Political Potlock I

RobertDyck · 2006-12-06 13:22:36

Example: Average American.
...
I had to read it a couple of times, not out of interest, but at the unmitagated failure that is this attempt at english grammer. It's like one giant train wreck of stream of consiousness that manages to only hurt the innocent spectator.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-07 00:38:14

Example: Average American.
This is all quite facinating, and quite reaffirming. I stand by my previous cultural impressions.
I like this part best:
Well then that's a different bunch of Southerners than I know. For the most part Southerners tend to be more patriotic than many Northerners are, that was not the case during the Civil War, as they were the ones who were rebelling. It was about slavery you know, take away the slavery issue and there is no civil war. Now tell me honestly, who's more likely to fly the stars and stripes, someone living in the suburbs of Richmond Virginia, or someone living in San Francisco? San Francisco didn't even want to host a World War II Battleship, because they were antiwar, this shows a lack of appreciation they have for the Navy, which played a part in preventing San Francisco from being occupied by the Japanese.
I had to read it a couple of times, not out of interest, but at the unmitagated failure that is this attempt at english grammer. It's like one giant train wreck of stream of consiousness that manages to only hurt the innocent spectator.
And Rob, I thought canadians only got violent at hockey games!

So what? I make a good point that you can't find a good argument against, so you decide to change the subject and go English Teacher on me.

Who are the ones who most often fly the American flag, who most often join the Army, Air force, Marines, and Navy? Southerners, that's who. Northern New Englanders from Massachusetts tend to look down on Military service, they want their children to become lawyers or doctors. Not so in the South, down there they are proud of their children when they enlist in the military, and that is the historic irony. People in the Northeast and on the West Coast don't give a shrug about America any more, they'd rather just be "citizens of the World" and consider the United States of America only as their place of residence and nothing more, they don't care about its values, they don't care that their ancestors fought the Southerners and died to preserve the union, because they felt that it was something that was worth preserving. So go ahead and put on your tweedy English Professor glasses if you wish to avoid the point.

clark · 2006-12-07 07:45:11

You have yet to make a good point. Ever.

Perhaps we see more people from small, rurual areas enlisting in greater numbers precisely because they come from small rural areas where there are few if any job prospects.

There is less of a need to enlist in the military if there are other prospects available to you. People tend to find more opportunities in more urban settings.

I for one care about the values of America, which happen to be none of the values you seem to exhibit. But at least our vote is worth the same. Yea.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-07 10:49:18

You have yet to make a good point. Ever.

I have just made one. Southerners are more patriotic now than Northerners. I should know, I live in New York State, and I was born in the South. I saw the attacks on 9/11 and over the years I saw New Yorkers forgive these attackers and slowly transfer the blame onto George Bush, because they all want to be Democrats more than they want to be red-blooded Americans. Everyday when I pass that hole in the ground at the World Trade Center I am reminded of that attack and who did it. I am not about to forgive or make excuses for the enemy as many New Yorkers do! I am not willing to play the politica game to my country's detriment as they seem willing to do either!

Perhaps we see more people from small, rurual areas enlisting in greater numbers precisely because they come from small rural areas where there are few if any job prospects.

People in small rural areas can more easily go to the city and look for a job than they can join the military and go to Iraq. The military is a respected profession down south. The military involves sacrifice, it involves spending prolonged periods of time away from your family, on the plus side, it offers training, job stability, medical benefits, things that many civilian jobs are increasingly lacking. If it weren't for the military, you probably wouldn't be talking about going to the Moon or Mars right now, it was the military that provided the impetus for developing these space vehicles which brought us to the moon. Space technology is basically derived from military technology, there is a cruise missile in the works right now that employs scramjet technology, technology that may later prove beneficial for reaching space.

There is less of a need to enlist in the military if there are other prospects available to you. People tend to find more opportunities in more urban settings. There is always a need to enlist in the military because there is always a need to defend this country. The military has some good starting salaries, better than many entry level civilian jobs, it also provides complete training, more than most civilian jobs would have that ask you for prior experience. The pay and the benefits are as high as they need to be in order to recruit soldiers, if salaries need to be higher then they will be raised. It sounds like you are objecting to the all volunteer military, would you rather have the draft?
I for one care about the values of America, which happen to be none of the values you seem to exhibit. But at least our vote is worth the same. Yea.

The only reason you have the vote is because there is a military to defend your country and your right to vote, it is high time that you appreciate that rather than look down your nose at them.

clark · 2006-12-07 12:35:31

I pass by that same hole in the ground everyday too.

All my friends joined, or are still part of the military. I have family stationed in iraq.

I am not from the south, but find your rantings about patriotism being somehow a regional phenomenom grossly misguided.

Iraq was not involved with 9/11. George Bush and friends used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, and then bungled the job. People are rightly pissed off because we invaded a country that we had no immediate pressing need to invade (even though we were told there was one) and now we are in the position where we have reduced our security instead of improving it.

North Korea has denotated a nuclear weapon. Iran is more than likely going to master the full nuclear cycle. America is unable to do much militarily anywhere else in the world precisely because Bush and Co. sent us on a fools errand in the desert.

The military involves sacrifice, it involves spending prolonged periods of time away from your family, on the plus side, it offers training, job stability, medical benefits, things that many civilian jobs are increasingly lacking.

A sacrifice you seem unwilling or unable to share, my fine patriotic southern friend.

If it weren't for the military, you probably wouldn't be talking about going to the Moon or Mars right now, it was the military that provided the impetus for developing these space vehicles which brought us to the moon.

