Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

clark · 2004-04-09 15:08:56

Alright Bill, I'll go with you on this then. What do we do?

Bill White · 2004-04-09 15:44:24

Alright Bill, I'll go with you on this then. What do we do?

Get Sistani and other leading moderate (sic) clerics to embrace assistance from a powerful foreign force. Perhaps the Americans have so posioned the well that we can no longer take that leading role.

Sistani's open support of a U.N. sanctioned military mission would give legitimacy to a multi-national force wearing blue helmets. Then send in as many additional troops as are needed to station soldiers in every town and village and then PRAY that Sistani issues a fatwah telling loyal Shia to assist the blue helmets and openly fight those who attack the blue helmets.

What can America do? Bleed, until we hand off the mission to the blue helmets. And accept the feigned disgrace of a "defeat" by allowing Sadr to say he forced us to accept the United Nations. Then if Sadr tries the same shit on the blue helmets, rely on Sistani to kick Sadr's butt with fatwas.

= = =

IMHO (for better or worse) much of Europe and the world is determined to see George Bush lose face, even if it means disaster in Iraq. If Bush does lose face, then Europe will wake up and realize that anarchy in Iraq is not an option, at least IMHO.

Otherwise, Bush versus Europe over Iraq is a game of diplomatic chicken.

Its kinda like two girls I knew in college who shared an apartment. Dishes (and other cleaning) was done by whichever girl got too disgusted, first.

= = =

John Kerry isn't so openly blunt about it, but this pretty much is his Iraq platform.

clark · 2004-04-09 17:28:24

Choose defeat? It won't work.

We were willing to lose 50,000 in vietnam, for honor. This is no different.

Euler · 2004-04-09 18:24:41

Choose defeat? It won't work.

Sure it will. Kerry can say that the Iraq war was not his idea, and that going to the UN is something that he would have done anyway.

We were willing to lose 50,000 in vietnam, for honor. This is no different.

Yes, and Kerry remembers that quite well. I don't think that he would be willing to make that mistake again.

Bill White · 2004-04-09 18:39:23

Choose defeat? It won't work.
Sure it will. Kerry can say that the Iraq war was not his idea, and that going to the UN is something that he would have done anyway.
We were willing to lose 50,000 in vietnam, for honor. This is no different.
Yes, and Kerry remembers that quite well. I don't think that he would be willing to make that mistake again.

This appears to be the [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pre … t_tougher/]Kerry position.

Kerry said the United States now had three options in Iraq. The first -- to continue along the same lines -- would mean American troops would remain exposed, taxpayers would bear billions of dollars in costs and "we will go down a very dangerous road where the outcome is very difficult."
"Option two, you could just say 'okay, you guys don't want democracy? We'll see you. We're out of here.' Not acceptable, because nobody believes that we are better off with an Iraq that is unstable."
The third alternative -- what Kerry called the "smart" approach --- was to reach out boldly and clearly to the international community, explain their stake in not having a failed Iraq and give them real say in its transformation.

Option Three is also most consistent with genuine American values.

= = =

This is stolen from a blogger somewhere and might well be true:

The United States has established no social contract with the Iraqi people and thus it has no authority to lead. It is thus no surprise that our troops are fair game on all fronts.

Mundaka · 2004-04-10 00:16:39

Hi Ya'll, sorry I've been gone so much lately but I *have* been running a company; however, I also spent the past few weeks with virtually every spare minute used to research our current political situation and administration, and its been a troubling few weeks indeed.

First, a quick comment on the revolt: if you want to win, you must win -- they need to be crushed, period. Unfortunately we may be losing a more important battle here at home:

May Cobra forgive me, but I'm abandoning Bush and his war.

What changed my mind?

I've decided I'm more afraid of my government than I am of the terrorists.

For starters my snot-nosed commie pinko little brother sent me some info about an alleged Oregon state senate bill 742, which it turned out was a fairly easy read -- *thats* a first -- and redefines downloading MP3s illegally, prostitution, and a fair number of similarly non violent crimes as terrorism (and then mixes some truely vile behaviour in as well, but again, they are crimes that are not terroristic.) It then goes on to provide a twenty five year sentance -- no parole -- which can be worked off in a "Forest Work Camp." Among the biggest contributors to the senator (a republican I think) who wrote the bill is a forestry company. The bill was narrowly defeated, but is up for a vote again.

After that little revelation I actually sat down and read large parts of the Patriot Act. I *strongly* suggest everyone do the same, and do so now. My assessment is that Stalin would approve. I'm serious people, read this thing for yourselves -- and Patriot II is worse.

In the course of studying Bush's record to date, I learned he has rejoined UNESCO -- an organization who has stated publically, and proudly, that the family is, "... a disease." and that it must be abolished. We voted ourselves out of UNESCO for that very reason, why would Bush rejoin it unless he agrees with them?

