Iraq: Ten years later
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, March 23, 2013 00:10
VIEWED: 10965
PAGE 1 of 1
Man, when we fix a country, we FIX a country...you betcha!Quote:
Violence in Iraq spikes.
“The levels of violence there are still extremely high – and lethal,” says Nora Bensahel, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), who notes that more people are dying in Iraq today than in Afghanistan, where America’s war is ongoing. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/1221/Violence-in-Iraq-spike
s.-Are-US-security-interests-in-jeopardy]
Teens see no hope for future in Iraq
The lingering effects of war on Iraqis
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2013/03/12/iraq-ptsd.cn
n
Iraq's dumpster children
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/international/2013/02/22/marketplace-
middle-east-iraq-children-b.cnn#/video/international/2013/02/22/marketplace-middle-east-iraq-children-b.cnn Quote:
Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq
Iraq’s oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.
“Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq’s oil market,” oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. “But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973.”
“The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop.” http://dprogram.net/2013/03/17/iraqs-dumpster-children/#more-126723
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We fixed them right and proper. That'll teach them to stop denoting oil in USDs.
So, what else has happened ...
Well, there was the Arab Spring
In Libya Gaddafi (who also stopped denoting oil in USDs) was ousted with US help and it now has Jibril as elected leader who wants to privatize the oil (of course). His policies are described in WIKI: 'He described his party as a partisan of democracy, promoting Sharia'. Hmmm what do we support - oil or Sharia, oil or Sharia ...
Egypt's Mubarek left under the encouragement of the US, it's now ruled by an extremely conservative Muslim party that has already voted in Sharia law.
Tiny Tunisia is supposed to be a success story. But the people I know who have relatives in Tunisia tell me that it's a free-for-all of corruption. At least it's a free market!
Anyway, I could go on but time is awasting.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You mean bombing the shit out of a place, killing hundreds of thousands of people, creating power vacuums, and subverting economic resources for our own means doesn't automatically impose order on other countries?
Gotta be proud, Iraq was horrible when Saddam Hussein ran it, nothing like discovering that good intentions mixed with greed, fanaticism, and imperialism can lead an entire region to whole new lows. Well done everyone! Cakes all around.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We all agree this was unconscionable. But Americans STILL support the administration that carried this out.
Where are the protests to end the wars? Where are furious demands for a government that will stop these types of atrocities?
Crickets.
Thought so.
Nobel Peace Prize my ass.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you think a lot of people here voted for Dubya, approved of what he did, stayed silent if they didn't, and otherwise acted like accomplises?
What website have YOU been visiting?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
“The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop.” http://dprogram.net/2013/03/17/iraqs-dumpster-children/#more-126723
Amen. I wish I had a copy of the speech where W explained that invading Iraq was vital to America's security. Even at the time I noticed how careful the wording was. It hoped to let us believe he meant terrorism, but he never said it outright. I believed at the time, and still do, that he was thinking about America's financial security. W wanted us to control that oil. I think he honestly meant to be the daddy figure, doing what was right for the stupid proles, even if they would never understand. He was all into heading off some future oil wars, and believed it'd all be peace and harmony once we had the rigs.
Of course, he was talked into this fantasy by those who'd make all the money controlling the oil, as well as the war. By the VP who used to work for the company that - shocker! - got lots of no-bid, way overcharged war contracts. Boy, have those companies filled their pockets!
It truly is madness. Even ten years later, I can't quite believe they pulled this off. And they got away with it.
I am very bitter that Obama didn't go after them. Though, I can see that it might not have even been possible. Big money controls too much of our govt. Here's to hoping for some changes in that department! (I'm looking at you, Elizabeth Warren...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell, we started this whole mess when we capped Mossedeigh in 1953.
Everything else has been much like the old lady who swallowed a fly, put up and supported The Shah, and when he got thrown down propped up Saddam to oppose him, supported the Mujas against the Soviets, damn near every problem over there rests in part on our friggin meddling - and the blowback from Libya is gonna suck in another generation or so with consequences...
First thing, we need to learn to leave well the hell enough alone.
Second thing, we need to take our so-called-protectors who's blowback we been chokin on for decades out back and shoot them in the head, every single one, burn their buildings and salt the earth they stood on.
You wanna fight international terrorism and it's creators, start in Langley and Quantico, not the middle east.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I am very bitter that Obama didn't go after them.
That for the same reason Ford didn't go after Nixon, or why sniping officers was a faux paus in warfare for so long, they see themselves as better-than and have this unspoken agreement that only the peons face the consequences...
*MY* ancestors were Wataugans, *WE* shot the officers FIRST.
Other than what happened at Kings Mountain, cause Ferguson was an idiot who didn't listen to the locals warning him, nobody wanted to pick a fight with us, not the colonials, not the redcoats, not the natives.
Imagine just how many problems one could solve by striking the root instead of hacking the branches.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This. Here. Is. The. Problem.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I am very bitter that Obama didn't go after them. Though, I can see that it might not have even been possible.
All the people who ranted and railed against W swallowed their rage when Obama took power. Sometimes, they might even express unhappiness with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But it is ALWAYS followed by some excuse for him.
There is no excuse for humanitarian atrocities. Not for Dubya. And not for Obama.
Where's our zero tolerance for fucking people up wholesale?
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:This. Here. Is. The. Problem.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I am very bitter that Obama didn't go after them. Though, I can see that it might not have even been possible.
All the people who ranted and railed against W swallowed their rage when Obama took power. Sometimes, they might even express unhappiness with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But it is ALWAYS followed by some excuse for him.
There is no excuse for humanitarian atrocities. Not for Dubya. And not for Obama.
Where's our zero tolerance for fucking people up wholesale?
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
OK. So you being all holier-than-thou. You go fix it, right here and now. What will you do? Tell me, what you better-than-everyone-else one single person will do.
Very curious to hear this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To clarify to those who cherry pick my post without reading the whole thing and getting my actual point (there's CTS displaying her inability to assess data again...)
My point was that the govt is more fucked up than a single individual can fix. If O had tried, in February 2009, to go after the W administration, it would set off a partisan battle at a time when the country was not just teetering on the edge but falling fast off the other side. That's the reality of politics: you have to choose your battles. It looks very pretty to ride into a hopeless battle and get cut down, but dying a noble death doesn't change anything. Not in politics.
As Frem says, the forces behind the Iraq FUBAR are far deeper and older and more ensconced than just W and Cheney. They are same forces that crashed our economy and have paid absolutely nothing for it. I'm sure that if she was pres, CTS could cut them down with a snap of her mighty fingers, but I don't think O is that all-powerful.
My biggest disappointment with O is that, when he ran in 2008, he said he wouldn't have any lobbyists. That idea quickly went away. Sadly, those damned lobbyists are the root of all evil, and they are currently the most powerful part of our govt.
Allowing the economy to finish its crash because he got engaged in a hopeless battle to take down the now powerless figureheads of the systemic disease would have been stupid. O used his political capitol to start a recovery and go after health care. I'd have much rather he went after Big Money, but he certainly had access to information I didn't. He chose his battle. I disagree, but can't claim to be right until I have all the same information he had in 2009.
I have hope that, since the national conversation is headed in a good direction, our next leader(s) will do the right thing as far as getting power away from the corps (Go Warren!) Public opinion is powerful, and the public is now aware of the power imbalance. Just look at what's happened with gay marriage and immigration, which are soon to be done issues now that the GOP sees public opinion--and votes--against them. Getting money out of politics is the next step. As long as it's still in there, no politician, no matter how smooth talking or charismatic, can win the battle.
Don't worry CTS. I don't expect to read and reply to this whole post. I've gotten used to you by now. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You mean bombing the shit out of a place, killing hundreds of thousands of people, creating power vacuums, and subverting economic resources for our own means doesn't automatically impose order on other countries?
Gotta be proud, Iraq was horrible when Saddam Hussein ran it, nothing like discovering that good intentions mixed with greed, fanaticism, and imperialism can lead an entire region to whole new lows. Well done everyone! Cakes all around.
Just don't you dare say YELLOW cakes! We'll have a whole new invasion to deal with!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where's our zero tolerance for fucking people up wholesale?
You're not American, are you?
Fucking people up wholesale is all we do. Hell, idiots in this fucking country will even celebrate the murders of schoolchildren, wholesale, and mock the victims.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rummy decided to post his thoughts - all 140 characters of them - to Twitter to celebrate the tenth anniversary of one of the country's greatest blunders.
Patton Oswalt called him on it, Lebowski style.
(Note how Rummy is trying to play the whole thing off now as a "war of liberation". Anyone with two brain cells remembers that's not the reason we went in.)
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL. I am. Naturalized immigrant--so you got a point. I didn't grow up in America. Thank God.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're not American, are you?
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OK. So you being all holier-than-thou. You go fix it, right here and now. What will you do? Tell me, what you better-than-everyone-else one single person will do.
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions. Fuck politics and back room negotiations. This is the ONLY action befitting a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. There are certain principles that shouldn't be compromised in the least. Like excusing rape.
If I were an Obama supporter, I would rally my fellow Democrats to protest the president UNTIL he takes such actions. I would not tolerate a President that I voted for to behave in this way.
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:LOL. I am. Naturalized immigrant--so you got a point. I didn't grow up in America. Thank God.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're not American, are you?
It wasn't a criticism of you, trust me; it was an observation. America's slogan should be "We Can Fuck It Up For You Wholesale!"
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OK. So you being all holier-than-thou. You go fix it, right here and now. What will you do? Tell me, what you better-than-everyone-else one single person will do.
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions. Fuck politics and back room negotiations. This is the ONLY action befitting a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. There are certain principles that shouldn't be compromised in the least. Like excusing rape.