Thank you military-industrial complex. What's your point?

The only reason you have the vote is because there is a military to defend your country and your right to vote, it is high time that you appreciate that rather than look down your nose at them.

I appreciate the military just fine. However, i dubiously accept your right to vote.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-07 14:17:50

I pass by that same hole in the ground everyday too.
All my friends joined, or are still part of the military. I have family stationed in iraq.
I am not from the south, but find your rantings about patriotism being somehow a regional phenomenom grossly misguided.

I'm just telling you what I see from talking to various people in the New York Area, they voted for John Hall over Sue Kelly, because John Hall new how to say retreat, and Quit, and give up. These Democrats have no solutions, all they no how to do is quit and quiting is easy. Democrats were willing to quit during the Civil War too. Democrats were running against Lincoln telling the country that we should just give up and recognize Confederate Independence, if they had their way, we might have quit in 1864, one year before victory over the South. Sherman took Atlanta that year and that turned the tide, but it was a near thing.

Iraq was not involved with 9/11. George Bush and friends used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, and then bungled the job. People are rightly pissed off because we invaded a country that we had no immediate pressing need to invade (even though we were told there was one) and now we are in the position where we have reduced our security instead of improving it.

And you want us to simply quit a war we are already involved in, give up and make ourselves look weak in the eyes of our enemies. Quiting is a very easy thing for a Democrat to do, there is no shame in it at all in their eyes, they quit Vietnam and they want to quit Iraq too, quitting has become habitual for them. Why do we have an armed forces anyway if the Democrats don't allow them to win?

North Korea has denotated a nuclear weapon. Iran is more than likely going to master the full nuclear cycle. America is unable to do much militarily anywhere else in the world precisely because Bush and Co. sent us on a fools errand in the desert.

And the Democrats will make a half-hearted attempt to stop them and then they'll quit just like they did in Vietnam and Iraq. Our enemies will really be quaking in their boots then won't they.

The military involves sacrifice, it involves spending prolonged periods of time away from your family, on the plus side, it offers training, job stability, medical benefits, things that many civilian jobs are increasingly lacking.
A sacrifice you seem unwilling or unable to share, my fine patriotic southern friend.

I am not of military age, so what's your point? The Democrats won't let the forces we have their win, they won't fund the War, and I'd just be joining a retreating Army in any case, how is that supposed to help?

If it weren't for the military, you probably wouldn't be talking about going to the Moon or Mars right now, it was the military that provided the impetus for developing these space vehicles which brought us to the moon.
Thank you military-industrial complex. What's your point?

General Eisenhower did us a disservice by coining that phrase, he has made us less able to defend ourselves in the future like we did during World War II. It was the Military-industrial complex that enabled our Victory over the Axis powers! You want to deny us that for the future, you want us to be weak like France, which actually tore up its military-industrial complex prior to World War II?

The only reason you have the vote is because there is a military to defend your country and your right to vote, it is high time that you appreciate that rather than look down your nose at them.
I appreciate the military just fine. However, i dubiously accept your right to vote.

Well you don't want them to win, you seem to embrace losing, and if the enemy thinks we lose easily then they'll attack us and our soldiers again.

clark · 2006-12-07 15:23:01

[sigh]

argument with an adolescent. I really should have known.

Look little man, you fail to understand any of my statements, and somehow derive the most bizarre inferences from them that are in no way related to what I am actually discussing or pointing out.

If you are not of military age, then you cannot vote, and by your apparent lack of ability to communicate in this language called English, I am inclined to think you are in the throws of puberty, or mentally challenged. In either case, it amounts to the same thing.

You have a poor grasp of history, American or otherwise, which is painfully displayed over and over. I have yet to see you approach any discussion with any sort of rational thought that isn’t comprised of two second sound bites.

Tom, you know just enough to be annoying.

Now go rail against the Democrats some more, and continue your racist tirades. And of course, as always, heckle all who disagree as pacifist cry babies who obviously hate the military and love terrorism.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-07 17:23:49

[sigh]
argument with an adolescent. I really should have known.

I know the first Northern President was John Adams, not Abraham Lincoln.

Look little man, you fail to understand any of my statements, and somehow derive the most bizarre inferences from them that are in no way related to what I am actually discussing or pointing out.

I'm not deriving it from anything you say, it is just my experiences, talking to people who live here and seeing their willingness to believe stuff such as the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, that make me feel that New Yorkers aren't as patriotic as people living in the south, at least when you look at the overall population. The fact is, the enemies we are fighting in Iraq and the people who orchestrated the 9/11 attack are one and the same, by pulling out of Iraq, we are in fact rewarding the enemies that attacked us on 9/11, and making it all worth while for them. Is it any coincidence that Al Qaeda was celebrating the Democratic Victory in the Mid Term elections? they were always saying that we would give up and go home, and the Democrats are doing nothing but prove them right. Democrats nearly cost us the Civil War, they wanted to give up on it, they cost us the Vietnam War, and it looks like they will cost us the Iraq War too. It is not that the enemy bested us, but that there is a faction within American society that wants to lose these wars. I heard in on WCBS, the were calling the commision report a "Turning Point", it means finally the United States is going to lose, that was the outcome they were waiting for, their victory is America's defeat, and an attitude like that is not very patriotic.

If you are not of military age, then you cannot vote, and by your apparent lack of ability to communicate in this language called English, I am inclined to think you are in the throws of puberty, or mentally challenged. In either case, it amounts to the same thing.