His educational policies are horrible -- even I've been a critic of this since he was governor -- prepping for standardized tests equals an education? Pu-leez! More suited for pliable worker bees, I would say (perhaps forest worker bees?)

In the last two weeks two wicked decisions came down from our higher courts: the first is a 5th circuit court ruling that the police no longer need search warrants to search your house so long as the search is "cursory", whatever that means -- in effect ruling that the 4th amendment no longer exists (sorry, that's the way I see it.)

Also in the last two weeks the supreme court ruled that refusal to provide ID to a cop or refusal to answer a police officer's questions is equal to *resisting arrest*, thereby bringing both the 4th and the 5th amendments into question.

[http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=doc&doc=privacyw]http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=doc&doc=privacyw

[http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_c … i.usa.html]http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme....sa.html

[http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/article … herty.html]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/article....ty.html

This week A. Scalia had the taped recordings of two reporters siezed, and they were threatened with arrest should they fail to comply. The recordings were of a speech he gave about his view of the Constitution.

[http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/view. … aliams.txt]http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/view. … aliams.txt

Our troops are scattered to the winds right now, and so is our National Guard, and there are two congressional bills that would start the draft again by spring of 2005 -- only now women have to go too (Call me a chauvenist, but if you ask me, the biological requirment of giving birth to something the size of a bowling ball should allow every woman a voluntary pass on military conscription, if only as a well earned courtesey. All of that "When you see the baby Its worth it" stuff is just fine, but I'll stick to my roll in the process, thank you very much.)

(For info on the draft bills do a google for S89 and HR163.)

The only intact group of forces we have at home right now -- supposedly during a time of war -- are the "State Guards", or authorized militias (these are run and financed by the various states and have official sanction: they are usually experienced veterans and not the goofy fat guys puffing their silly paths through the forest as they stumble and drop their weapons and wheeze their way through Walter Mitty fantasies.)

While dedicated -- unpaid even -- the state guards are too small to have a real effect in terms of defense, should an actual invasion occur. I'm sorry but I can't think of *any* role for the military that is more legitimate than actual defense, especially of the borders.

Obviously an actual invasion is not a concern -- but the combination of porous borders and a visa application process that actually granted visas to the people who crashed into the World Trade Center *after* 911 qualifies as a security threat. Unless Bush is serious about security, why has nothing been done to address the visa and border concerns?

The borders are *still* not being protected -- again, during a time of "war" -- and the border patrol is being gutted as recruiters are siphoning off agents for the new air marshall force (a force that will only be able to guard a fraction of the planes.) Seems to me a better solution would be to arm the air crews -- but Bush has refused to allow this, despite the protestations of pilots and air crews.

Add to this Bush's promise to sign the assault weapons ban, and his recent change of military oath from "to protect and defend the constitution" to "protect and defend the constitution . . . and obey the commander-in-chief and all his agents." On both counts, Hitler did exactly the same thing.

I've been sceptical of both parties for a long time, but the hours I've spent at the local University library have been terribly disillusioning -- I feel like a gullible dupe. I'm throwing my vote, my bucks and my formerly non activist backside behind somebody besides the two biggies (Kerry voted for the war too and wants to keep it going.) At this point I'm for a vote to bring the boys home and get our minds off the war -- even as real and as serious as it is -- and back on what has been done to our constitutional rights at home while we were watching the war on TV and eating pizza.

I've never been afraid of the terrorists: I figured we were in for a long fight, some setbacks, but eventual victory. I don't think that will change. I am more afraid of the current path our government is on than I am of the terrorists; however, I've only been looking into this for a few weeks -- what else has been attempted while we were preoccupied?

clark · 2004-04-12 10:28:15

Bill, do you think Bush is the type to fall on his sword for the good of the nation? That is effectively what he would have to do to meet the goals, and our international "partners" can charge a lot of interest on this deal since we've painted ourselves into a corner.

Mundaka, look up the changes made to environmental law. A lot of the EPA regulations that protect our air, water, and land have been gutted. Now Bush wants to cut the federal taxes on gasoline so it remains cheap, which runs counter to his commitment to the hydrogen economy, since cheap oil is like crack to the American economy. It sure does feel good, but it costs more than it's worth.

You might also want to take a look at the double stance Bush takes on State rights versus Federal rights. Going in, he was all for State rights, but when it comes to medical marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, education, civil rights, or the right to die (just to name a few), apparently, Uncle Sam knows best.

Remember that whole "compasionate-conservative" sound bite? We don't hear that too often, do we?

I don't think we need to bring our boys home (although it would be nice), I just think we need to send a few boys in washington home. For good.

John Creighton · 2004-04-12 11:09:44

Mundaka, why do you think that Kery, continuing the war will lead to the same erosion of personal freedom as has occurred under the bush administration?