If I were an Obama supporter, I would rally my fellow Democrats to protest the president UNTIL he takes such actions. I would not tolerate a President that I voted for to behave in this way.
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
All valid points.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OK. So you being all holier-than-thou. You go fix it, right here and now. What will you do? Tell me, what you better-than-everyone-else one single person will do.
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions. Fuck politics and back room negotiations. This is the ONLY action befitting a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. There are certain principles that shouldn't be compromised in the least. Like excusing rape.
If I were an Obama supporter, I would rally my fellow Democrats to protest the president UNTIL he takes such actions. I would not tolerate a President that I voted for to behave in this way.
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
...My atheist anarchist gods. I would VOTE for you.
I should take some medicine or something and lay down.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL. Of course. If you would vote for me, you need to take your meds. ;)
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
... I would VOTE for you.
I should take some medicine ...
You would do the same if you were Obama. And I'd vote for YOU.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?
Quote:
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
FU again. I do not turn a blind eye, and I criticize freely.
Quote:
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions.
I am absolutely pissed that he has not shut down Guantanamo or pardoned Manning. The pardon is certainly within his power, and likely Guantanamo, though I'm not 100% certain.
Again, you seem to be living in this fairytale land where the president can say: Make it so, and presto it is. He is not a dictator. You are implying that president and ONLY the president has the power to start a war or set up a torture camp or end a torture camp. If that's the case, something is very very wrong. That's what Cheney and his camp were after - more power to the executive, and that is NOT what I want.
Like we tried to tell the Republicans when W was eating up power: you'll regret this when the next guy comes in. They don't seem to remember this now that O tries to act outside Congress, like with immigration. You won't like it either if O becomes the sole decider as to whether or not we are at war, then the next president is a war hound and nobody can stop him.
BTW, yes, the Nobel Prize was ridiculous. What I don't like coming from you is this attitude that I, or any poster here, gave it to him, that we thought he did anything to deserve it, or that in any way we fawn over him. You're being like Rappy along these lines. Just stop with the assumptions.
Quote:
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
So you can withdrawal to your state of complaining about him carefully online, while the rest of us doing the exact same thing means we are to blame for his problems? Just because you checked a different box on a ballet, you are on a pillar?
Whatever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I checked Obama the first time and I carry that shame and guilt every day. People have died because of me.
Never again. I hate this president with a passion, I hate his stooges, I hate the senators and congressmen and military leadership that perpetuate all this. I never ASKED for them to defend me, I'm not really all that keen on living, you see.
But I do care if they're killing other people. I am not an excuse. The dead are not statistics. And these people making the decisions and calling the shots with cold blooded pragmatic murder and economic incentives are NOT MY LEADERS, they are my ENEMIES. They are the enemies of anyone with any pride and higher ideals left to their name.
They know it, I know it. And eventually the whole world will know it, when they send their jackboots to march on our cities. And when that happens, people will have to chose sides - and I don't mean left-wing or right-wing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Damn Mal4, I'm just plain not needed here! You do it all for me, on most issues, and much more concisely and civilly--well, not always civilly, you're getting quite a bite! Which of course won't stop me from putting in my own two-cents' worth!Quote:
All the people who ranted and railed against W swallowed their rage when Obama took power. Sometimes, they might even express unhappiness with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But it is ALWAYS followed by some excuse for him.
BullfuckingSHIT! We're out there, I'VE been out there protesting and getting any any watch list you like. I was out there every Saturday for over a year, with many others, and on individual demonstrations in between, and continue to this day working, protesting, demonstrating, making signs to help others protest, writing my representatives, trying to get people elected. I won't give you a laundry list of my protestations, suffice it to say what you said is just plain wrong, and I happen to know there are MANY of us like myself.
Here's the truth: We're pragmatists, for the most part. We know it would have been WORSE under McCain, or under Romney. Not only would our actions outside America have been more aggressive, and Gitmo filled UP again, but what happened to the American people internally would have been worse.
We also know one man can't change things--tho' he HAS, in many ways nobody cares to pay attention to. Hell, even a majority wasn't able to do what they should have done, because there aren't enough of them who want to do the right thing, because of the fucking filibuster, because of the asshole right-wing fringe tea idiots and the power THEY have to stymie things. I'd love to see anyone try to do what you think should be done, I'd really love to. Obama tried to close Gitmo, but knows he's up against an impossibility. No, Mal4, closing Gitmo wasn't within his power--all anyone has to do is read what happened when he tried to understand how the right was dead set on keeping him from doing it (exactly as they were with virtually anything and everything else he tried to do, as they clearly stated). Someone may manage it somewhere down the line, but I kinda doubt it. It's awfully convenient, having a place outside the country to hide your mistakes and threaten people with, it may never be closed. He stopped trying and went on to other things like a good pragmatist; we'll see if any future President takes it up again. I'll applaud them from the mountain tops if they ever DO, but does anyone think it'll ever be a Republican?
In other words, in a nutshell, as always we're stuck with the lesser of two evils; give us a real choice THAT HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING and we'll be out in droves voting for them. Meanwhile, we keep the pressure on whoever we CAN get in power to do minimum bad and maximum good.
We're out there protesting the drones and many other things. We don't get the press, we never will, but we're out there. We try to elect people who will do the right thing, but the only people we CAN elect are politicians, and almost all of them have their own agendas, so none are perfect. Getting enough people to stand up against what's wrong takes motivating people, which takes them being angry enough to DO something, which ain't easy. But we keep trying.
What we DON'T do is laud bad leaders' actions to the sky, buy into their bullshit and support them whole-heartedly because we're propagandized into believing they are all good, or even mostly good. We try to determine who will do the least harm, and hopefully the most good, and put them in office to avoid the Sarah Palins and Karl Rove's getting into power. We work with what's available.
Of COURSE nobody was going to toss the Bush Administration into jail. Pisses the hell out of most of us that nothing was done, but Mike explained that one and that's w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And Byte; how do you think you'd be feeling today if you'd voted for McCain??
What exactly does I HATE ALL OF THEM mean to you folks? Is there ambiguity? Did I misspeak?
All of them means ALL OF THEM. There is no better option. They're all the same. They're all terrible. They all help perpetuate a system THAT KILLS PEOPLE FOR ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
I'm getting worked up again. But suffice to say, if I voted for McCain, I would feel EXACTLY how I voted for Obama. If I voted for Bush I would feel exactly the same as if I voted for Al Gore. Different figureheads, same people on the staff, the administration, and in congress. Pointless to consider what might have been because it wouldn't have changed anything.
And it enrages me that these people have made it so there IS no choice, that we are stuck in a perpetual death spiral, and they are the only ones with the golden parachutes. The rest of us are their sacrifices, stepping stones to their greener pastures. I am to blame for this because I ALLOWED them to do this! And I refuse to play their game. Not again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
We're out there, I'VE been out there protesting and getting any any watch list you like.
That's great, Niki.
Quote:
Here's the truth: We're pragmatists, for the most part. We know it would have been WORSE under McCain, or under Romney. ...
We also know one man can't change things--
This part? Not so great. The excuses of pragmatism and how his hands are tied. No. Not acceptable.
The only acceptable response is to hate him with as much passion as you hated Dubya. Cause he's actually done WORSE than Dubya.
I know the presidency is limited in power. What I won't accept is using the limitations of power as an excuse to CONTINUING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE. He has a duty not just to Americans, but to humankind in general, to first do no harm. That means if he can't shut down Guantanamo, or pardon Bradley Manning, or shut down the wars in Iraq and Iran by himself, then he needs to resign rather than trade Iraqi and Afghanistani lives for his little sliver of power. It is the only conscientious thing to do--not just for him, but for ANYONE who accepts the office of the Presidency.
What do I expect from you guys? I just want you dems to stop making excuses for him. To stop sympathizing for him. To decry and denounce his presidency for what it is: a tyrannical and murderous administration bent on fucking up the world wholesale, just like Dubya's.
Cause from where I stand, you guys sound a lot like those CNN apologists for the rapist boys, except in this case, the rapist boy is the President of the United States. Yeah, yeah, rape is bad. But you gotta see things from the boys' point of view.
THAT is what I mean by turning a blind eye.
Quote:
Byte:
And I refuse to play their game.
Byte's response to Obama is the only one I can respect on this board.
After seeing how much he fucked up Guantanamo and Iraq and Iran, did you guys vote for him a SECOND time? Yes. Yes you did. And I will never forgive you for it.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?Quote:
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
FU again. I do not turn a blind eye, and I criticize freely.Quote:
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions.
I am absolutely pissed that he has not shut down Guantanamo or pardoned Manning. The pardon is certainly within his power, and likely Guantanamo, though I'm not 100% certain.
Again, you seem to be living in this fairytale land where the president can say: Make it so, and presto it is. He is not a dictator. You are implying that president and ONLY the president has the power to start a war or set up a torture camp or end a torture camp. If that's the case, something is very very wrong. That's what Cheney and his camp were after - more power to the executive, and that is NOT what I want.
Like we tried to tell the Republicans when W was eating up power: you'll regret this when the next guy comes in. They don't seem to remember this now that O tries to act outside Congress, like with immigration. You won't like it either if O becomes the sole decider as to whether or not we are at war, then the next president is a war hound and nobody can stop him.
BTW, yes, the Nobel Prize was ridiculous. What I don't like coming from you is this attitude that I, or any poster here, gave it to him, that we thought he did anything to deserve it, or that in any way we fawn over him. You're being like Rappy along these lines. Just stop with the assumptions.Quote:
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
So you can withdrawal to your state of complaining about him carefully online, while the rest of us doing the exact same thing means we are to blame for his problems? Just because you checked a different box on a ballet, you are on a pillar?