And you don't seem to know that Military age has two endpoints, I don't know many 80 year olds that are still in uniform. You ignore facts that are convenient for you, and you change the subject and pretend my English is incomprehensible. It is you who don't listen, you change the subject when the arguments don't lead to your predetermined conclusion.

You have a poor grasp of history, American or otherwise, which is painfully displayed over and over. I have yet to see you approach any discussion with any sort of rational thought that isn’t comprised of two second sound bites.

I don't read between the lines of American History like you do

Tom, you know just enough to be annoying.
Now go rail against the Democrats some more, and continue your racist tirades. And of course, as always, heckle all who disagree as pacifist cry babies who obviously hate the military and love terrorism.

A racist of course is anyone who disagrees with your left-wing opinions. You know of course I didn't say a damn thing about black people or Asians. I believe Jews ought to be able to defend themselves against attacks. I don't like terrorists, and if your implying that there is a terrorist race that gets offended when I object to their evil behavior, too bad. I don't tolerate murderers, no matter what their political excuses.

clark · 2006-12-08 08:09:27

Democrats nearly cost us the Civil War, they wanted to give up on it, they cost us the Vietnam War, and it looks like they will cost us the Iraq War too.

Might I point out that for all our failures in Vietnam, America still stands. I don't know why you harp on this so much considering that our quitting did not entail any earth shattering change in our way of life. Indeed, Vietnam is now becoming a more free and open society- where as Korea, a place where we did not neccessarily give up, still retains a despotic communist government in the north.

The only people who cost us the Iraq war is bush and friends. He was given a blank check and allowed to have his little war. And instead of planning for the aftermath, and instead of bringing in the number of forces required, he pushed a plan that has failed and was bound to fail. He has continued to push the same plan, regardless of the worsening conditions.

Only an idiot would claim what we are currently doing in Iraq is sensible. And only an idiot would continue to support the same plan that is not meeting our expected goals. We need a change in our strategy in iraq, but Bush has been hell bent on claiming any deviation from his edict from on high is "caving" or "giving in" to the terroists. Only an idiot still buys this.

And you don't seem to know that Military age has two endpoints, I don't know many 80 year olds that are still in uniform.

You are not 80, or over 80. You are a child talking politics, who has a limited command of english composition, and an incoherent thought process. You are a shining example of the failure of the american educational system.

As for your obvious racist tendencies, I am of course reffering to your rather flippant habit of lumping all muslims and arabs as terroists, or possible terroists.

But your love and appreciation of blacks, asians, and jews is, of course, noted.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-08 11:09:53

Democrats nearly cost us the Civil War, they wanted to give up on it, they cost us the Vietnam War, and it looks like they will cost us the Iraq War too.
Might I point out that for all our failures in Vietnam, America still stands. I don't know why you harp on this so much considering that our quitting did not entail any earth shattering change in our way of life. Indeed, Vietnam is now becoming a more free and open society- where as Korea, a place where we did not neccessarily give up, still retains a despotic communist government in the north.

The problem is, if people think they can beat us, they will fight us. We don't want people to fight us, and if they see us and back off, then we have just avoided a war. Even avoiding a war that we would inevitably win is a good thing as you don't subject individual soldiers to the risks of the Battlefield. If you don't like a war we're involved it, then I think its best to get out by winning and not losing. If we win the War we are showing our strength, if we lose it we are showing our weakness and are making others more likely to want to take on our army in the future. I am not anly concerned for the soldiers fighting in Iraq now, but also those who may fight in war in the future, wars which may not happen if we've won the last war instead of losing it.

The only people who cost us the Iraq war is bush and friends. He was given a blank check and allowed to have his little war. And instead of planning for the aftermath, and instead of bringing in the number of forces required, he pushed a plan that has failed and was bound to fail. He has continued to push the same plan, regardless of the worsening conditions.

Are the Democrats talking about bringing more troops to the field? So far I have not seen them doing so, they talk about getting out, not about winning. Winning is not important for them, they want to spare todays soldiers, but they will be endangering future soldiers.

Only an idiot would claim what we are currently doing in Iraq is sensible. And only an idiot would continue to support the same plan that is not meeting our expected goals. We need a change in our strategy in iraq, but Bush has been hell bent on claiming any deviation from his edict from on high is "caving" or "giving in" to the terroists. Only an idiot still buys this.

We may need a different plan on how to win, what we don't need is a plan on how to lose just to get us out of the war, there will be more wars following this one if that happens. We don't want the false idea planted in the enemy's heads that we can be beat, we don't want to have to expend our soldier's lives proving them wrong.

And you don't seem to know that Military age has two endpoints, I don't know many 80 year olds that are still in uniform.
You are not 80, or over 80. You are a child talking politics, who has a limited command of english composition, and an incoherent thought process. You are a shining example of the failure of the american educational system.

Excuse me, but you don't know me at all. If there is any spelling errors or grammetrical mistakes it is because I type fast, and that I try to get out what's in my head to the screen as quickly as possible, in the same fashion that you form words when you speak. Do you always talk in complete sentences? I've never known a single person who has always spoken in complete sentences. Alot of sentence fragments are typically spoken in normal everyday conversation. I am more interested in sharing my ideas than in handing in a term paper. All I really care about is being understood. I don't have alot of time for correcting my errors, and if something is not in a complete sentence and you can't understand it tough. Most people can understand what I'm typing, and it seems you can too, unless I am typing something you disagree with, then you start bitching and moaning about my incomplete sentences and lack of proper grammar. If I ever get paid for writing something and it is worth my time then I will go over it multiple times to make sure the spelling is correct and the grammer is right. In most cases, my spelling errors are attributed to my typing mistakes, in other words my fingers hit the wrong keys, not because I don't know how to spell those words.

As for your obvious racist tendencies, I am of course reffering to your rather flippant habit of lumping all muslims and arabs as terroists, or possible terroists.

When did the "Arab Race" evolve, I am very curious about what you consider the origins of the "Arab Race". I never thought of them as a unique race, like a black person or an Asian. Basically there are three races on the Earth, White, Black, and Asian, and I have nothing against any of those races. So unless you can say, I hate all black people or all Asians, I am not a racist.

But your love and appreciation of blacks, asians, and jews is, of course, noted.

There are no other races besides whites, blacks and asians. Arab is not a race, it is a culture. Most Arabs are dark white people, they sort of make the boundary between White Europe and Black Africa, they are a transitional mixture of the two races with some asian blood thrown in, but they themselves are not a race.

What I object to primarily are behavioral tendencies, the tendency of some to support terrorism in pursuit of their political agenda, If I can't object to that, you are denying me the ability to object to evil acts by your saying that terrorism is legitimate in some cultures, and therefore it would be culturally biased of us to object to their terrorism as it is a part of their culture.

clark · 2006-12-08 12:57:29

So in order to prevent war, we need to wage war?

Your sympathy and compassion are remarkable. There are few who willing declare their support of sacrificing good men and women for the off chance of sacrificing a few less sometime in the unknown and uncertain future. Obviously you are a deeply compassionate conservative. These values are truly noble. The self-sacrifice you implore of your fellow man on the faintest of hope and the simplest of theories is truly breath-taking.

Might I add, it was the president who placed our troops in harms way. Iraqi soldiers ran from our army. Terrorists flee from our army now, striking only at targets of opportunity and civilians. We are not losing, but we are certainly not winning.

The US military did its job, and it did it well. However, there was no plan for post-occupation, and there is still no coherent plan for post-occupation. The forces required for a post-occupation have never been planned for, never been requested, and never even discussed as an option. The person responsible for the plan, and for the failure of changing the plan to deal with the reality of the situation is Bush and company.

While Iraq burned, the President dithered and his administration squandered the billions on sweetheart deals for private business. Instead of sending in reinforcements sooner, as conditions warranted, the president refused, in order not to admit that the planning was somehow incomplete.

You can whine about the democrats and liberals in general, but I simply don’t care. The fault lies squarely in the oval office for what we see now. Bush is a ‘war president’, and he has been given wide latitude to conduct this affair as he saw fit. And he did. And it failed. And he and his entire administration has failed the American people.

The losers, no matter how you cut it, are the American people, simply because we had more faith than common sense. The mid term election results is the demonstration that there is no more faith in our president, our in his policy regarding Iraq.

And there have been calls for more troops from the very beginning, from both sides of the aisle- and in ever instance, these calls were ignored for political reasons. Bush played politics first, and military strategy second- and just like Vietnam, our strategic interests suffered.

What I object to primarily are behavioral tendencies, the tendency of some to support terrorism in pursuit of their political agenda, If I can't object to that, you are denying me the ability to object to evil acts by your saying that terrorism is legitimate in some cultures, and therefore it would be culturally biased of us to object to their terrorism as it is a part of their culture.

If you object to the tendency of people who support terrorism, then object. Do not believe for an instant though that you can or should be taken seriously if you claim an entire people, because they happen to belong to a particular faith, or a particular culture, that somehow your blanket assumption of their support for terrorism is legitimate.
And yes, you show your age now.

idiom · 2006-12-09 01:18:28

Tom, it would appear that you would rather be patriotic than right. That's a really hairy place to be in. Your loyalty should not to be to any flag, only to the illustrious Doc Z.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 02:22:35

So in order to prevent war, we need to wage war?

That's the way the world works. Terrorists and terrorist states are always pushing the boundaries, and seeing how much they can get away with. A good solid reputation goes along way towards preventing wars. If we act as the superpower with the glass jaw, then are enemies next time will be more likely to attack us, it is common sense, it may not be just in your eyes, but it is the plain unvarnished truth. I know you must think the World must always offer some nice neat solutions for everything where everybody wins, and no one gets hurt, but that is not the way the World is.

Your sympathy and compassion are remarkable. There are few who willing declare their support of sacrificing good men and women for the off chance of sacrificing a few less sometime in the unknown and uncertain future.

It is not so uncertain, history has taught us that if you appease the enemy, he will try to take advantage of you and get more. Hitler didn't attack because he was mad at somebody, but because he saw an opportunity to conquer the world.

Obviously you are a deeply compassionate conservative. These values are truly noble. The self-sacrifice you implore of your fellow man on the faintest of hope and the simplest of theories is truly breath-taking.

That's the way the World works, in order to safeguard Democracy and Freedom, somebody must make the ultimate sacrifice, if people are unwilling to fight for freedom, they soon have it taken away from them, history has taught that, I'm sorry you find it to be such an unpleasant lesson, but that's the truth. When we tried to avoid War in the late 1930s, Hitler just got bigger and more powerful, and would have continued to get bigger and more powerful until someone challenged him. France waited too long, let Hitler get away with too much and when its back was up against the Atlantic and it had no choice but to challenge him it was too late. There is an old Roman saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Might I add, it was the president who placed our troops in harms way. Iraqi soldiers ran from our army. Terrorists flee from our army now, striking only at targets of opportunity and civilians. We are not losing, but we are certainly not winning.

And you want to turn a stalemate into a defeat? this calls for better strategy, not defeatism and throwing in the towel! the Democrats can't strain their brain to come up with a better strategy, they take the easy and lazy path of quiting and pulling out troops, making the US look weak and inviting more enemies to attack us in the future. If Iran annexes portions of Iraq and makes itself larger, they will see the reward of taking on the United States and wearing us down, the Democrats have shown them that, and they will attack again.

The US military did its job, and it did it well. However, there was no plan for post-occupation, and there is still no coherent plan for post-occupation. The forces required for a post-occupation have never been planned for, never been requested, and never even discussed as an option. The person responsible for the plan, and for the failure of changing the plan to deal with the reality of the situation is Bush and company.

It seems certain the George Bush overestimated the Iraqis' ability to pull themselves together, it is really a complement when you consider what George Bush thought the Iraqis were capable of. Instead I suppose you think we should have gone in their expecting Iraqis to be our inferiors and treating them no better than slaves, ruling them with an Iron Fist just like Saddam did. So who's right were the Iraqis capable of democracy, or are they no better than to be made slaves of as Saddam Hussein has done? Careful, wouldn't want anybody accusing someone of cultural prejudice would we.

While Iraq burned, the President dithered and his administration squandered the billions on sweetheart deals for private business. Instead of sending in reinforcements sooner, as conditions warranted, the president refused, in order not to admit that the planning was somehow incomplete.

It may be true that George Bush was too patient, maybe he kept on his subordinates who tried the same old strategy for too long, maybe he should have been a tougher boss and did more hiring and firing. Maybe he sould have made those Generals "pay through the nose" for not achieving the results he expected. Perhaps those generals should have listened to those human rights advocates less, and the insurgents would have found less places to hide, is that what your advocating? You see the Insurgents have lasted so long because our soldiers have been vwery careful not to harm civilians while trying to pursue the terrorists, and in return for listening to liberal suggestions on how to fight and not fight the terrorists, they have gotten nothing but grief from them

You can whine about the democrats and liberals in general, but I simply don’t care. The fault lies squarely in the oval office for what we see now. Bush is a ‘war president’, and he has been given wide latitude to conduct this affair as he saw fit. And he did. And it failed. And he and his entire administration has failed the American people.

This style of warfare requires patience, something you don't have, when you obey rules of engagement designed to minimize collateral damage you end up with long protracted conflicts. What you were asking for is impossible, a quick war with minimum civilian casualities. You either have a quick war with massive wholesale destruction, ruined cities, and millions of civilian casualities, or you have a long protracted quagmire with soldiers patrolling streets, becareful to identify the enemy before shooting and getting shot for all their trouble. The way you present the problem has only one possible outcome, defeat for the United States. Defeat is not a good strategy to ensure our security, yet you do not have the patience for fighting the long protracted struggle your style of warfare calls for.

The losers, no matter how you cut it, are the American people, simply because we had more faith than common sense. The mid term election results is the demonstration that there is no more faith in our president, our in his policy regarding Iraq.

Your right, George Bush listend to you liberals too much and you betrayed him like the fine Brutus you are. George Bush tried to hard to allow the Iraqis to set up their own government and write their own constitution, is that the problem? Should he instead simply conquered the place and place a general in charge of the occupation government for the next 10 years? If you want a quick war, you should stop complaining about human rights abuses; if you insist on fairness and justice, you are going to get a long protracted war, that is the trade off when dealing with an insurgency. None of you Democrats have any better ideas, you just want to quit, easy for you to lose isn't it? FDR would never have understood the modern Democrat, he believed in winning, not just his elections, but in winning for America as well. Modern Democrats want to win by losing at America's expense, they make America a little less secure each time and they get the short term reward of saying, "see we got us out of the war, peace in our time," and our enemies lick their chops and slobber over the spoils and see opportunities for further gains in the future.

And there have been calls for more troops from the very beginning, from both sides of the aisle- and in ever instance, these calls were ignored for political reasons. Bush played politics first, and military strategy second- and just like Vietnam, our strategic interests suffered.

The Democrats aren't calling for more troops now are they, always when they get into power it is just too late to add more troops now, isn't it. Now they are in power their grand strategy for success is to quit, cheap easy, and it doesn't wrack their brain too hard, they get elected to sound the call for retreat, that is all they do, very easy isn't it? The Democrats gain because they gain power by doing this, and the enemy gains by getting what they want, the free world gets smaller by this, but the Democrats don't care as they rush to negotiate surrender with Iran and Syria.

What I object to primarily are behavioral tendencies, the tendency of some to support terrorism in pursuit of their political agenda, If I can't object to that, you are denying me the ability to object to evil acts by your saying that terrorism is legitimate in some cultures, and therefore it would be culturally biased of us to object to their terrorism as it is a part of their culture.
If you object to the tendency of people who support terrorism, then object. Do not believe for an instant though that you can or should be taken seriously if you claim an entire people, because they happen to belong to a particular faith, or a particular culture, that somehow your blanket assumption of their support for terrorism is legitimate.

What do you call a society that elects terrorists into office through a perfectly legitimate election by the majority of the voters? You still have to deal with that government don't you, and in order to deal with that government, you must make certain blanket statements about that government, you must say that it is this and it isn't that. You know something about the overall tendencies of the electorate that elected that government also, it is not a blanket statement to say that everyone in that society supports terrorism when only a majority is required to elect that government. I talk about cultural tendencies meaning that the majority of its people believe in such. If the majority elects evil leaders, then that majority is evil, there is no reason for good people to elect terrorists that murder innocent people, the only excuse is that they are ignorant and did not know Hamas was a terrorist organization, and how likely was that considering their long history of carrying out terrorist acts?

And yes, you show your age now.

Come off of it, you show your ignorance in many different ways too, you don't seem to know that military age begins at around 18 and ends somewhere around 40, there are more people over 40 than under 18.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 02:29:17

Tom, it would appear that you would rather be patriotic than right. That's a really hairy place to be in. Your loyalty should not to be to any flag, only to the illustrious Doc Z.

Just because Clark says something, doesn't mean it is true.
I am right in that if we develop a reputation of quiting our wars and giving up after taking relatively few casualities, then our enemies are next tinme more likely to attack us.

Think of this analogy, suppose you are a lightweight boxer, and there is this heavyweight champion who lately has taked a reputation of throwing the fight, and the prize is one million dollars. The heavyweight champion wants $100 dollars and he'll dive to the floor when you hit him and stay down for the count so you can win the prize and collect your One million dollars, aren't you going to take him up on that offer?

Austin Stanley · 2007-09-04 17:47:27

Think of this analogy, suppose you are a lightweight boxer, and there is this heavyweight champion who lately has taked a reputation of throwing the fight, and the prize is one million dollars. The heavyweight champion wants $100 dollars and he'll dive to the floor when you hit him and stay down for the count so you can win the prize and collect your One million dollars, aren't you going to take him up on that offer?

I'm not sure what you're analogy is supposed to be here. The US is a heavyweight fighter who has a reputation for throwing fights (what fight where?). And Terrorist are lightweight boxers, and the Iraq is the million dollar prize? And then the Heavyweight champ wants a bribe to throw the fight? What bribe are the terrorist going to offer us to make us lose?

---

My politics fall more to the left of center, but it still amazes me how adamantly you can defend the administrations policy. Even my friends on the right side of the isle admit that their have been some serious mistakes.

#1. The administration either knowingly or unknowingly mislead the American people into an invasion of Iraq over supposed WMD and links to terrorists that have proven to be nonexistent or extremely tenuous at best.

#2. After a well executed invasion they completely bungled the follow up allowing Chaos and Anarchy to spread through Iraq, costing literally tens of thousands of civilian lives.

#3. In paying for this war they have driven America far further into debt of unheard of levels. In fact, 70%!! of the 9 trillion dollar American debt has been incurred by the last three republican Presidents.

#4. Championed programs that have trampled on civil liberties (PATRIOT act, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, relaxed torture guidelines, ...)

#5. Failed to exercise proper oversight of his deputies and appointments. (Abu Ghraib, Katrina, Dubei ports, Alberto Gonzales, ect...)

Now I don't think personaly think GWB is a bad man, I think he honestly belives in what he is doing. However, I think he values Loyalty WAY to highly, to the expense of competence. He then trust the advice of these advisers, to our countries detriment. However, I cannot imagine how anyone can honestly look back at the currently administrations job and at least not admit that "mistakes were made."

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-01 08:14:07

Think of this analogy, suppose you are a lightweight boxer, and there is this heavyweight champion who lately has taked a reputation of throwing the fight, and the prize is one million dollars. The heavyweight champion wants $100 dollars and he'll dive to the floor when you hit him and stay down for the count so you can win the prize and collect your One million dollars, aren't you going to take him up on that offer?
I'm not sure what you're analogy is supposed to be here. The US is a heavyweight fighter who has a reputation for throwing fights (what fight where?). And Terrorist are lightweight boxers, and the Iraq is the million dollar prize? And then the Heavyweight champ wants a bribe to throw the fight? What bribe are the terrorist going to offer us to make us lose?

The prize is the Oval Office for the Democrats. The Democrats win their $100 when the terrorists make terrorist attacks against American soldiers and civilians in Iraq by showing that the "surge isn't working", at least the terrorists try to do that. You see the Democrats are "lowering the bar" for them. The terrorists don't have to outright defeat the US Armed Forces in Iraq and their Iraqi counterparts, they just have to make the Republicans look bad enough so a Democrat can win the Presidential Race, and the Quid Pro Quo for the terrorists is that the Democrats pull US troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is secure, the terrorists can then topple the Iraqi government and Iran can move in and annex Iraq. The free world gets smaller in exchange for the Democrats winning the Congress Senate and White House, that is how I see it.

Fortunately it seems the Democrats don't have a big enough majority to force the President to pull out of Iraq, they could refuse to fund the troops, and they could be blamed for leaving the troops unsupported and forcing a defeat at the hands of our enemies. The Democrats don't want to look like the ones who threw the fight, they want to make the President the loser instead, but the President doesn't want to lose the War, so he won't cooperate and the Democrats don't have enough votes by themselves to make him do so. I think the President has the rest of his time in office to get the Iraqi government back on its feet and in full fighting form against the terrorists.

---
My politics fall more to the left of center, but it still amazes me how adamantly you can defend the administrations policy. Even my friends on the right side of the isle admit that their have been some serious mistakes.
#1. The administration either knowingly or unknowingly mislead the American people into an invasion of Iraq over supposed WMD and links to terrorists that have proven to be nonexistent or extremely tenuous at best.
#2. After a well executed invasion they completely bungled the follow up allowing Chaos and Anarchy to spread through Iraq, costing literally tens of thousands of civilian lives.
#3. In paying for this war they have driven America far further into debt of unheard of levels. In fact, 70%!! of the 9 trillion dollar American debt has been incurred by the last three republican Presidents.
#4. Championed programs that have trampled on civil liberties (PATRIOT act, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, relaxed torture guidelines, ...)
#5. Failed to exercise proper oversight of his deputies and appointments. (Abu Ghraib, Katrina, Dubei ports, Alberto Gonzales, ect...)
Now I don't think personaly think GWB is a bad man, I think he honestly belives in what he is doing. However, I think he values Loyalty WAY to highly, to the expense of competence. He then trust the advice of these advisers, to our countries detriment. However, I cannot imagine how anyone can honestly look back at the currently administrations job and at least not admit that "mistakes were made."

Mistakes were made in every war the US has ever fought, the question is whether we are willing to use those mistakes as an excuse for failure. When was the last perfectly executed war, you've ever seen? The officers in Abu were disapplined, did you expect a firing squad?
One mistake the Democrats seemed to have made is threaten to break Iraq up into three pieces along ethnic lines, that seems to have stirred up a wave of patriotism among some of the Iraqis, the ones who are more loyal to their country than to their religion. The Democrats want the Iraqis to fight for their religion and not for their country. Iraq has after all been an established country for more than a generation, and the Democrats in congress want to break it up and offer some of it as spoils to Iran, the same Iran that by the way "kicked them in the teeth" in 1979 during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Antius · 2007-11-29 06:05:28

My own politics could probably be described as Far Right.

Leaving aside social policy, it is my belief that the principle mistakes of concurrent US administrations is a general failure to take seriously enough the importance of the US manufacturing economy and the need for investment in research and development. To a large extent, if you can get those things right, as the Japanese clearly have, you will have a society of high income levels and low inequality, that is always on the cutting edge in terms of living standards. Other problems such as crime, healthcare, policing, etc, will be less burdensome.

This mistake has been shared by other nations in the western world, who have witnessed declines in manufcaturing capabilities, increasing income inequality and generally declining living standards. Whilst there are other contributing factors, the fact remains that governments across the western world appear to have lost sight of the basic need for wealth generating industries that pay good wages.

That is my two pennies worth.

Martian Republic · 2007-12-07 18:47:08

Actually the real reason that we fought the civil war was not because of slavery or the desire by the south to form a confederation. Actually it was a British operation to break up the United States and they were going to re-colonize the individual pieces of the United State back into the British Empire. The Scottish Rite Free Mason acted like a British secret society inside the United States. The Scottish Rite Free Mason Society was set up in Charleston South Carolina during the War of 1812 when the United States was fighting Great Britain. During the War of 1812, Great Britain occupied Charleston for two years during that war. The British set up a police type state in Charleston for those two years that they occupied Charleston and the Great Southern Mason or the Scottish Rite Free Mason Society came out of that occupation of Charleston. Over the next thirty years or so, this Great Southern Mason Group took over most of the rest of Mason in the South and was the foundation for taking the South out During the Civil War. Many of the States like Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee did not want to go out of the Union, but it was this inside group that actually took those states out of the Union. They have to overthrow or what amounted to an over throw of those pro-union forces inside those states to take them out of the Union. They also wanted to take California out of the Union or spit it up too. But, that effort was thwarted by a Democratic Governor who was pro-union vs most of the rest of his party that that was Anti-union and California stayed in the Union in one piece. The South knew that they could not win a war with the North by themselves, because the North was too powerful for them. They were hoping that Great Britain would intervene into the American Civil War and come in on there side. The primary restraining factor for keeping the British out of the American Civil War, was the fact that the Russian Navy Pacific fleet was sitting in San Francisco and the Russian Atlantic Fleet was sitting in New York Harbor, with a letter from the Czar that gave full authority to Abraham Lincoln to use them if the British came into the American Civil War on the side of the South. Then after the development of the Iron Clad ship by the United States and the Russian having the only other Iron Clad fleet in the world, put an end to any idea that the British would come into the American Civil War on the side of the South to break up the Union.

The American Civil War was an attempt by the British to destroy the United States and was an international affair and not just an American Civil War that most people think it is. We had major powers outside the United States who were routing for either the South or the North to win this Civil War. So this American Civil War was not just a private war inside the United States, but had some involvement from overseas power in too.

Larry,

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-12-16 12:56:01

My own politics could probably be described as Far Right.
Leaving aside social policy, it is my belief that the principle mistakes of concurrent US administrations is a general failure to take seriously enough the importance of the US manufacturing economy and the need for investment in research and development. To a large extent, if you can get those things right, as the Japanese clearly have, you will have a society of high income levels and low inequality, that is always on the cutting edge in terms of living standards. Other problems such as crime, healthcare, policing, etc, will be less burdensome.

Let me see if I got this right, you say that it is the general failure of US Administrations, that is the Federal Branch of Government to take seriously the importance of research and development of the US Manufacturing economy?
Um George Bush did push through some tax cuts that ought to help boost investment in the industrial economy, some of those tax cuts are now set to expire because he couldn't get Congress to make them permanent, but that's not his fault. I don't think money in the Federal Government's hands will be properly spend to invest in the manufacturing economy, its only when that money is in private hands will we see some growth in manufacturing. Governments tend to be more focused on short term Job making by spending money, based on the simple argument that if you spend money on X you create jobs until the money runs out. The problem with this argument is that these government jobs are not self-sustaining, the jobs only last as long as the government keeps the money flowing, and when the money is gone so are the jobs. When the money is in private hands such as the case when their are low taxes, then it becomes easier to invest that money in the industrial economy as higher returns on investment are required in a high tax environment in order to attract those investor's dollars, lower the taxes and consequently you get greater investment in the industrial economy as investments in that area are like any other investments in that investors are looking for a satisfactory return after taxes - lower those taxes and the return becomes greater. I don't see how the current Administration has failed to do this. The Democrats want to raise taxes, and this will reduce investment, but the President has vetoed all attempts by congress to raise taxes. I don't see in what way the Administration has failed to invest in the industrial economy, he has invested by not taking money out of investor's pockets.

This mistake has been shared by other nations in the western world, who have witnessed declines in manufcaturing capabilities, increasing income inequality and generally declining living standards. Whilst there are other contributing factors, the fact remains that governments across the western world appear to have lost sight of the basic need for wealth generating industries that pay good wages.
That is my two pennies worth.

I don't know what you want the US Government to do. Surely you don't expect the US government to build a car factory or something. The government's job is to govern, not to manufacture. The Government may need some equipment to do its job, but that's why it orders from private manufacturers, say if it needs tanks or rockets or something. The tanks or rockets go towards a specific purpose such as defending the country or launching satellites, the government doesn't order these things just to make jobs for the people manufacturing them. It helps the economy not a bit if the government spends taxpayer's money to order useless wigits just to employ the manufacturer of these things.

I think the main problem we have today are the "taxes" we pay to OPEC and other petroleum exporting countries, we are in effect paying for their social programs as most of the money we spend does not go into extracting the oil and refining gasoline and other products from it, a large part of it goes towards funding make-work jobs in Saudi Arabia, absurly tall towers in the desert, artificial islands in the shape of palm trees, and indoor ski slopes. I'd rather we produce our own energy than pay for these absurdities in other countries. What we need is to kick the car companies and energy companies in the ass and get them off their lazy duffs and to stop making Arabs rich!

Commodore · 2007-12-16 14:31:49

The American Civil War was an attempt by the British to destroy the United States and was an international affair and not just an American Civil War that most people think it is. We had major powers outside the United States who were routing for either the South or the North to win this Civil War. So this American Civil War was not just a private war inside the United States, but had some involvement from overseas power in too.
Larry,

I thought the Brits just wanted cheap cotton.

Incidentally, with their insidious plan foiled, they turned to Egypt, and started a whole bunch of new problems we are currently dealing with.

Martian Republic · 2007-12-16 17:15:44

The American Civil War was an attempt by the British to destroy the United States and was an international affair and not just an American Civil War that most people think it is. We had major powers outside the United States who were routing for either the South or the North to win this Civil War. So this American Civil War was not just a private war inside the United States, but had some involvement from overseas power in too.
Larry,
I thought the Brits just wanted cheap cotton.
Incidentally, with their insidious plan foiled, they turned to Egypt, and started a whole bunch of new problems we are currently dealing with.

Yes, they did that too Egypt and in other countries too, but they changed there strategy on how they were going to deal with the United States. The British could no longer go head to head with the United States, because the United States has now become a world power and could militarily take Britain out if they had to. So Britain went to a tack tick of subverting the United States from within and not to get into a military confrontation with the United States. That pro-British Tory Faction inside the United State that started about forty years before the American Revolution and was present and was the primary cause of the American Civil War is still present inside the United States. Matter of fact, the Democratic Party was the party of traitors from the time of it creation until the time of FDR who changed the character of the Democratic Party under his leadership. This Tory faction also captured the major Banks of New York and a few other places and were also sympathizers of the South seceding from the Union. Most of those abolitionists were also pro-break up of the Union too. So Abe Lincoln had his work cut out for him when it came to saving the Union. We are assuming that he doesn't get assassinated first, before he can complete his mission. After he was elected President, they were going to storm Lincoln train in Baltimore and kill him and when he got to Washington DC another southern city, he had only 2,000 faithful union solders to protect him.

By the way, the Tory faction inside the United States still exist, but nobody referees to them as Tories anymore.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-12-06 13:22:36

Re: Political Potlock I

#127 2006-12-07 00:38:14

Re: Political Potlock I

#128 2006-12-07 07:45:11

Re: Political Potlock I

#129 2006-12-07 10:49:18

Re: Political Potlock I

#130 2006-12-07 12:35:31

Re: Political Potlock I

#131 2006-12-07 14:17:50

Re: Political Potlock I

#132 2006-12-07 15:23:01

Re: Political Potlock I

#133 2006-12-07 17:23:49

Re: Political Potlock I

#134 2006-12-08 08:09:27

Re: Political Potlock I

#135 2006-12-08 11:09:53

Re: Political Potlock I

#136 2006-12-08 12:57:29

Re: Political Potlock I

#137 2006-12-09 01:18:28

Re: Political Potlock I

#138 2006-12-09 02:22:35

Re: Political Potlock I

#139 2006-12-09 02:29:17

Re: Political Potlock I

#140 2007-09-04 17:47:27

Re: Political Potlock I

#141 2007-10-01 08:14:07

Re: Political Potlock I

#142 2007-11-29 06:05:28

Re: Political Potlock I

#143 2007-12-07 18:47:08

Re: Political Potlock I

#144 2007-12-16 12:56:01

Re: Political Potlock I

#145 2007-12-16 14:31:49

Re: Political Potlock I

#146 2007-12-16 17:15:44

Re: Political Potlock I

Board footer