Mundaka · 2004-04-12 14:59:03

Mundaka, why do you think that Kery, continuing the war will lead to the same erosion of personal freedom as has occurred under the bush administration?

Hi John, I'm going to answer you first because your question is more general than Clark's, and while I started to answer with specifics, I decided to go the other way, to wit:

When I first read your question I went out into the net, rounded up my library notes, and started to present my case, then I thought of something RXKE said: that everybody on this right/left divide (or in my case up and down on the Y-axis) keeps presenting their ideas, complete with each other's quotes, as some kind of boring, mindless political rally. I was *very* close to heading that way myself just now, so instead I'll just act as if you and I are sitting on my old frat house floor, getting tanked on a gallon jug of cheap Gallo, and having a friendly bull session.

So, to answer your question, when was the last time you heard Kerry address the matter of a supreme court who -- within the last two weeks -- decided the 5th and 4th amendments were optional? Perhaps more importantly, when have you heard his supporters do likewise? We are talking about fundamental change in our relationship to our government: have Kerry's supporters even asked questions about this? (politicians *will* respond to the demands of those whose votes they desire.)

I had to dig and root to find this stuff out -- *nobody* is talking about it. Not the left, not the right, and surely not those in the middle (who tend to be the most sane among us and can't conceive of other people having a head full of snakes.)

Not even the partisan radio talk show hosts are talking about this, either left or right. Why isn't the press talking about it? Are they really too lazy to do the same research I did on my own, with limited free time? How much in campaign contributions do the media conglomerates give to each party?

From my perspective, its almost like watching those wrestlers, you know, the ones who yell at each other and work up the crowd? then they have a fake fight, and afterwords go back into the locker room and split the money and share a friendly beer. The TV network that broadcasts the "fight" makes even more money. Watch the candidates and the press through that lens, and then pay attention to what they say -- then compare it to the way they vote.

Kerry, for example, talks a good game about Bush's venal war for oil, but look at how he voted on matter: he voted for the war. Bush did the same thing: he promised smaller government and reduced spending -- I'd quote you a figure on how high he has run up our bill since the election but I can't count that high.

These are two small examples in a trend I've noticed now for about ten years -- whether it goes back futher I dunno -- where the two parties make news by stirring up the public with fancy rhetoric; however, if you look at the actions and votes of both parties you see, with few exceptions, differences of degree within a pattern of common trends.

For a few current examples, both parties voted for the Patriot Act, both attack the second amendment, both continue to station so many of our troops overseas that the authors of our Constitution would freak. Both parties refuse to attend to our borders, both voted for the war in Iraq (and its continuance), and both are printing and spending money like there is no tomorrow (and if we keep it up, eventually this country *will* go broke, and if that happens we will drag the world down with us.) There are differences to be sure: differences of degree -- but the trends are the same.

Yet each talks endlessly about how the other party is a bunch of rotten/corrupt, wimpy/warlike, commie/facists, etc., ad nausium -- and none of them is talking about the stuff I brought up before. Why not? Because they are business partners, and they are taking you and me for a ride.

Its like that car salesman I was talking about: he keeps the buyer worked up, and makes him fight for what for what the salesman wants. What better way to make the buyer mad than to take a national tragedy and a concurrent bloodlust for revenge (to which I admit sharing) and useing it to keep our eyes off what is being done to us at home? Take a look at the news: its "warwarwarwar", and what are we talking about? War.

Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court . . . oh, that's right, we *are* talking about the court -- about something as silly as gay marriage. If you want to marry a goat, have at it -- though I might not invite your spouse to my daughter's wedding -- just keep your hands off my Bill of Rights.

I don't see Kerry doing that, or Bush. If you think about (and in keeping with my theme of a friendly college bull session) these guys are practically frat brothers: same school, same social circles, same campaign contributors . . .

Kerry won't give you what he says he will, he is -- like Bush, and Caesar -- a soldier for his class. :down:

Mundaka · 2004-04-12 16:08:57

Mundaka, look up the changes made to environmental law...his commitment to the hydrogen economy... double stance Bush takes on State rights versus Federal rights. Going in, he was all for State rights, but when it comes to medical marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, education, civil rights, or the right to die ... I don't think we need to bring our boys home (although it would be nice), I just think we need to send a few boys in washington home. For good.

Clark, while I disagree on the details, I agree with the sentiments, e.g., you mention enviro law, I'm against it.
Almost every environmental law is an unconstitutional violation of property rights; however, there are constitutional ways to skin that proverbial cat.

When I was a kid there was this mini refinery near the town of Rockport, Texas, that belched out the most horrid filth imaginable. It smelled horrible, your eyes burned when you drove by, and for a quarter mile all around it every tree, shrub, and blade of grass was black.

Some wealthy people from Dallas started buying vacation beach houses in Rockport -- this was before the enviro movement got up to steam -- and had put a fair amount of money into their purchases when one day the wind changed and they discovered what the locals had been living in all along.