Whatever.
Again, all valid points.
Some few of you may have noticed that I'm not a fan of drone strikes. That puts me at odds with the administration AND with the likes of Rappy and "Hero" here, because they love drone strikes (or at least they used to - they may have flip-flopped since li'l Randy the PaulBot decided to use them for fundraising purposes).
I'm not a fan of wars, indefinite detention, the "unitary Executive", torture, warrantless wiretaps (even when they catch Tricky Dick Nixon committing treason) or a whole host of other things that have been rammed down our throats in the past and then handed off to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Of course, even fewer of you will remember that I warned against giving them those powers in the first place. I was ridiculed for that, but I was also ridiculed for suggesting that drone strikes overseas would lead to abuse of the policy, or that Bush's wars would cost us trillions of dollars instead of a few billion.
Bear that in mind next time you hear those who were first with the ridicule try to convince you that any war with Iran or North Korea would take only a few days and cost no American lives and very little money. There's no such thing as a cheap war.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Byte's response to Obama is the only one I can respect on this board.
Whoa there! Let's not agree with me so quickly. I'm dangerously insane.
I do think the other board members here do have the pride and the higher ideals I mentioned. But the time is not yet right for them to rally to the cause.
The government above all else is incompetent. Everything else that it is will be revealed eventually. And when that happens, there will be choices again.
I am still on this board because I know where the majority of these board members will chose to go. That's important to remember.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?
You said it with your vote.
Quote:And yet, you voted him into office. Again.
FU again. I do not turn a blind eye, and I criticize freely.
Quote:I'm an anarchist. Not what I want either.
that is NOT what I want.
Quote:
...or that in any way we fawn over him. You're being like Rappy along these lines. Just stop with the assumptions.
You fawn over him enough to vote for him. Or did I assume wrongly that you did?
Quote:
So you can withdrawal to your state of complaining about him carefully online, while the rest of us doing the exact same thing means we are to blame for his problems?
You are to more to blame than me because you put him in office, and because you still DEFEND putting him in office.
Quote:
Just because you checked a different box on a ballet, you are on a pillar?
No pedestal here. No. But I am not defending him in any way or defending a choice to put him in office in anyway. So slightly higher moral ground, yes. But only slightly.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, Niki, I've got some bite lately. Clearly CTS and I don't see get along, and what's really annoying is that I think we do agree on many principles. I feel she's pecking at me because of past disagreements more than what's being said now.
So yes, CTS, I'm sick of the passive aggressive. If you want to have it out with me, let's go. But don't misinterpret my posts and try to assign to me opinions that aren't mine so you can one up me or something.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And it enrages me that these people have made it so there IS no choice, that we are stuck in a perpetual death spiral, and they are the only ones with the golden parachutes. The rest of us are their sacrifices, stepping stones to their greener pastures.
I understand and empathize. Again, I feel this is root of everything: the money is running the system. Perhaps it is setting myself up for disappointment, but I have a lot of hope in Elizabeth Warren. Us little people are aware of the power imbalance (Thanks to folks like Niki and the rest of OWS!) so pols like Warren will be getting increasing support. If we can get more people like her into the system, there may hope.
Quote:
And I refuse to play their game.
I understand this as well. However, if all the good people leave the game, it is guaranteed to not change.
The best and most peaceful way to change a system is from within. Not that I'm volunteering to run for office, and I'm certainly not going to change my mind about working in the oil business (I could be sharing in the windfall profits at this point as all my co-grad students are now, but I'd be sooo unhappy there) but I don't feel I need to keep as far from politics as possible. Once I did, but the older I get the more I'm drawn in.
None of it is perfect, little of it is actually good at this point, but the system has some directions that are better than others. I want to be a voice supporting those. Even if that means that some people will blame me for the bad parts of the system.
It's a little RWA I think, to have to be either 100% for or 100% against a political system or political person. There are very few 100% out there for me. I like some things about O and dislike others.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There are different levels of criticism here. The first is directed at Obama, who not only continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it), but actually expanded the atrocities.
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?Quote:
The second is directed at his supporters, who willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses. But he really loves us and won't do it again!
FU again. I do not turn a blind eye, and I criticize freely.Quote:
If I were Obama, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would shut down contracts with XE/Blackwater. I would pardon Bradley Manning, make our atrocities transparent, and make amends to the international community for our actions.
I am absolutely pissed that he has not shut down Guantanamo or pardoned Manning. The pardon is certainly within his power, and likely Guantanamo, though I'm not 100% certain.
Again, you seem to be living in this fairytale land where the president can say: Make it so, and presto it is. He is not a dictator. You are implying that president and ONLY the president has the power to start a war or set up a torture camp or end a torture camp. If that's the case, something is very very wrong. That's what Cheney and his camp were after - more power to the executive, and that is NOT what I want.
Like we tried to tell the Republicans when W was eating up power: you'll regret this when the next guy comes in. They don't seem to remember this now that O tries to act outside Congress, like with immigration. You won't like it either if O becomes the sole decider as to whether or not we are at war, then the next president is a war hound and nobody can stop him.
BTW, yes, the Nobel Prize was ridiculous. What I don't like coming from you is this attitude that I, or any poster here, gave it to him, that we thought he did anything to deserve it, or that in any way we fawn over him. You're being like Rappy along these lines. Just stop with the assumptions.Quote:
As I am neither, I will protest Obama in a way that will not get me put on some watch list. Mostly it involves withdrawing from the larger system of corporate evil in our society.
So you can withdrawal to your state of complaining about him carefully online, while the rest of us doing the exact same thing means we are to blame for his problems? Just because you checked a different box on a ballet, you are on a pillar?
Whatever.
Abso-frakin-lutely.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?
You said it with your vote.Quote:And yet, you voted him into office. Again.
FU again. I do not turn a blind eye, and I criticize freely.Quote:I'm an anarchist. Not what I want either.
that is NOT what I want.Quote:
...or that in any way we fawn over him. You're being like Rappy along these lines. Just stop with the assumptions.
You fawn over him enough to vote for him. Or did I assume wrongly that you did?
You keep equating voting for the lesser of two evils with "fawning".
Im with Mal. FU. You really think Romney would have been better?
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
And this is where I say FU. Please show me where I, or anyone here, said this was OK?
You said it with your vote.
Yep, this is what I mean by RWA. 100% for or against, and incapable of seeing shades of grey.
Quote:
So slightly higher moral ground, yes. But only slightly.
So clearly it makes you feel good to remove yourself from the system, to not try to do anything that will have an actual effect so that you don't have to take any responsibility for outcomes. You have righteousness on your side - brava!
You're welcome to your approach, and your biased RWA superiority complex, if it makes you happy. Of course, this approach will never change anything. Basically, you've chosen your superiority and peace of mind over the chance to actually fix anything.
Not that I blame you. I've made similar choices for a lot of my life. But don't even start putting me down as the one to blame for EVERYTHING, when all you did was check a box that changed NOTHING.
ETA: CTS, I'd like you to address the issue of USA dictatorship. If Obama has the power to begin/end wars etc, how do you think this will go down when other parties (I say parties because who knows what the GOP will become) take power?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
However, if all the good people leave the game, it is guaranteed to not change.
Well said. Those who just take their ball and go home to pout have chose irrelevence, after which their opinions, no matter how angry, are nothing but pissing in the wind.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, that's laughable. We voted, so we're condemned. So by not voting, by letting the worse of two evils be elected--not by working toward getting better people into power, by voting to avoid what we believe will be even worse disaster, by voting to keep the worst at bay, one is condemned as evil, whatever one might do or however one might try to influence those who DO get in power to do a better job.
Boy, you got it whipped. Just don't vote, and you're the good guy! Vote for some symbolic perfect candidate who'll never get power, never change a damned thing, you get to condemn everyone else, to the point of saying they fawn over the person because they checked a box!
I worked for, and voted for, a Congressional candidate when our (MOST excellent) Congresswoman retired this past election. I did so because he had a CHANCE...the guy who was more likely to win, by the way, wasn't bad at all, but I thought Solomon would do a better job, and he had a CHANCE. It ended up a very, very close race, with a recount, and the other guy won. In a case such as that, hell, yeah, I'll bust my ASS to try and get the guy I believe in to win; but if you're saying we should vote for someone who hasn't a chance in hell, just 'cuz the two who will obviously duke it out in the end aren't good enough, then you're part of the problem. If you're saying we shouldn't vote at ALL, then jezus, there's no hope for you, you are WORSE than part of the problem, in my opinion.
Wow. Talk about impossibility of communication; you don't WANT to communicate or make thing better, you just want to sit on your high horse and judge everyone else self-righteously, while taking no responsibility for yourself. Gotcha.
Meanwhile, back in the REAL world...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's a little RWA I think, to have to be either 100% for or 100% against a political system or political person. There are very few 100% out there for me. I like some things about O and dislike others.
No, in my case it's black and white thinking hallmark of a mental disorder - and the only way I can be.
You want to believe that the system is still fair, that it can be changed from within, and I empathize and sympathize with you.
And I envy you. Because you still have that hope. I don't.
It's not a very nice place to be living in. The sheer horror of knowing what would happen to most people if the system collapsed far overshadows the triumphant sense of satisfaction I would get in seeing something so rotten and irredeemable and vicious and EVIL fall.
The reason I am dangerous is that part of me wants that outcome anyway so hard I can TASTE it. And if I saw a moment's opportunity where I could make that happen, a nudge, like dominoes, I wouldn't even hesitate.
Here's the worst part. I'm on your side. When the national guard marches on the cities and you're on the line throwing rocks, I'm on your side. We might disagree fundamentally on whether we even want there to be a city there at the end of the day, but so long as you're willing to throw rocks, I'll be willing to stand beside you. And at the end of the day, I'll be the one dead, not you. The people will speak, and they will not want what I want. The cycle will start over. Humanity's future will always be an endless cycle of violence and corruption and a boot stomping on someone's face. And I can't stop it. But I have to try.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only thing I have to say: "black and white thinking hallmark of a mental disorder - and the only way I can be." That's not true. It's the only way you CHOOSE to be, and that is 100% your perrogative. But there isn't a mental illness around which MAKES you think in black and white if you don't want to. Just sayin', on behalf of the mentally ill everywhere.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really? You think I'd choose to be like this?
I'm not sure I'm adding anything more to the conversation other than whining now so I guess it's time for me to quit this thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Really? You think I'd choose to be like this?
I'm not sure I'm adding anything more to the conversation other than whining now so I guess it's time for me to quit this thread.
No, I don't think you choose. And I really do empathize, with you and even a little with CTS. I know I'm older than you, and I think I'm older than CTS, and I was a lot more like you when I was your age. (Mental issues and all!) I had some opinions, a direction I leaned, but mostly a huge disgust for politics that made me avoid it and the news as much as possible.
All that changed in the elections of 2000, when I started paying attention. Just imagine what the world would be like now if a few hundred people in Florida had voted for Gore rather than Nader. Imagine that there had been no privatization of our military, no appointments to the SC who made money=free speech the law of the land. No cowboy mentality that guns and torture solve everything. No govt energy committees made of oil execs. No dismantling of environmental protections. No dismantling of financial oversight that led to the crash.
My gawd yes - votes make a difference!
I must note that I didn't vote for Gore. I thought he was a doorknob. (Not that my vote mattered - except that in my district Nader beat Bush which I love!) Nothing would have perfect under Gore, and I'm sure other problems would have arisen. But holy cow, so much badness would have been avoided!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You mean bombing the shit out of a place, killing hundreds of thousands of people, creating power vacuums, and subverting economic resources for our own means doesn't automatically impose order on other countries?
Gotta be proud, Iraq was horrible when Saddam Hussein ran it, nothing like discovering that good intentions mixed with greed, fanaticism, and imperialism can lead an entire region to whole new lows. Well done everyone! Cakes all around.
I don't usually speak from personal experience when dealing with politics, however my father served in both the original Gulf war and the latest 2nd Gulf War. About a year ago I finally asked him what his opinion of the war was, and whether he thought the United States should have ever invaded Iraq. After a moment of silence he responded with something to the gist of:
"I didn't fight that war to find WMD's and I didn't fight in that nation to steal it's oil either. Its a shame that the Bush administration gave the reasons it did for invading Iraq, especially when it was one of the few wars where we could have taken a moral high ground. Our Casus Belli didn't have to be an imminent threat to ourselves, but rather one towards humanity. The guy was a bad guy, he massacred his own population, the torture chambers were horrible. I don't think the way we handled popping up their government was right, there was allot on the administrative side that was downright wrong, but I can't say that the world would be as safe as it is now if we hadn't taken Sadam out."
I also think you are vastly blowing the statistics of the deaths FAR out of proportion. Less Iraqi's died as a result of US troop interactions than did of civilian violence. Sadam killed as many as 800,000 people, and that isn't even taking into consideration the Iraq-Iran war. Most estimates say that during the entire Iraq war 150,000 people died "violent" deaths which includes sectarian and war related deaths...
I'm not excusing the Administrations lies or the mishandling of the war, however I find it crazy that people don't pride America for doing the good thing for once.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny how the "right" thing always consists of civilian casualties. Ha. Ha.
And now that Saddam Hussein is gone, Iran is coming to power, so we can go to war with Iran now! It's okay if civilians die, they're evil anyway, so it has to be done. The ends justify the means!
Or maybe the situation is far more complicated than any of us give it credit for and maybe it never had ANYTHING to do with what was "right." Maybe if we cared a jot about what was "right," we wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein when it was convenient, and withdrawn that support when it wasn't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're not condemned because you voted. You're condemned because you voted for someone who murders wholesale, AND you're STILL defending that vote!
Originally posted by Niki2:
We voted, so we're condemned.
You could always vote for someone who wasn't for killing innocent people. I'd respect that.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Funny how the "right" thing always consists of civilian casualties. Ha. Ha.
And now that Saddam Hussein is gone, Iran is coming to power, so we can go to war with Iran now! It's okay if civilians die, they're evil anyway, so it has to be done. The ends justify the means!
Or maybe the situation is far more complicated than any of us give it credit for and maybe it never had ANYTHING to do with what was "right." Maybe if we cared a jot about what was "right," we wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein when it was convenient, and withdrawn that support when it wasn't.
We have much more a reason to go to war with Iran than we ever did with Iraq. That being said, we really don't have the money to do something right now.
You are clearly not getting it, less people have died as a result of the Iraq war than did Sadam's reign. We never should have supported Sadam during the Iran-Iraq war, however at least we had the common sense to intervene when he decided to invade Kuwait. We all know its harder to jam the toothpaste back into the tube after you've spilled it, and the plethora of Administrative blunders certainly didn't help, however I will say that I don't mind Sadam not being in power, and I don't see why we should sulk over the sins of the past when we did go the extra mile to make up for it.
Also, I wonder how many people would have died if the Iranians won the Iran-Iraq war? I wonder how horrid the death toll would have been..... Just a penny for your thoughts.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm 45. You're not older than me.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I think I'm older than CTS,
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't want him to have the power to begin wars. It isn't the power.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
CTS, I'd like you to address the issue of USA dictatorship. If Obama has the power to begin/end wars etc, how do you think this will go down when other parties (I say parties because who knows what the GOP will become) take power?
It is about standing up for what is RIGHT.
It is the one guy in a room where his buddies are gangraping a girl, and saying, no, I won't be part of this. This is wrong. You stop, or I am going to make you stop.
Someone with Obama's popularity and charisma, if he had tried to stop the wars/Guantanamo/atrocities, and he was blocked at every turn--what do you think would have happened if he had made a public appeal to the American people:
Fellow Americans. I ran my campaign on the platform for change. But I don't have the power to change without you. So I have to appeal to you again. Write your congressmen and senators. Call them now. Tell them to allow me to shut down Guantanamo. Tell them to stop the wars. Tell them to do what is right.
If he had even TRIED to make that speech, I would personally hoist him on my shoulders.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:You're not condemned because you voted. You're condemned because you voted for someone who murders wholesale, AND you're STILL defending that vote!
Originally posted by Niki2:
We voted, so we're condemned.
Interesting, the contrast in arguments from CTS and Penguin1. Completely opposite takes.
Re age: OK, so we're very close. I thought you had young kids. Maybe confused you with someone else. Not that folks our age can't have young kids!
Sad that you're so hopeless about the system. I wonder how you've lived so long and always managed to have a perfect, no complexities, no disagreements candidate to vote for. I don't know much about your life, but it seems getting out could do you good. You do seem to think there are perfect solutions to very complicated problems. I wonder how you'd handle actually trying to solve one.
Again I ask: if you were suddenly Obama, in some Freaky Friday mind swap, do you think you'd be able to stop all the wars and corporate abuses on a dime? With no other innocent victims ever just because you said so?
And how do you answer Penguin regarding lives that were saved?
ETA - cross post! I see you replied. Give me a minute to read and assess...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You are clearly not getting it, less people have died as a result of the Iraq war than did Sadam's reign.
Yet people STILL DIED, and we contributed in a major way to the over-all death toll in the region. We also originally put Saddam in POWER, and so are responsible for what he did.
It's not a question of us being better or worse based on the number of people we killed versus how many people Saddam Hussein killed, it's a question of we did the SAME THING. Which is KILLING PEOPLE.
You think our leaders are better than Saddam Hussein? Lol. Just you wait.
And the only reason we want to go to war with Iran is because Israel wants to go to war with Iran. I guess that's totally righteous and a good reason though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't want him to have the power to begin wars. It isn't the power.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
CTS, I'd like you to address the issue of USA dictatorship. If Obama has the power to begin/end wars etc, how do you think this will go down when other parties (I say parties because who knows what the GOP will become) take power?
It is about standing up for what is RIGHT.
Hard to give some one the power to end wars but not the power to begin them.
Also, what you see as right is not universal. Yes, in some situations, such as a gang rape, it is pretty damned clear. Iraq in 2009 - not so clear. Pulling the troops out the first day he was in office would not have gone well.
Quote:Yeah, he did that. When he ran for office in 2008. And people voted for him, people made phone calls, people protested. But guess what - people also made phone calls and cast votes etc supporting the complete opposite view! See Penguins posts. It is a complicated world, and a complicated problem. A gang rape is damned obvious right/wrong (for most of us anyway!) Running a country is not.
Fellow Americans. I ran my campaign on the platform for change. But I don't have the power to change without you. So I have to appeal to you again. Write your congressmen and senators. Call them now. Tell them to allow me to shut down Guantanamo. Tell them to stop the wars. Tell them to do what is right.
I really do think you should get yourself in a position to address a political issue. Hell, even be captain of a sports team where half the team wants to win and half just wants to play for fun. Try dealing with that stupid, meaningless, unsolvable conflict and maybe you'll develop some empathy for what is involved in trying to fix wars and broken political systems.
BTW, I would really love it if O'd stand up and make such a speech against the corporate-ocracy and class warfare. Oh wait, he's done that too. People did what he asked: voted, made calls, signed petitions, organized rallies. Did that change everything on a dime?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sad that you're so hopeless about the system. I wonder how you've lived so long and always managed to have a perfect, no complexities, no disagreements candidate to vote for. I don't know much about your life, but it seems getting out could do you good. You do seem to think there are perfect solutions to very complicated problems. I wonder how you'd handle actually trying to solve one.
In a nutshell. And yes, sad; but I must admit in a 45-year-old, somewhat amazing. I was damned naive at 45, but not THAT blind and ignorant, even then.
And yes, he did:Quote:
I would really love it if O'd stand up and make such a speech against the corporate-ocracy and class warfare. Oh wait, he's done that too. People did what he asked: voted, made calls, signed petitions, organized rallies. Did that change everything on a dime?
...and nothing's changed. Nor will it. Takes more than that. Lots more...starting with, for those in power, SOME semblance of "cooperation" and "compromise".
Penguin, in many ways I understand what you're saying. But to me, that can be said of so many dictators, so many horrors in the world, and our involvement has not made things better and often made it worse, so for me, doing what we did was wrong, whether we were fooled into doing it or did it for the "right" reasons.
And given what we've got so far, this thread is not worth one more second's effort.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile...
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In a nutshell. And yes, sad; but I must admit in a 45-year-old, somewhat amazing. I was damned naive at 45, but not THAT blind and ignorant, even then.
...Y'know, my opinions here aren't so different from CTS, I just don't think you guys are evil for voting. Just that the voting system is very flawed and the only candidates who get offered up are the best scramblers out of all the monsters in a popularity contest.
And that each of us does have responsibility for what the person we voted for does. But I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at Obama. Just as I was mad at Bush.
Still... Is it really necessary to call me blind and ignorant? You addressed that at CTS, but if I'm making the same arguments, well, you kinda just called me that too.
Maybe we just kinda disagree, as opposed to either you and Mal4Prez or me and CTS are stupid. Maybe you guys are optimists and we're cynics, and they're legitimate lifestyle choices.
Pfft. Shoulda bowed out of this conversation when I said I was going to. For some reason all these arguments end up with us anarchists getting insulted.
We don't buy into something we think is a lie, so we're naive.
Instead of protesting and voting in a system that's rigged and abuses protestors and free speech, we're shirking our responsibilities by refusing to play that game and trying to find different paths for change.
We don't see a whole lot of difference which party is in power because the efforts of a few are muddled by the whole, and so to us they might as well be the same. But because we don't align ourselves with one party or another, we're BLIND.
Thanks a lot for making the EFFORT to talk to us lazy cowardly rubes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, that one reeeely makes me laugh. YOU got insulted??? Did you read the threads? Who exactly are being called villains here, and who are trying to explain that life ain't black and white, that just because you voted for the lesser of two evils doesn't make you responsible for every human being who dies if that person gets into office? YOU're being insulted? That's a laugh!
Let's peruse what's being said to and about those of us who believe Obama was a better option than McCain or Romney and voted for him because of it:Quote:
(Obama) continued the atrocities of the previous administration (but oh, it's ok with his supporters if HE does it),
willfully turn a blind eye to his abuses while making excuses for him like battered spouses.
you guys sound a lot like those CNN apologists for the rapist boys
did you guys vote for him a SECOND time? Yes. Yes you did. And I will never forgive you for it.
You fawn over him enough to vote for him
So we are fawning over a murderer, willfully ignoring atrocities, making excuses for a wife beater and apologists for a rapist who will never be forgiven for our crimes. But it is you and CTTS who are personally being insulted (leaving out also the fact you weren't responded to directly). Holy shit wow.
By the way, there is, Byte, whether you recognize it or not, a HUGE difference between "blind" and "ignorant" and "stupid". I, for one did not call ANYONE stupid; naive, yes, but please don't put words in my mouth. Or do, if you feel like it, but it's a lie. The things said to us were quite clearly typed; "stupid" was not ever written, by me at least.
Lastly, yes, there IS a difference between Presidents, and between parties...sometimes a huge one. Read a little history about what happens during different administrations to this country, make the effort, I dare you, and show me there is NO difference, it's ALL bad, it's ALL rigged. Make your case, if you want to bandy that shit about. Because there are huge differences in how things are done and WHAT is done; they're not as good as they should be, either party, and not enough good gets done, but don't hand me that line of bullshit that there's no difference unless you're willing to use your brains to try and SHOW IT!
"the only candidates who get offered up are the best scramblers out of all the monsters in a popularity contest." THAT is patently untrue. More true in Presidential contests than others, but even then, a simplistic, untrue statement.
Mark had the definitive statement on this argument, in my opinion: Quote:
Those who just take their ball and go home to pout have chose irrelevence, after which their opinions, no matter how angry, are nothing but pissing in the wind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS said those things. But you just insulted CTS for some viewpoints I hold. So yes, I'm now insulted.
Quote:
By the way, there is, Byte, whether you recognize it or not, a HUGE difference between "blind" and "ignorant" and "stupid". I, for one did not call ANYONE stupid; naive, yes, but please don't put words in my mouth. Or do, if you feel like it, but it's a lie.
That just makes it all better. Being called a liar on top of everything else too.
Quote:
Read a little history about what happens during different administrations to this country, make the effort, I dare you
Thanks for calling me ignorant AGAIN.
As for "show me there is NO difference, it's ALL bad, it's ALL rigged":
In the Bush administration, WHO controlled the house of representatives and and the senate when 9-11 happened, and who controlled the house and senate when we declared war on Iraq? Who were the chief of staffs? Who ran the CIA and FBI when they screwed up so badly for 9-11?
AND, would ANY of those things have changed if Al Gore was in office?
Probably not. We know that the Clintons and the Bushes were friends off the campaign trail, and obviously, they also shared political advisors and friends as well. Al Gore was part of that crowd.
There's also a lot of overlap from the Clintons to the Bushes to Obama with the czars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Therefore, would we have gone to war with Iraq if Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush?
YES. Because vested interests existed who were pushing for War with Iraq behind the scenes. Al Gore might have paid more attention to to the briefings for the 9-11 terrorists, but the CIA didn't do their jobs and catch the training pilots before it happened. Al Gore might have opposed an Iraq War, but everyone likely to be in his administration, including the Clintons, would have supported it and would have been advising him to go through with it. He would have received the same erroneous briefing about Saddam having yellow cake and sheltering Al Qaeda that Bush did because those briefings were put together by non-appointed personnel.
And when the democrats regained control of congress in 2004, did they manage to stop anything with Bush as president? Have they stopped any of the rights violations that Obama promised to stop since he took office? All they've managed was holding to an already predetermined date for Iraq set by the Bush Administration.
No difference.
You want to argue that one man can't change everything, and that we shouldn't blame Obama, but you and Mal4Prez have said that if only Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush NONE of this would have happened. But that is spectacularly unlikely.
And I'm allowed to be angry with all of them for being such screw-ups. For being part of a system that enables wholesale murder in other countries. I blame them for being at the wheel and not stopping what I consider to be atrocities. Both sides. You say one person can't change anything, I say as a whole they're not even trying because all that dirty money lining their greedy corrupt pockets.
You want to go off at CTS, fine, she asked for it by digging at you like she did. But you don't get to just toss out vitriol and not get blowback when the splash effect hits me. I'm irrelevant as fuck, but I will still fight back if I've been slighted. Your best bet now is to ignore me and hope I get distracted by butterflies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
wheeeeeeee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. But I would try. And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed. I would not be a part of the system at the expense of those innocent lives. No.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Again I ask: if you were suddenly Obama, in some Freaky Friday mind swap, do you think you'd be able to stop all the wars and corporate abuses on a dime? With no other innocent victims ever just because you said so?
And murder is a CLEARER evil than gangrape.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL, Byte. I'm sorry you got some of my blowback.
Hey guys, leave Byte alone. I'm the asshole here, not her.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody's anybody's baby here CTTS; we're all responsible for what we respond, you know that.Quote:
And I'm allowed to be angry with all of them for being such screw-ups. For being part of a system that enables wholesale murder in other countries. I blame them for being at the wheel and not stopping what I consider to be atrocities. Both sides.
Abso-friggin-lootely! And so am I, and that's part of the point. The many--and I do mean MANY--of us here on RWED who are called "lefties" are quite quick to scream and holler--AND PUT UP POSTS DECRYING--drone attacks, staying in Afghanistan, and any number of other things we see wrong with the left/Obama/Democratic Senators/whatever. To condemn us because we voted for who we thought would do less damage, rather than--what, not voting and sitting around bitching about it???--is highly offensive and insulting to me, a citizen of a county which ALLOWS me the privilege of participating in my government!
The argument is purely that simply because we voted for Obama as the lesser of two perceived evils we should be condemned out of hand. That is the only argument. That's a stupid argument in my opinion, and that of others. If one doesn't vote, one isn't in the position to judge anything or anyONE...one can, of course, as you and CTTS happily have, but your opinion will be considered irrelevant; you chose not to participate, that makes you at fault for WHOEVER wins, whatever monster is at the helm, by default.
It is, in my opinion, simplistic to say there is no difference between the parties; it is, in my opinion, naive to say "it's all bad", and I've said so.
Hey, lady, you got nothin' on me. I have no desire to have knock-down, drag-out fights with anyone, but I'll speak my mind, I don't care if you feel it's "fighting back" to hurl invectives at me in return. You said you were insulted; I showed you the insulting things WE had been charged with; those are facts.Quote:
You stated "Maybe we just kinda disagree, as opposed to either you and Mal4Prez or me and CTS are stupid". I never wrote the word "stupid" once, nor can I find anywhere that Mal4 or anyone else called anyone "stupid". Your statement pretty clearly implied that someone was saying you were stupid. Ergo what you wrote was incorrect.
Being called a liar on top of everything else too.Quote:
THAT is a flat out lie, you want me not to say something is a lie which obviously is? Show where I wrote any such thing. By saying "lesser of two evils", I'm in NO way saying Gore would have been peachy. I don't think we'd have invaded Iraq; I'm pretty sure we'd have invaded Afghanistan if the warnings of 9/11 hadn't been heeded, and maybe things would have worked out better if we HAD kept our eyes and military there, done what we set out to do and gotten out. Or not, who knows? But if you lie about what I wrote, of course I'll say it's a lie!
you and Mal4Prez have said that if only Al Gore had been in office instead of Bush NONE of this would have happened
I'm pretty sure if McCain had won, we would be more fully involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he has pretty clearly said as much. Whether there were vested interests in going into Iraq or not, you cannot state flatly that we'd have gone in if Gore had been elected. That's not a debate: you are making a point based on assumptions, they prove nothing.
For "proof", you'd have to look back at previous administrations to see what, if any, the differences are. I may take the time to make my argument, but not today. The problem you're up against is that your argument is pure black and white: "There is no difference". Surely you can see that's not a valid point. "There's not much difference" would be easier to defend, but then you've admitte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed" There simply are no words. If you can't conceive of the permutations that would follow such actions. Ah, well: There are no words.
Your conscience might feel jim dandy. You could go home and pat yourself on the back smugly, enjoy all the perks of having been Prez for, what, five minutes?, and watch the country go to hell. Yup, very commendable.
Wow.
Time to go back to what Mark said: "Those who just take their ball and go home to pout have chose irrelevence, after which their opinions, no matter how angry, are nothing but pissing in the wind."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
To condemn us because we voted for who we thought would do less damage, rather than--what, not voting and sitting around bitching about it???--is highly offensive and insulting to me, a citizen of a county which ALLOWS me the privilege of participating in my government!
I didn't. You're still confusing me with CTS. And still insulting me.
Quote:
You said you were insulted; I showed how what was said to and about those of us who believe in participating in the voting process was clearly, downright insulting, and sneered at you for thinking you were insulted in comparison.
So in your view, being insulted by CTS more makes any claims I might have to being insulted by you moot. Fun times. I do so enjoy being insulted, confused for someone else, then told I have no right to complain about it.
Quote:
The problem you're up against is that your argument is pure black and white: "There is no difference". Surely you can see that's not a valid point. "There's not much difference" would be easier to defend, but then you've admitted to our very point that it's worth trying to find the lesser of two evils, don't you see?
There isn't a lesser evil because both sides are corrupt and work together. But you aren't to blame for that. You are free to continue voting and hoping it makes a difference.
And I will continue hoping they all fall flat on their faces when the corporations propping them up fail because of their own greed. Because I don't think we'll get meaningful change until we can take back the system from the aristocracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
In a nutshell. And yes, sad; but I must admit in a 45-year-old, somewhat amazing. I was damned naive at 45, but not THAT blind and ignorant, even then.
Still... Is it really necessary to call me blind and ignorant? You addressed that at CTS, but if I'm making the same arguments, well, you kinda just called me that too.
...
Pfft. Shoulda bowed out of this conversation when I said I was going to. For some reason all these arguments end up with us anarchists getting insulted.
We don't buy into something we think is a lie, so we're naive.
Instead of protesting and voting in a system that's rigged and abuses protestors and free speech, we're shirking our responsibilities by refusing to play that game and trying to find different paths for change.
We don't see a whole lot of difference which party is in power because the efforts of a few are muddled by the whole, and so to us they might as well be the same. But because we don't align ourselves with one party or another, we're BLIND.
Thanks a lot for making the EFFORT to talk to us lazy cowardly rubes.
Huh. Why are you so eager to be insulted that you invent insults? I never called you blind or ignorant or naive. I made the point of telling you, and CTS, that I don't blame you for your choices. Did you catch where I said I've made those same choices myself? If you try hard enough, you can turn that into an implied insult. But I never called my younger self naive. My whole point was that I understand your reasons for your choices.
Put away the matyrdom already. I am indeed making an EFFORT to talk to you, and never ever called you a "lazy cowardly rube". I make an EFFORT to talk to you because I think this is an important conversation, and I think it's worthwhile talking to you. And to CTS. If I think someone is not worth an effort, I don't make one. Ask Rappy or Jack.
If I haven't been entirely complimentary to CTS, you'll note that she accused me of being at fault in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and stated outright that I am a supporter of such things (that would be a LIE), and that she is morally superior to me. Which is a whole bunch of insult.
Funny I don't see you complaining when an *actual* insult is aimed at me. Guess you're too busy inventing insults aimed at you.
And you know what, I still like you and will still continue to enjoy talking to you. Not lying!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That post was directed at Niki, who I quoted, who did in fact say that CTS was blind and naive for not voting because she feels like none of the candidates were really serious about stopping any of the wars or the violations of human rights. And therefore, by extension, Niki said that I am blind and naive for feeling the same way.
Quote:
Funny I don't see you complaining when an *actual* insult is aimed at me. Guess you're too busy inventing insults aimed at you.
Gee, I have never once defended you or Niki in this thread, not once when I yelled at CTS that voting doesn't make you evil it just makes you optimists.
Quote:
And you know what, I still like you and will still continue to enjoy talking to you.
Let's not kid ourselves. *I* don't even like me.
Have fun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I read on.., wow, this thread's gone weird! CTS continues to chose her moral superiority over effecting actual change. That's OK. Just thank goodness there are people actually willing to DO stuff and make the hard decisions.
And CTS - so you as Obama, because you couldn't snap your fingers and make everything perfect (your own personal version of perfect, whether anyone else agrees with you or not) would quit and run away to enjoy your pedestal. You would allow darker forces to take over and extend the war, leading to many many more innocents dead. Whereas, if you'd stayed and actually fought the good fight, you could have wound it down. Now who has murder on their conscience?
But, please, live in your fairy tale so you can feel superior.
Byte: you can't take all statements made toward CTS as statements made toward you, then get upset at Niki for "confusing" you. You have claimed CTS's statements as your own.
Despite your eagerness to read everything in the most negative light (do you really need so badly to be a victim?) I have indeed put a lot of effort into communicating with you. I feel it is disrespectful how you put up strawmen. I stated a list of things that I believe would be different under Gore. I am ready to defend those, if you would pay me the respect of having a CONVERSATION with me about them, rather than being offended over a strawman and running away.
You'll note that I specifically stated that nothing would be perfect, and that Gore would have his problems. That I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. No, apparently you didn't note any of that, because then your strawman wouldn't stand.
Well, shoot. If Byte and CTS run away, who else is there to talk to? Why can't anyone have a debate without being either a Rappy brickwall or going all emotional over things that weren't said?
*sad sigh*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You would allow darker forces to take over
This is exactly the mindset I am arguing against. There is no "dark" and "darker." Some things are black and white. Some things MUST be black and white.
Imagine you're in a room with a bunch of gangrapists. They force you to rape the girl too. You say, "No way!" They say, "I expected you to say that. But if you don't rape her, I will kill her. So do it to save her from a worse fate."
Then you say, "OK, she gets raped by one more person, or she dies. Getting raped one more time is the lesser of two evils." So you make the "hard decision" and join in the rape.
This is the mindset Obama and his supporters are working out of.
Now substitute gangrape and death with other possibilities. Say, kill the girl or I will skin her alive. Say, kill and eat the girl, or I will eat her alive. It doesn't matter. There is no end to how low the dark can go. The rules of choice remain the same. Choose dark or choose darker. As long as you let them corner you into that forced choice, you will never get out of the dark zone.
I am saying it is wrong. As long as people work within this mindset, and live by the rules of these moral economics, things will never change.
Real change comes from one person saying, "No, I will NOT cross that line, no matter what you threaten me with. You will NOT corrupt me." Then the next person finds it easier to say no. And the next. It is the only way to make the perverse rule makers to be the only ones standing, left with no power.
This is not about moral superiority. I am trying to make a case to change the "lesser of two evils" mindset because getting other people to see this is the only way to change the system.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No. But I would try. And then I would resign in protest if I couldn't succeed. I would not be a part of the system at the expense of those innocent lives. No.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Again I ask: if you were suddenly Obama, in some Freaky Friday mind swap, do you think you'd be able to stop all the wars and corporate abuses on a dime? With no other innocent victims ever just because you said so?
And murder is a CLEARER evil than gangrape.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
Your solution to everything seems to be to just give up.
Yeah, that'll get a lot done.
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And then you proceed to give a fictional example right of some 24 style TV show. Not very realistic. But I'll get back to that.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
You would allow darker forces to take over
This is exactly the mindset I am arguing against. There is no "dark" and "darker." Some things are black and white. Some things MUST be black and white.
I talking about something that happened in reality. There were definitely lighter and darker forces in 2009. There was one candidate singing songs about "bomb bomb Iran" and another speaking openly against these wars. In my fiction where you are playing Obama, and you got elected and found that you were not a dictator and you could not immediately reshape the world into your vision for it, you have said that you would quit. OK, so the VP would step up and work toward ending the wars.
But if your whole administration went away and was replaced by McCain's (because we are talking about the effect of my "blame-worthy" vote for Obama rather than McCain), then McCain would very very likely send yet more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, would invade Iran and who knows what other countries. (But do you think Palin would have stayed on for the whole four years? Or would she quit early again, because she can't get her way either...)
So, because you quit since you were incapable of committing yourself to something imperfect, our new reality in 2013 would be continuing escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan and new wars in Syria and North Korea and who knows where else.
Yeah. Reality. You can't always get your way. Doesn't mean the other way is not worse.
OK, sure, so you and I could come up with fictional situations all day, but the vote cast in 2008 was very real choice between a bad situation that would get worse or bad situation with a chance to improve. Which it HAS. We are out of Iraq. There is a new agreement to get of Afghanistan. The drones are way fucking wrong, but they have been outed and I believe they are also on their way out - because people have NOT run away, even us who you choose to blame are staying involved and calling Obama out on these things.
Really, where you get "fawning" is beyond me. Do you really I think I fawn over him? Or is this your RWA brain, not able to understand that a vote, that "support", does not mean unconditional worship?
Back to your fictional example. The way I see the choice you are advocating, is that when you see the gang rape happening you say: "well, if I go over there I'll be forced to either rape her or watch her get killed, so instead I'll turn on my headphones and go over to that nice coffee shop and have a latte. I'll remove myself from the situation so I don't have to blame myself for any of this."
Not going to fix a damned thing.
Hey, you can choose to do what you want. But don't even start getting down on people who have chosen NOT to walk away. [EDIT the rest of this paragraph: I choose to believe you didn't really mean to compare a vote for a Obama to a choice to join a gang rape. It kind of seems like you made that comparison, but I think - I hope! - you didn't mean it that way.]
What you can't seem to get through your RWA head is that Obama is NOT a dictator, and he could not change the world. Yes, he could have done a helluva lot better, but I'm seeing for damned sure that he's done a lot than you - a quitter - would have done.
Cause what have you changed by quitting the system? Really? What are the real effects, other than how you feel about yourself, and what you can say to people online when you don't agree with them?
Quote:Then don't tell me you are morally superior to me. Yes, you did say it outright. And you imply it every time you blame me for casting a vote, as if it's my fault Obama isn't making the world into Wonderlan
This is not about moral superiority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh, Mal4. Just think how else you could have spent all the time you just wasted pissing into the wind, time you'll never get back in your life. Tch.
If you're through 
, I'm sure we can find more interesting things to discuss.
It IS incredibly ironic that I put this post up specifically TO remind people that we didn't "fix" Iraq and things are pretty awful there, after all the thousands and thousands of deaths on every side. Most of us agree about that, I think, yet CTTS has taken it to a completely illogical level, that Obama's a monster and there's no difference between him and McCain, or Romney, or (for gawd's sake) PALIN! That's exactly what she's saying: Everything is black, there are no grays. You really want to keep trying to get through to someone like that? Silly gel...
As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to someone unwilling to partake in the flawed process BECAUSE IT'S FLAWED and for essentially no other reason, in a country where we are DAMNED lucky to have as good a process as we HAVE, their attitude makes them totally irrelevant. I'm willing to spend a few minutes trying to point out the irrationality of their stance, but beyond that...neh.
I considered for a few minutes the value of contrasting different administrations; there's good and bad in all of them, and what each accomplished might be interesting to compare and contrast, and would show quite clearly how wrong CTTS is. But it would take time I'm not willing to invest, at least right now, and would do the "in one ear, out the other" with her anyway. Hell, even school children learn how different administrations handle things differently, better, worse, or just differently. She don't get it; end of story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because your solution and my solution are not the same. That's what we are arguing about, isn't it? The solution.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Why aren't we talking about the problem, and looking for solutions,
Your solution is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
My solution is to say a resounding and defiant NO to BOTH evils, and pick a third option that isn't evil.
Yes, I believe my solution is morally superior. When I say it isn't about moral superiority, I mean it's superfluous to the solution. Mine is the only one that can give us the results we actually WANT, rather than the result that we reluctantly will tolerate.
Quote:
[EDIT the rest of this paragraph: I choose to believe you didn't really mean to compare a vote for a Obama to a choice to join a gang rape. It kind of seems like you made that comparison, but I think - I hope! - you didn't mean it that way.]
Yes. I DID mean it that way.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying.
Originally posted by Niki2:
that Obama's a monster and there's no difference between him and McCain, or Romney, or (for gawd's sake) PALIN! That's exactly what she's saying:
Any difference between Obama and any of the Reps is cosmetic.
It would be like saying there is no difference between the gangrapist who is a star athlete and class president and the gangrapist who is the high school dropout and drug addict. When you're at the level of gangrape, none of those other differences amount to a hill of beans.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
You are clearly not getting it, less people have died as a result of the Iraq war than did Sadam's reign.
Yet people STILL DIED, and we contributed in a major way to the over-all death toll in the region. We also originally put Saddam in POWER, and so are responsible for what he did.
It's not a question of us being better or worse based on the number of people we killed versus how many people Saddam Hussein killed, it's a question of we did the SAME THING. Which is KILLING PEOPLE.
You think our leaders are better than Saddam Hussein? Lol. Just you wait.
And the only reason we want to go to war with Iran is because Israel wants to go to war with Iran. I guess that's totally righteous and a good reason though.
1. We didn't put Sadam in power. You are thinking of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who we also didn't directly put in power (we trained them), they just so happened to be the "last man standing" in the Civil Wars following the defeat of the Soviets.
2. Our leaders may be corrupt, they may make terrible decisions, however last I checked I did not have to worry about being arrested and tortured to death for saying that they have been doing a bad job. If you truly think our leaders are as bad as Sadam, then I am convinced you have never been outside of the US, that you have never seen what others suffer through, and that you will never understand how lucky you are to be an American. The bottom 1% of the Poor people in America still would be in the top 50% (economically) of the worlds class structure.
3. The reason why the US could(good catch, I don't want to go into any war)go to war with Iran has to do with the fact that they have working nuclear facilities. On top of this Iran has stated that it wishes to wipe Israel, our ally, off the face of the Earth. They have stated that they want to "wipe away" the western world.
4. It took killing people to end the holocaust, heck it took killing a TON of people to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Civilians did die as a result of the American Invasion. I guess we never should have stopped that either?
On Fixing Iraq: We removed a problem, but no nation or being could fix that place. It isn't a "lack of government" problem, it is a lack of common unity/sense of nationality problem.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Penguin, nicely put! The only serious problem I have with what you wrote is, you WANT to go to war with Iran?? That boggles my mind. I would respectfully request that you not include anyone here but yourself in your "we" unless someone else speaks up to agree with you. I most certainly do NOT!
But as for the rest; in my opinion, pretty well said. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you portray, tho'. I would say there's more to it regarding Iraq than only "a lack of common unity/sense of nationality problem", but certainly that's part of it, and part of the problem in Afghanistan/Pakistan as well, as you noted before.
I still say you're all pissing into the wind, however. You'll never get past CTTS mental block that everything, EVERYTHING about our government is black, black, black. I wish she could visit a few of those other countries...or maybe just learn about them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Some people beg to differ.
Originally posted by penquin11:
We didn't put Sadam in power.
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've not only visited them. I grew up in 3rd world countries in Asia, Middle East, and South America.
Originally posted by Niki2:
I wish she could visit a few of those other countries...or maybe just learn about them?
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Some people beg to differ.
Originally posted by penquin11:
We didn't put Sadam in power.
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
Info that you need to know to understand why that article is bull:
a) Sadam Hussein was promoted to 2nd in command of the Bath party in 1976 and when President Al-Bakr stepped down he took power. There was no coup.
b) The Bath party took power in Iraq in 1958 because of the 14 July Revolution.
c)The revolution in Iraq that took place on July 14th, 1958 saw the overthrow of the Hashemite Monarchy, which was originally setup in 1921 by the Brits (can you say: Puppet?). And the Revolution- which established the Bath party as the party in power in Iraq (same party Sadam was in)- was primarily motivated by Anti- British/American Sentiments. Heck in 1972 the Bath party signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviets....
d) the Qasim guy it references, whose name it doesn't even spell correctly, he was in power and did favor a communist approach. There was a revolt in 1963, however his opposition came from within the Bath party and centered around his refusal to join the UAR, not his refusal to cut ties with Communists.
e) The United Arab Federation was an attempt to create a united Arab nation between Jordan and Iraq.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What, you mean we shouldn't take the word of a fringe website that can't spell, consistently use capitalization, or tell the difference between Iraq and Syria?
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So much naivety on this thread, unbelievable.
I've been involved in local sports clubs and kindergartens where politics is rife. You end up compromising all over the place because there are a lot of people who want different things.
Thus is the nature of human society and this is what gets played out on the world arena, its just that the stakes are higher.
No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.
Yep. That's heart of it. I'm so grateful to Niki for bringing "RWA" into the forum, because it explains a lot. Authoritarian types see only dictatorship or disengagement as solutions, because they can't imagine anything else.
But, Niki, I don't regret doing a little dance with CTS. I wanted to make sure I understand her, and I do.
CTS - you'll note that you have not offered any solution that did anything but make you feel good about yourself. You have not addressed any small part of this thing called reality. I think it's quite telling that your idea of a "solution" is to place blame on others and to publicly congratulate yourself that the blame is 100% not yours. What you've said in this thread says a lot about your priorities.
Now, I figure anyone who needs to do all that work really needs the ego boost that comes from it. So you go ahead and do what you need to get by. It's probably best that you leave the solving of actual problems to those who can engage in, discuss, and assess reality.
Speaking of which...
Penguin11, I don't think I've properly welcomed you! There's a penguin who stops by RWED from time to time, and it took me a while to figure out you're not him (which should of been obvious, he has rather unique signature.) Oh, that isn't criticism of your screen name. There can never be too many penguins. :)
I am so not a history/civics/politics expert. The little I know I've learned from encountering people like you. You obviously know a lot about the Middle East. Is this because of your dad serving? Do you have any more to share, especially regarding solutions? Are there any?
I tend to think the best the US can do is get the hell out of there and let those people run their own lives and their own country, though that's not likely to happen real soon. Our military may leave, but our corporations won't.
What do you think?
(BTW Byte - if you take my writing off of CTS as anything negative toward you, I will hunt you down and give you virtual kicks in the virtual butt until you believe that I LIKE you!)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.
I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.
I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that. I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.
If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's excellent. I find history very "messy". I can't keep everything straight in my head, and find it difficult to assess fact from opinion. (I'm a physicist. I HATE opinion LOL!) As I get older, I find history relevant enough to attempt to sort through the varying accounts.
Originally posted by penquin11:
My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.
I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.
Quote:
I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that.
This is coming from an ignoramus: won't there just be a new #1? Ten years now, we've heard top Al Quaida people going down again and again, and yet another top dog always pops up. When does it end? Can it?
Quote:Good point. I am not familiar with Panama, but I am following, a little, the situation in Venezuela. These aren't stable countries. Great, another area of the world to worry for! :/
I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.
Quote:I was in Kuwait in 2005, for a conference that had scientists from all over the Middle East. I asked an Iraqi about this issue. It's funny, the response I got was that the "common" people don't care. Sunni, Shia mix. (Hmm. He didn't bring up Kurds...) It's only the politicians that get so bent over all this, he said.
If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).
I don't know if I would apply that 100%, but I found it quite interesting. It's been a while, so I might have it wrong, but I'm pretty sure the man telling me this was from one sect and married to a woman from the other.
Quote:I don't know the tribes. What I do know is that the people of this country are capable of doing lots of complicated shit. They aren't stupid, as far as science and engineering goes.
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.
Where I see drawbacks, and this is based on conferences I went to in Kuwait and Turkey and fieldwork trips to Georgia (yeah, it's not the Middle East, but was once Soviet Union and is relevant to the area, I think), is that graft and sexism is holding the area back.
I spent 10 days in Tbilisi trying to get my equipment through customs. It only took so long because this was the first trip when we didn't pay bribes. Then, in Kuwait, I experienced many extremely kind and warm men, and also some who did not want to shake my hand or speak to me. (I'm female.)
Sorry if I'm lecturing. I really do want to hear more from you. I know my experience is limited. I've made some trips, but spent most of it thinking about what I was doing, rather than learning about where I was. I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Haven't done this in a while - double woo-hoo!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't have a problem with compromise. Compromise on issues like should we spend more money on health care or education.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No compromise has two components, dictatorship or disengagement. Neither are great options.
There can be NO compromise on issues like rape and murder. That you guys don't see this point is WHY we have wholesale state sponsored rape and murder.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That my solution does nothing is your opinion. Which is why you don't endorse my solution.
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
CTS - you'll note that you have not offered any solution that did anything
I believe if enough people acted on my solution, it WILL do something in reality.
Incidentally, doing nothing is BETTER than committing murder.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS: I got pretty pissed off at HKCav when he compared my being annoyed at french cartoonists for not being culturally sensitive and trolling the middle east to me being okay with people threatening other people with murder and rape.
I have no tolerance for our politicians for acting this way, but I'm not really sure this is a constructive line of argument.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together.
A booming economy based on selling poppy plants for heroin, nice. To get its act together they'd first have to learn to use toilet paper, then to stop throwing acid in little girls' faces.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, THANK YOU Penguin! You're a real asset here; in my opinion, you have a much better grasp of what we're discussing than most people here. How I wish our government/military would pay more attention to the people who study up on the culture/history of places we stick our noses. I'll leave it at that, or I'd start a real rant.
Did your father/you/your family actually live in the region at all? I'm not sure you're right about Afghanistan. It has always been a poor country; rich as hell in minerals and stuff, but agriculturally weak because of the terrain of so much of the country, and doesn't agricultural weakness still mean a lot? Less than it did in previous times, I realize, but without a national infrastructure and lacking a strong agriculture and decent industry, doesn't that make them too dependent on other nations? I know education is still a problem (it actually only started taking off under the Shah, from what I saw), and their view of America when we lived there hampered their own growth in that way; Afghans brought here to be educated fought against returning, which is how my family ended up over there (dad worked for Pan Am, which gave them the original DC-3s to set up Ariana, then had to send engineers over there because of the above problem).
I know the location puts them in a position to be powerful--they were in their own small way even then, playing the USSR against the US and everyone else against everyone else who wanted a foothold there. But more as to why you think they would have any potential for power in the region would be very interesting to hear.
I know education has taken leaps forward, but do you know, does the mentality still remain anything like the same: When we were there, "insh'allah" pervaded (along with bakshish!), and maintenance on the planes was something difficult to achieve).
I'd love to hear anything and everything you learned about today's Afghanistan, especially if you spent any time there; given I was there during the reign of the last Shah (1958-61), I know much has changed...but changing enough in 50 or so years seems like a lot, when it comes to national mentality.
I have no right to correct you, given your knowledge is more extensive about the current state of affairs, but "Afghani" when we were there referred to the currency, "Afghan" referred to the people. Has that changed? It always grates on me when I hear news people mispronounce anything having to do with Afghanistan, so it's a personal bugaboo.
Please, anything you have to offer would be eaten up eagerly from this corner...in fact I'd relish an entire thread begun on what you know of Afghanistan NOW. I'm always hungry for information.
I admit I beamed with pride (tho' I have no right to) at the sentence about Afghan soldiers. That feeling was so strong when I was there, and they've overcome SO much through occupation after occupation, and those I knew of just the people (never knew soldiers) made me so proud of them as individuals, I know I'm prejudiced. If you knew/know any Afghans, I'd give anything to read whatever you cared to share about the impressions you got of the people themselves, too.
Thank you; that was a gem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CANT LET THIS GO BY....
Quote:Do you suppose for one nanosecond that you're talking to someone who voted for Obama?
All the people who ranted and railed against W swallowed their rage when Obama took power. Sometimes, they might even express unhappiness with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But it is ALWAYS followed by some excuse for him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A booming economy based on selling poppy plants for heroin...,
What, you didn't hear about the massive mineral and precious metal deposits??
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PENGUIN11
Quote:Ah, someone with a view of the military viewpoint.
My father was in the military for 24 years, and fought in every conflict along the way. He was a psychological operations guy so he had to study up on the cultures and political history of the Middle East. That combined with my general interest in politics, especially my aspirations to become a diplomat, is why I know so much about the Middle East.
I also am a huge history nerd and the Middle East has an extremely interesting history dating back to the Abbassid Caliphs.
I think that the United States will always have a role in Middle Eastern affairs, however I think it is time we pull out our military because there really isn't much else we can do at this point. After we nail Al Queda's new #1 we will have no reason to have anyone there, and even then we don't need our army in Afghanistan to accomplish that. I think our international gaze needs to shift to Latin America before we lose control (influence wise) over the Panama canal- however, that once again will not involve our military.
If Iraq is to improve it will be because the Shia and Sunni populations are able to compromise with one another, something that will likely only happen at the cost of the Kurds (historically the Shia and Sunnis unite when slaughtering the Kurds).
Afghanistan is the mother of all busts. It is a nation that could easily have a booming economy and be a powerhouse for its region if it could get its act together. Afghani soldiers/militants have always been regarded as some of the bravest in the world, and that stands true to this day, however the conflict between the Pashtun and Tajec tribes is going to tear apart the nation, with the Pashtun's being the likely winner.
It seems to me that your father was in all kinds of places... Latin America? The Middle East? Bosnia? Yemen and North Africa? In any case, the assumption is that we have to be there for various reasons. The past 24 years has been pretty much since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. So I guess my question is: Why are we fighting where we're fighting? I can hardly find a compelling reason for any of it, so I want to know exactly what you think "our" interests are/were, .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't have a problem with compromise. Compromise on issues like should we spend more money on health care or education.
There can be NO compromise on issues like rape and murder. That you guys don't see this point is WHY we have wholesale state sponsored rape and murder.
On the face of it you make a good point. Yes, there should be no compromise on those issues and stated in such terms it's very hard to disagree.
However, I guess the question is what response is an appropriate response to violence and aggression by others towards your country? And yes, I get that the US has itself been the victim of aggression in response to its own military aggression. But take that to one side, do you really believe that no country, no group would ever commit an act of aggression again even if the US changed its policies. Do you think that tyanny, torture, injustice would cease to exist? I personally don't, and I think that each nation has to make decisions about how they protect themselves from aggressors, and what response is appropriate if an act of aggression takes place.
I consider myself to lean heavily on the side of pacifism, but even I can see that there may be times when force may have to be used and lives lost as a result ie murder - war time murder albeit. Yes, the most obvious is if an army lands on your soil and you take up arms to protect yourself and your family, but those wars rarely take place in such an obvious way anymore, not for quite some time and not against powerful western nations like the US. Conflict is much more likely to be played out in another arena, covertly, or through acts of terrorism, but the consequences are real and do pose a threat to citizens.
So how do you deal with such issues, and that is where I see the big gulf between the left and the right. The Left/libertarian take an apologist's view of the world. If the US would only look at its military policies and how it treats other nations, there would be no issues. And I am sorry, I call bullshit on that one. That view is both Americocentric (we cause all the problems in the world, aren't we important) and both naive and dangerous. And then there is the Right, up until Bush made a hash of everything, wanting to march on in under the stars and stripes and show these recalitrant Arabs, Muslims, whoever, just who is all powerful in the name of FREEDOM and LIBERTY for all. Another mindblowingly naive view of the world
And then the reality of being in politics and power and knowing that both those views are not workable, but having to please an electorate who you are rightly beholden to, who either wants instant withdrawal, or blow the fuckers up please.
So how would you have responded to 9/11 and other acts of terrorism if you were in charge. I know I would have preferred covert action, a la Israel style. Make sure that every person involved at any level was captured and imprisoned. And if they died in the process, hmmm, so be it. Harsh for a pacifist who doesn't believe in capital punishment, but if it had to be something, it would have been better that the pointlessness of the Iraq war and loss of life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME