind thing to say! Yes, I'm sort of a centrist but that still implies that I believe there is such a thing as "left" vs. "right." The reason I act like I'm a leftist is because all my friends (pretty much without exception) are to the left and I tend to relate to them better. But some of them frustrate me because they really get into being anti-Bush and over-simplifying things.
To me, there is no left vs. right, I think that's a political game that's exploited by mass media for ratings and it makes us all more stupid. We all need to think outside the box, vote independently for whoever we agree with or believe in, and keep our minds open to new information because we're all merely human and we're all probably wrong most of the time! Think about it, in a thousand years from now, don't you think humans will look back on whatever records they have about us and say to themselves "Wow, they were really stupid and primitive!"
By that same calculus we should be invading at least 5 different countries, one of which (North Korea) may have the capability of striking the US mainland.
So why haven't we?
An alternative response: we don't because we can't. It's not because they have nuclear capability, all our intel says they don't (their tests were failures, though they might be able to sling-shot a small nuke into South Korea.)
The reason is China. Everything is about China. They own us. Any questions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't add anything to the above summary. But I would dispute any attempt to make a definitive judgment about what the American people want based solely on recent election results. It's impossible to generalize when there is such a vast number of issues people base their decisions on, and so many nuances to most of those issues. It's indisputable that there's a general restless discontent with what's happening in Iraq and people don't like it, but it's such a complicated mess that I don't think most voters are in any way suggesting that they personally have the answers to exactly how we should proceed from here. At best it was a vote of "no confidence" in the way things are being conducted, as you so eloquently stated in the quote above.I agree with that part, but then you said:
History rarely proves anything. You can't spell "history" without the word "story" --- and everyone has a different version of it. I'm open to the argument that we should have gone with Goldwater and really bombed the living bejeezus out of the place, then we would have possibly won. I'm not sure what that victory would accomplish, though...? I mean, Nixon actually was brave enough to admit to being defeated, for which I admire him, and the results are now that Vietnam is a rapidly developing and relatively free nation because we got out of there and let them evolve on their own timetable in their own manner. Maybe that's what we should do with Iraq...?
NOW we're talking, Cuban!