Lawsuits magically appeared based on the degradation of the property value of said beach houses. Today that refinery is still there, but you would think a platoon of eco warriors went there every morning and spit shined the place.

Wealthy people know how to do this, while everyday slobs like you and me invoke legislative redress and get what we ask for -- good and hard.

States rights vs. federal powers, I hadn't noticed this but you are right, thanks for the heads up.

Now for the details:

Pot; my Dad, the doctor, has for years asked the question, "why is a lawyer able to tell me what I can and cannot prescribe to one of my patients?"

*My* question is why did we need a constitutional amendment to make the sale of alcohol illegal, but not with pot? Both were legal up to the 20th century, both had been used historically in this country, both were, for all all intents and purposes legally identicle. Why was a Constitutional amendment not needed for the other drugs?

Abortion; I'm against it. I don't care how fine you cut it, that's a little baby in there. It has rights and can't defend itself. Don't talk to me about a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body either -- tell that to the draftees of our wars. If we are able to legally tell young people that they WILL go to a foriegn country and be maimed, disfigured and killed for our safety, how can you say the right to do with your body what you will gives you the right to kill somebody just because they can't defend themselves?

If it comes down to a choice between the *life* of the baby or the mother, Mom wins hands down -- birth is one of the most dangerous times of our lives anyway and that's the risk we take. I hope the ladies can forgive me on that one, I assure you I mulled this question for decades till I arrived at this conclusion, and it wasn't easy either.

Gay marriage?; Good call -- less competition fer us heteros.

Education; There should be a constitutional ban on government establishment of education, or the free exercise thereof.

Civil rights; somebody help me here. What is the difference between civil and constitutional rights? I simply don't know.

Right to die?; I always thought that was more of a dictate!

As for your last comment, Amen.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-12 17:44:58

May Cobra forgive me, but I'm abandoning Bush and his war.

I pardon you. I too have noted the progressions toward tyranny that you mention. In every sense, Bush has been at best a disappointment. At worst... well, they monitor this stuff. :bars: But since I'm kinda irritable today to start with...

This government alternates between disgusting me and scaring the hell out me, I'm on the record saying this repeatedly. I used to joke about being on the "in case of emergency send to concentration camp" list, but it really isn't funny anymore. I can't blame the Bush Administration for it, the America defined by the Constitution has been eroding for a very long time.

But we also have a bunch of fundamentalist assholes trying to kill us, and I'd prefer that we kill them first. So I support the war, though I think it should be carried out a bit differently, Bush is merely the lesser of two increasingly greater evils... Maybe the greater evil now since I expect this sort of crap from the other side. I'm in that small but slow growing camp that will fight and bleed to defend this country, but the government of this country... Not a drop.

What was it that Thomas Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty...

But most depressing, and I'm probably going to regret stating this so bluntly... I don't believe it can be fixed by working within the system.

Does that mean I want to take up arms and attack Washington, not at all. At any rate such foolishness would be doomed to failure. But anyone who believes the Republic still functions with the full weight of the Constitution is sorely mistaken.

Add to this Bush's promise to sign the assault weapons ban, and his recent change of military oath from "to protect and defend the constitution" to "protect and defend the constitution . . . and obey the commander-in-chief and all his agents." On both counts, Hitler did exactly the same thing.

This one had not come to my attention. One more oath I can't in good conscience take.

At this point I'm for a vote to bring the boys home and get our minds off the war -- even as real and as serious as it is -- and back on what has been done to our constitutional rights at home while we were watching the war on TV and eating pizza.

If it were that simple, I'd agree. But as it stands, I fear it's going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. And maybe that would be good for us as a people.

Time to go, I hear a loud knock at the door.

Bill White · 2004-04-12 18:20:42

Abortion? I may regret this, its one of those things best to keep quiet about.

Abortion (IMHO) is obscene and repugnant. Like the bumpersticker says, Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

But wait, there is another bumpersticker:

If you can't trust me with a choice, why trust me with a child?

Frankly, I agree with both of the above.

Given RU-486 and the morning after pill, law enforcement cannot successfully end abortion. Abortion is wrong and using the criminal justice system to fight abortion is wrong.

Abortion will end when we empower women since abortion is really more for the convenience of men than anything else.

There is a great Doonesbury from maybe 20 years ago. A woman says, "I'm pregnant - boyfriend says "Get a 'bortion" and a woman says "I'm pregnant" - - Dad says "Get out of my house!"

clark · 2004-04-13 09:11:02

Mundaka,

Wealthy people know how to do this, while everyday slobs like you and me invoke legislative redress and get what we ask for -- good and hard.

I never liked subscribing to the premise that my "betters" knew best. "Oh, money? Well, of course the wealthy know what to do with it, that's why they're wealthy!"

Power to the people. Of course, please protect me from those people too.

Sometimes a few individuals, with some resources, can get more done, faster, than a lot of individuals, with fewer resources. But it isn't neccessarily the communnity I would like to live in where wealth, or socio-economic status, determines the health of your local environment.

"Want to breathe clean air, drink clean water, or have your children play in safe clean parks? Don't be poor." Not much of a solution in my book. [shrug]

Pot; my Dad, the doctor, has for years asked the question, "why is a lawyer able to tell me what I can and cannot prescribe to one of my patients?"

So, to you, and perhaps your father, "Why is a politican, or a judge, able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body?"

However you feel about abortion, it is a personal matter, based on your own personal moral compass. Now, I can see both sides of this issue, so I err on the side of the person I know to "be". Perhaps a fetus is a person, perhaps it's just tissue. I think we can agree that it is potential. I've found it difficult to change anyone's position on the matter, either way. Most people come to a conclusion and move on, it's not something we really like to deal with.

That said, here is the conundrum that I see in the offing in the postion that life begins at conception, or prior to actual birth: If this is the case, then wouldn't nationality be determined by where you were conceived, and not where you were born? In other words, illegal immigrants merely need to rent a motel room for a few days in America, conceive a child, and then have an instant ticket to America.

You value children. You value your own children. Yet not everyone has the same values. I'm going to get a bit personal and admit that one of my previous jobs was to deal with women seeking abortions (no, I didn't perfom them). I saw all manner of life walk through the door- women who had several children in tow, haggard and poor, asking for options. I saw women who were young, very young, their entire life ahead of them, filled with unknown opportunites- which would be lost if they had a child then and there (at least I assume). The point though is that I didn't really know any of them, only what I could see. We all have a life that we try to navigate, so why make it harder by limiting the choices of people to figure out how to best navigate it? Why should we fear letting people have choice? Afterall, that's the whole point of Adam and Eve, right? Choice.

Instead of making laws to make the world as you would like, why not make the world as you would like so we don't need the laws in the first place? Just my take on it I guess.

*My* question is why did we need a constitutional amendment to make the sale of alcohol illegal, but not with pot? Both were legal up to the 20th century, both had been used historically in this country, both were, for all all intents and purposes legally identicle. Why was a Constitutional amendment not needed for the other drugs?

I've had that question too. I believe it boils down to the regulations instutited (legally) by Congress on pharmacetuicals and the FDA. The FDA classifies all drugs, and is able to control their distribution. The key to legalization, decrimilization, or even medical use, is to have the FDA reclassify pot. I believe it has the same classification as crack.

Gay marriage?; Good call -- less competition fer us heteros.

Who wants to be against lesbians, right? Lesbians are cool.

Cobra,

But we also have a bunch of fundamentalist assholes trying to kill us, and I'd prefer that we kill them first.

Yeah, the Christian Right is getting out of hand. :laugh: Think about it...

Bill,

Given RU-486 and the morning after pill, law enforcement cannot successfully end abortion. Abortion is wrong and using the criminal justice system to fight abortion is wrong.

The real problem isn't RU-486, it's patient medical privacy. Your medical records are yours, and yours alone. The recently passed HIPPA (Health Information Patient Privacy Act) requires that all patient medical information be held in complete confidence. The gov'enment simply can't find out, legitimately, if you have or do not have an abortion. This was an issue in some mid-western state, and the gov'enment tried to get the medical files of women (sans the names) to identify doctors who were performing abortions (for some reason it didn't comply with state law). Well, the State lost because accessing the files would have been a violation of the patient privacy.

Bill White · 2004-04-13 09:46:14

Using law enforcement to stop abortion is wrong, IMHO, yet I try to avoid that argument since its easier to demonstrate that using law enforcement to end abortion is futile.

It is wrong because why should rich women have free access to abortions while we deny access to poor women? Since the morning after pill is readily available to prudent women with good access to health care, ending abortion is simply impossible as a practical matter.

Safe, legal and rare - - how to make it rare? Empower women so abortion becomes the last choice, rarely chosen.

The goal should be preventing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, not putting people in jail.

Palomar · 2004-04-13 10:04:01

*My take on the abortion issue?

Birth control prevents abortion.

It takes 2 people to make a baby, thus both parties should be interested in preventing conception in the first place if pregnancy is not the desired outcome of coitus.

There are now condoms on the market for both male and female. If one of the couple refuses to use one, the other should be mature enough to take the initiative. If neither wants to take responsibility then they have no business engaging in sexual activity in the first place, IMO. Irresponsibility and immaturity (both parties) also factors in quite often.

There are so many birth control alternatives today (and for a long time), even *free* devices handed out at Planned Parenthood clinics and the like. Abortion should be no more a major source of societal conflict than mass starvation in the U.S. (as there's plenty of food to go around). There are plenty of preventative options...they simply must be USED.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-04-13 10:14:57

And when two mature adults, because those are the only ones having sex, use birth control, and it fails, as it sometimes does, is abortion a legitimate option, or not?

Mundaka · 2004-04-13 13:30:00

Power to the people. Of course, please protect me from those people too.

Or as my old man used to say, "God save us from the meek."

The answer to the abortion question may be simpler than we think. Cindy is on the right track: maturity is key. How could that work out in practice?

Bill is on the right track here, as he said, "Abortion will end when we empower women since abortion is really more for the convenience of men than anything else."

In short, men have the answer to this issue: to put it bluntly, its all in our . . . er . . . uhm . . . hands. Ahem.

clark · 2004-04-13 13:33:33

Put women in charge, and snip the boys.

Palomar · 2004-04-13 13:38:58

[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … _ea/iraq_5]Be careful what you wish for (Sadr)

*By the way, I noted earlier another helicopter went down (not a Black Hawk). I thought our 'copters (particularly the BH's, which we've lost quite a few of) have been touted as nearly indestructible. Propoganda, I suppose, for the folks back home.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-04-15 08:57:58

*The other thread ("What if...Vietnam II?") is breaking down, I guess.
Repost:
This horrible situation has been in mind since I read the article a few hours ago.
What should the Japanese authorites do?
A total understatement to say I feel sorry for the kidnap victims; I am extremely worried for them.
I can't comprehend such cruelty.
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nappings_1]Japan/Iraq Abduction Crisis
--Cindy

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … idnappings]They've been freed!!

*I am SO happy to read this!!

For a while there, it seemed no one knew exactly what was happening to them. They've been in my mind all week, including other hostage situations over there as well of course. Unfortunately an Italian man, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, was shot.

It's so unpredictable...unpredictability is the worst aspect of terror.

Well, at least these 3 people are safe. That's great. If I were them, I'd fall on my native soil and kiss the ground upon returning to Japan.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-04-17 11:06:27

So, now, after the WMD reason, the humanitarian reason, comes the real reason : the democratisation of all the middle east.

Mr Bush hypothesis is : Democracy will spread in middle orient, starting from Iraq.

maybe yes maybe not. What happen if here again Mr Bush is wrong ? How is it working ? Is it based in the Domino Theory ?
What are the facts that support this hypothesis ?

He repeatidly repeats this mantra, to convince everybody, himself included, that democratie in Iraq will infect its neighbors. But he never tells us why he is so sure of that.
How's that possible that Saoudi Arabia, Syria etc, will suddenly turn into democraties of western standard ?
My guess is that even a "free" Iraq with an imposed democratic constitution, imposed love for America, imposed freedom, will not do anything to help to impose democracy to the surrounding islamic countries. The domino theory is wrong in this case IMO.
The only thing I can see spreading is trouble for the governments of the islamic countries who are already in a democratic pathway (Algeria, Marocco, Egypt etc) , to stay in this pathway in front of their public opinion radicalized against the US.

By the way, if these democratic muslim countries are already free or at least in better shape than Arabia Saoudia or Soudan or Syria, it's not after an "imposed freedom episode" it's either after a normal evolution in front of the modern world or a war of decolonisation. Maybe Algeria, Marocco or Egypt are the best POSSIBLE models of democracy for other muslim countries right now.
Maybe a better way to "impose" democracy in the middle east would have been to support more these already democratically advanced muslim states to make them even better models for other islamic states. But that implies sending more wealth, technologies, education, showing respect to these alien democracy etc. Not sending bombs and disrespect for their civilizations and values.
This, if you really want to spread democracy.

Also, a note about the recent increase in prices for gas in the US. Sure, the US should go for oil independance, but the OPEP oil producers are not dumb, they see that. Before they see us becoming oil independant, they gonna make us sweating water and blood for the short period of time left, to make a maximum of money possible in the time left. It's gonna get worst. But I am sure Dubya has a plan here too, as brilliant as usual.

Palomar · 2004-04-17 14:20:43

So, now, after the WMD reason, the humanitarian reason, comes the real reason : the democratisation of all the middle east.
Mr Bush hypothesis is : Democracy will spread in middle orient, starting from Iraq.
maybe yes maybe not. What happen if here again Mr Bush is wrong ? How is it working ? Is it based in the Domino Theory ?
What are the facts that support this hypothesis ?
He repeatedly repeats this mantra, to convince everybody, himself included, that democratie in Iraq will infect its neighbors. But he never tells us why he is so sure of that.
...
Maybe a better way to "impose" democracy in the middle east would have been to support more these already democratically advanced muslim states to make them even better models for other islamic states. But that implies sending more wealth, technologies, education, showing respect to these alien democracy etc

*Interesting that you use the word "mantra." That's how I've described his repeated use of the words "weapons of mass destruction."

Bush bit off more than he can chew with this war and there are STILL no WMD's in sight; that should be obvious to any thinking person, IMO. In order to placate his supporters, he's got to make them feel good again ("we're giving them democracy").

I agree with your statements in the last paragraph I quoted. Leading by *example* is the best way. (I'm surprised you didn't mention the nation of Jordan).

There is all this talk of "are the Iraqis ready to embrace liberty and Western-style democracy?" Well...how many Iraqis have even a rudimentary grasp of those concepts? ::shakes head::

But you know, there are still Americans who are wildly in favor of the war, despite everything. I was completely taken aback by the following comment, written by a fellow in a different forum (earlier -this- week!):

"Further, if Saddam tried to kill *anyone's* daddy in the US, that would be justification enough of using military force to crush the regime, including leveling Iraq, if necessary."

The US is going to pay for this debacle for a long, long time to come. I almost am mean enough to hope Bush DOES get re-elected...let HIM deal with the fall-out from this mess until 2008; it'd serve him right. But for the sake of the nation, I do hope he gets the boot.

--Cindy

P.S.: We now -know- for certain that Syria and Iran are sending in fighters, some of them formally militarily trained. Was this eventuality -not- foreseen by the Bush Administration? I figured when the war started that people from surrounding nations would go in and join the fight against the US. I wouldn't know a Syrian from an Iraqi; I expect most US troops don't, either. :-\

dickbill · 2004-04-17 16:10:52

I agree with your statements in the last paragraph I quoted. Leading by *example* is the best way. (I'm surprised you didn't mention the nation of Jordan).

Certainly Jordanie and other smaller muslim states should be included in the list of muslim democratic-like states. But I am not expert here. For example, Is a democratic muslim state a state where you can go in a Club-Med resort safely ? hmm just kidding, or maybe not.
But the big players IMO, are certainly Algeria and Egypt. Marocco is important too. They are definitively modern states. And none of these muslim democracy rely as heavily on oil as Arabia saoudia for their power.

I wouldn't include Turkey as a "muslim state" in the same category since it is soon to be define an European state, with a laic conception of government, free of religious and military extremism and in compliance to European standard of human rights.

But you know, there are still Americans who are wildly in favor of the war, despite everything. I was completely taken aback by the following comment, written by a fellow in a different forum (earlier -this- week!):

Oh I know that, I am afraid that if these fellows are so sure of themself they are right, and if "we" the democrats are so sure of ourself they are wrong, it's because we don't talk of the same thing.

In his latest speech, Dubya only talked about generalities, but globally, I was completely in agreement with what he said :
We should fight for freedom, democracy is better than dictatorship, etc. and I might add, good is better than evil and
death is bad, life is good and all kind of general statement that are right, but completely empty of sense if you don't describe in details how you can reach these goals.
And here is where democrats and republicans differ, not mostly in the goals, but in the way you can reach these goals.

The US is going to pay for this debacle for a long, long time to come. I almost am mean enough to hope Bush DOES get re-elected...let HIM deal with the fall-out from this mess until 2008; it'd serve him right.

I think that Kerry can repear the mess, maybe not all the mess and damage done, but a big part, if he finds the good guys to work with. I hope general Clark will be in the team for example.
I hope that republicans will be smart enough to recognize that something must be done differently in Iraq, by somebody else than the world widely discredited Bush team.

Donald Trump :"Dubya ! you cannot do that insult the UN organization, force their withdrawal, then beg for their return, supporting democracy in Iraq and extremism in other countries and spending all the money like that"
Dubya " Dick told me to do that ! but pffffffew, I thought I was fired !"
Trump : "You ARE fired ! "
Dubya : " Am I ? where is Al Gore, I need his support, he knows how to deal with postelection depression"

Alt2War · 2004-04-17 16:53:44

I would like someone to explain to me a realistic route in which Iraq can be saved. Even with Kerry.

Alt2War · 2004-04-17 17:12:51

Mundaka, why do you think that Kery, continuing the war will lead to the same erosion of personal freedom as has occurred under the bush administration?
Hi John, I'm going to answer you first because your question is more general than Clark's, and while I started to answer with specifics, I decided to go the other way, to wit:
When I first read your question I went out into the net, rounded up my library notes, and started to present my case, then I thought of something RXKE said: that everybody on this right/left divide (or in my case up and down on the Y-axis) keeps presenting their ideas, complete with each other's quotes, as some kind of boring, mindless political rally. I was *very* close to heading that way myself just now, so instead I'll just act as if you and I are sitting on my old frat house floor, getting tanked on a gallon jug of cheap Gallo, and having a friendly bull session.
So, to answer your question, when was the last time you heard Kerry address the matter of a supreme court who -- within the last two weeks -- decided the 5th and 4th amendments were optional? Perhaps more importantly, when have you heard his supporters do likewise? We are talking about fundamental change in our relationship to our government: have Kerry's supporters even asked questions about this? (politicians *will* respond to the demands of those whose votes they desire.)
I had to dig and root to find this stuff out -- *nobody* is talking about it. Not the left, not the right, and surely not those in the middle (who tend to be the most sane among us and can't conceive of other people having a head full of snakes.)
Not even the partisan radio talk show hosts are talking about this, either left or right. Why isn't the press talking about it? Are they really too lazy to do the same research I did on my own, with limited free time? How much in campaign contributions do the media conglomerates give to each party?
From my perspective, its almost like watching those wrestlers, you know, the ones who yell at each other and work up the crowd? then they have a fake fight, and afterwords go back into the locker room and split the money and share a friendly beer. The TV network that broadcasts the "fight" makes even more money. Watch the candidates and the press through that lens, and then pay attention to what they say -- then compare it to the way they vote.
Kerry, for example, talks a good game about Bush's venal war for oil, but look at how he voted on matter: he voted for the war. Bush did the same thing: he promised smaller government and reduced spending -- I'd quote you a figure on how high he has run up our bill since the election but I can't count that high.
These are two small examples in a trend I've noticed now for about ten years -- whether it goes back futher I dunno -- where the two parties make news by stirring up the public with fancy rhetoric; however, if you look at the actions and votes of both parties you see, with few exceptions, differences of degree within a pattern of common trends.
For a few current examples, both parties voted for the Patriot Act, both attack the second amendment, both continue to station so many of our troops overseas that the authors of our Constitution would freak. Both parties refuse to attend to our borders, both voted for the war in Iraq (and its continuance), and both are printing and spending money like there is no tomorrow (and if we keep it up, eventually this country *will* go broke, and if that happens we will drag the world down with us.) There are differences to be sure: differences of degree -- but the trends are the same.
Yet each talks endlessly about how the other party is a bunch of rotten/corrupt, wimpy/warlike, commie/facists, etc., ad nausium -- and none of them is talking about the stuff I brought up before. Why not? Because they are business partners, and they are taking you and me for a ride.
Its like that car salesman I was talking about: he keeps the buyer worked up, and makes him fight for what for what the salesman wants. What better way to make the buyer mad than to take a national tragedy and a concurrent bloodlust for revenge (to which I admit sharing) and useing it to keep our eyes off what is being done to us at home? Take a look at the news: its "warwarwarwar", and what are we talking about? War.
Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court . . . oh, that's right, we *are* talking about the court -- about something as silly as gay marriage. If you want to marry a goat, have at it -- though I might not invite your spouse to my daughter's wedding -- just keep your hands off my Bill of Rights.
I don't see Kerry doing that, or Bush. If you think about (and in keeping with my theme of a friendly college bull session) these guys are practically frat brothers: same school, same social circles, same campaign contributors . . .
Kerry won't give you what he says he will, he is -- like Bush, and Caesar -- a soldier for his class. :down:

I feel the same way about Kerry, but unfortunately america does not have the luxury of effective special interest 3rd parties.

In Americas (imho flawed and antiquated) system of democracy, we have a 2 party system. Like it or lump it.

Within that 2 party system, any vote for a 3rd party that more closely represents your views does not, as it should, increase the amount your views are represented, but the opposite.

If you assume the nation is roughly divided idealogicly 50%/50%, then any 3rd party that takes votes from one side in effect reduces voting power of the overall half.

If our founding fathers had a bit more foresight they might have instituted instant runoffs, allowing constituits who have candidates that split them to unite instead of effectivly voting away their representation.

I dont care for Kerry, but I think a ham sandwich could run America better than Bush, and I strongly believe that america may find its worst hour in history if bush has another 4 years.

So I ask you to join me this november in doing as I do, Drink tequila heavily beginning at dawn, go to the polls, hold your nose, and pull the D lever.

This year we do not have the luxury of protest votes, or votes to gather future federal spending for our candidates.

This years vote will determine the fate of America.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-04-09 15:08:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#177 2004-04-09 15:44:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#178 2004-04-09 17:28:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#179 2004-04-09 18:24:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#180 2004-04-09 18:39:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#181 2004-04-10 00:16:39

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#182 2004-04-12 10:28:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#183 2004-04-12 11:09:44

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#184 2004-04-12 14:59:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#185 2004-04-12 16:08:57

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#186 2004-04-12 17:44:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#187 2004-04-12 18:20:42

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#188 2004-04-13 09:11:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#189 2004-04-13 09:46:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#190 2004-04-13 10:04:01

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#191 2004-04-13 10:14:57

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#192 2004-04-13 13:30:00

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#193 2004-04-13 13:33:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#194 2004-04-13 13:38:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#195 2004-04-15 08:57:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#196 2004-04-17 11:06:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#197 2004-04-17 14:20:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#198 2004-04-17 16:10:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#199 2004-04-17 16:53:44

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#200 2004-04-17 17:12:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer