TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The New Yorker cover of Obama
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and if i pulled out 3, you'd want 4. My point was proven. It's never enough to get you to agree with me, is it Clovis?

The point is, "phony" soldiers dissenting on Iraq are practically a non-issue. Its typical of Rush to push something like that to distract from the real issue, that we sent people to die for absolutely no reason and some of them are realizing that.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The point is, "phony" soldiers dissenting on Iraq are practically a non-issue. Its typical of Rush to push something like that to distract from the real issue, that we sent people to die for absolutely no reason and some of them are realizing that.

LOL. You challenged me about what Rush was saying with the phony soldiers comment when I explained it was taken out of context, and cleared it up by giving the real account of Jesse McBeth. I even gave you the actual transcripted words from the real source, not a left wing publication who was paraphrasing. That wasn't enough, so you asked for another example, since he used "soldierS" pluraly, I gave you Scott Beauchamp. Now you're drifting off into things outside of this point and saying, "phony soldiers dissenting on Iraq are practically a non-issue.... and it's typical of Rush to distract...etc," and getting into a different subjct about what you think the "real issue" in Iraq is. How is it a political non issue when a bullshit story like that has 41 Democratic members of the senate taking time on the senate floor denouncing a talk radio host, without even taking the time to find out the facts of the story?

God I hate that anti-war rhetoric of "the real issue is that we sent people to die for absolutely nothing." You'd be surprised how many people who are there now, and have actually been there, feel completely opposite. But I guess they are just fools because they don't look through the same political lens as you. There are always going to be dissenters... but guess what... they signed up for it, they weren't drafted. It doesn't make soldiers any less cerebral because they don't realize what you and the dissenters "realize". Unbelievable. It pains you to have to concede even a little bit that you may have been misinformed about the phony soldier story, as you understood it. This kind of reinforces something I mentioned a couple days ago about how the liberal left cannot compromise, unless that compromise entails anyone to the right of them making the compromising concessions and moving in their direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis that we sent people to die for absolutely no reason and some of them are realizing that.

nope. we sent people to die for this. >LINK< the only self determining Arab government in the Middle East. long live Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. we sent people to die for this. >LINK< the only self determining Arab government in the Middle East. long live Iraq.

quote:

Life is awfully important so if you've given it away you'd ought to think with all your mind in the last moments of your life about the thing you traded it for. So did all those kids die thinking of democracy and freedom and liberty and honor and the safety of the home and the stars and stripes forever? You're goddamn right they didn't. They died crying in their minds like little babies. They forgot the thing they were fighting for the things they were dying for. They thought about things a man can understand. They died yearning for the face of a friend. They died whimpering for the voice of a mother a father a wife a child They died with their hearts sick for one more look at the place where they were born please god just one more look. They died moaning and sighing for life. They knew what was important They knew that life was everything and they died with screams and sobs. They died with only one thought in their minds and that was I want to live I want to live I want to live.

Iraq is worth over 4,000 soldiers lives? What country shall we bring democracy to next? How many lives will it be worth?

quote:

God I hate that anti-war rhetoric of "the real issue is that we sent people to die for absolutely nothing." You'd be surprised how many people who are there now, and have actually been there, feel completely opposite.

No, I'm not surprised, there are many of them, I know a few personally. But thats giving it credibility after the fact. Sure, it is noble, helping the country we destroyed attempt to get back on its feet, "democracy" and all. Making progress against internal terrorists. War should always be used as a last resort...that is usually a well agreed on principle. So...was it? And if it was, are you prepared to die for the cause? Be honest. Think about being dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Iraq is worth over 4,000 soldiers lives? What country shall we bring democracy to next? How many lives will it be worth?

what's democracy worth? are you really asking that question?

what's it worth is just like most things, whatever you're willing to pay for it.

no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this.

quote:

Life is awfully important so if you've given it away you'd ought to think with all your mind in the last moments of your life about the thing you traded it for. So did all those kids die thinking of democracy and freedom and liberty and honor and the safety of the home and the stars and stripes forever? You're goddamn right they didn't. They died crying in their minds like little babies. They forgot the thing they were fighting for the things they were dying for. They thought about things a man can understand. They died yearning for the face of a friend. They died whimpering for the voice of a mother a father a wife a child They died with their hearts sick for one more look at the place where they were born please god just one more look. They died moaning and sighing for life. They knew what was important They knew that life was everything and they died with screams and sobs. They died with only one thought in their minds and that was I want to live I want to live I want to live.

touching appeal to sympathy, and is probably absolutely true of any soldier who has fought and died at any time for anything for any country or ideal, but ask yourself this. if the way of your life, or more importantly, the way of your children's life isn't worth dying for then what the hell is?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Iraq is worth over 4,000 soldiers lives? What country shall we bring democracy to next? How many lives will it be worth? No, I'm not surprised, there are many of them, I know a few personally. But thats giving it credibility after the fact. Sure, it is noble, helping the country we destroyed attempt to get back on its feet, "democracy" and all. Making progress against internal terrorists. War should always be used as a last resort...that is usually a well agreed on principle. So...was it? And if it was, are you prepared to die for the cause? Be honest. Think about being dead.

whoever made that quote you posted is projecting his feelings onto the soldiers who die. If he was on the battlefield, that's how he would handle it... like a sniveling litte bitch, crying for mommy. But he wouldn't be on the battlefield. I'm sure death comes pretty instantaneous for most, without time for them to regress to the infantile state this hack suggests they do. When it isn't instantaneous, I would bet more of them die like a man.

Was Iraq worth 4000 deaths? I guess I can't answer that until enough time passes to see how it all plays out. Hindsight you know? It's hard for me to wrap my mind around it at this point because we've been in Iraq longer than we fought WW2 where we lost over 400,000 soldiers, over 58,000 (reported) in Vietnam (not worth it), between 600-700K in the Civil War (definitely worth it to keep the union together and help end slavery............ so, 4000 deaths seems like not so much. I don't mean to minimize the importance of the lives given, but in time if Iraq proves to be a sustainable democracy in that fucked up region, and are our allies, I would say it was worth it, yeah.

Am I prepared to die for that cause over there? No... but that's a choice I'm entitled to, thanks to those who do volunteer for the military. If we were attacked by a foreign army on our soil though, I'd be the first one at the army recruitment center and fully prepared to die for a cause like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. we sent people to die for this. >LINK< the only self determining Arab government in the Middle East. long live Iraq. what's democracy worth? are you really asking that question? what's it worth is just like most things, whatever you're willing to pay for it. no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this.

Iraq's self-determination is not ours to fight for. Let's also not forget the false pretenses given to the American people to support the war. Or the huge cost of the entire venture (which we'll be paying for decades to come). Or the fact our actions made Iran stronger. Or the fact that MILLIONS of Iraqi's are refugees. And the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi dead wounded. Iraqi's also did not ask us to "liberate" them. They had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. Spreading democracy by the barrel of a gun is nothing lower than state-sponsored terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Iraq's self-determination is not ours to fight for.

all self-determination is ours to fight for. being the world's superpower it will continue to be the debt we pay.

quote:

Or the fact our actions made Iran stronger.

we've already gone over the other crap ad-nauseum, but how is Iran "stronger"? every country in the world is beginning to see Iran for what they truly are and are acting accordingly.

if i corner a ferrel cat in my garage of course it's going to appear stronger but it's still just a ferrel cat.

quote:

Spreading democracy by the barrel of a gun is nothing lower than state-sponsored terrorism.

your problem (aside from your grammar) is you lack the intellectual courage to make simple distinctions.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo all self-determination is ours to fight for. being the world's superpower it will continue to be the debt we pay.

No it's not. The UN Charter grants all state's the right of self-determination. Being the world's superpower is not an excuse to tell other nations how to run their country.

quote:

we've already gone over the other crap ad-nauseum, but how is Iran "stronger"? every country in the world is beginning to see Iran for what they truly are and are acting accordingly.

Iran is stronger because it doesn't have its regional arch enemy to worry about anymore. Now we have to be that arch enemy. And they know we are tied down in a two front war.

quote:

your problem (aside from your grammar) is you lack the intellectual courage to make simple distinctions.

LOL, all you have is a criticism of my grammar and an attack on my "intellectual courage"? Is it because I actually respect the sovereignty of other nations?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No it's not. The UN Charter grants all state's the right of self-determination. Being the world's superpower is not an excuse to tell other nations how to run their country.

myopic: the UN has dragged itself into all sorts of armed conflict throughout their entire history defending their own charter. they grant self-determination in the absence of any human rights violations or violations of international law, treaties and their own resolutions.

quote:

Iran is stronger because it doesn't have its regional arch enemy to worry about anymore. Now we have to be that arch enemy. And they know we are tied down in a two front war.

myopic: their "arch enemy" for over a decade after the Gulf War couldn't move a helicopter without being shit on by the UN and it's memebers, including the United States. HOW WAS IRAN NOT STRONGER THEN?

prior to the Mar 2003 Iran did what the f**k they wanted because no one cared. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW COMPARITIVELY?

quote:

Is it because I actually respect the sovereignty of other nations?

selfish: you use the word sovereignty like a bumper sticker. it only means something to you if it doesn't cost you anything or you don't accept the costs it requires. you use it basically for arguments sake, without any respect for history, the PEOPLE from whom the country actually derives it's sovereignty or what it really takes to become truly sovereign.

SOVEREIGNTY, in this day and age means you don't give anybody any reason to f**k with your "sovereignty"

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I still don't believe Dems are uncomprimising, nor are they responsible for high oil prices.

Did you see this shit today? If so, does it change at all your thoughs on our wonderful democratic congress? (i'm seriously asking, that's not rhetorical)

quote:

With Americans driving less, the highway fund faces even more severe shortfalls than expected from lost gas-tax revenue � and so the Democrats plan to hike it up by ten cents a gallon. Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded � with a prod from the construction industry � that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs. Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel. Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems. �We�ll put all things on the table,� Oberstar said, but the gas tax �is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.�

This is exactly like the shit they pulled here in NC... there was a drought, people used less water as instructed, and the govt. wasn't getting the tax revanue they wanted, so they raised the cost to equal what we would have been spending if we used more water. fucking rediculous. Here's the follow up commentary... spot on (IMO):

"The problem with the transportation bill isn�t a lack of funds, it�s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks � the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax.
When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity."

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo myopic: the UN has dragged itself into all sorts of armed conflict throughout their entire history defending their own charter. they grant self-determination in the absence of any human rights violations or violations of international law, treaties and their own resolutions.

The UN has engaged in "conflicts" to counter any nation which launches a war of aggression (i.e. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), or to engage in peacekeeping operations. No where in the charter is the right of self-determination revoked because of a violation to international law, a treay, or Resolution.

quote:

myopic: their "arch enemy" for over a decade after the Gulf War couldn't move a helicopter without being shit on by the UN and it's memebers, including the United States. how was Iran not stronger then? prior to the Mar 2003 Iran did what the f**k they wanted because no one cared. how are they stronger now comparitively?

They were still enemies. Iran was basically surrounded by Sunni Muslim regimes (Taliban & Baath Party). They had much to worry about. Until both were deposed by the US. Now all Iran has to worry about is an overstretched American military.

quote:

selfish: you use the word sovereignty like a bumper sticker. it only means something to you if it doesn't cost you anything or you don't accept the costs it requires. you use it basically for arguments sake, without any respect for history or what it really takes to become truly sovereign.

And you use the word myopic in almost every one of your posts, as if it adds anything important. The basis of international law and order is the respect of sovereignty and self-determination of a nation's state. Nation's which violate this respect are agressor nations, no different from Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, or Nepoleonic France. The concept of national sovereignty was laid out to end the endless wars of Europe during the 1500/1600's. It's called the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), with the concept of sovereignty called Westphalian sovereignty. In modern times, the UN Charter guarentees all recognized states the right of sovereignty and self-determination. If that is something you don't accept, tough luck. It's international law & order.

quote:

SOVEREIGNTY, in this day and age means you don't give anybody any reason to f**k with your "sovereignty"

Or opposing American hegemony?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Did you see this shit today? If so, does it change at all your thoughs on our wonderful democratic congress? (i'm seriously asking, that's not rhetorical)

Nope..

quote:

This is exactly like the shit they pulled here in NC... there was a drought, people used less water as instructed, and the govt. wasn't getting the tax revanue they wanted, so they raised the cost to equal what we would have been spending if we used more water. fucking rediculous. Here's the follow up commentary... spot on (IMO): "The problem with the transportation bill isn�t a lack of funds, it�s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum. Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks � the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax. When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity."

So where are the Democrats not comprimising...?

I can also post instances of uncomprimising Republicans....

quote:

Under the Republican dominated Congress (1995-2006)... 1. Extreme Centralization The legislative agenda of the House is (and always has been) controlled by the Speaker and the Committee on Rules. Robert Kuttner explained that, unlike their Democratic predecessors, TOm Delay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (whose chief of staff, Scott Palmer, he considered "as powerful as Delay") practically write laws themselves. "Drastic revisions to bills approved by committee are characteristically added by the leadership, often late in the evening," Kuttner observed. "Under the House rules, 48 hours are supposed to elapse before floor action. But in 2003, the leadership, 57 percent of the time, wrote rules declaring bills to be 'emergency' measures, allowing them to be considered with as little as '30 minutes' notice. On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for." 2. No Amendments When the GOP took control of the House they promised they would do better than Democrats, assuring all "that at least 70 percent of bills would come to the floor with rules permitting amendments." That did not happen; in fact, the opposite occurred. The "proportion of bills prohibiting amendments has steadily increased," from 56 percent the first year Republicans took control to 76 percent when Kuttner last examined them. Even these numbers understate the situation, Kuttner explained, since "all major bills now come to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments." 3. ONE-PARTY CONFERENCES The Republican-controlled Senate has not yet stopped floor amendments, so when a Senate bill differs from a House bill, members are appointed by each body to confer and resolve the differences. Republicans, however, have cut both House and Senate Democrats out of the conferences. THe Republicans meet, work out any differences, and then send a non-amendable bill back to each body for a quick up-or-down vote. Kuttner noted that members may be given a day to study bills exceeding a thousand pages, with "much of it written from scratch in conference." This is a practice that was once considered unacceptable by both parties. 4. No Legislative Hearings Obviously, when laws are written in conference meetings, they have no been discusses during hearings. Even when hearings are held at the committee level, however, Republicans frequently write laws without any input from Democrats, and they vote down any Democratic efforts to amend legislation in committee. Unde Republicans, many laws are literally written by the special interests the laws seek to "regulate", an extraordinary outsourcing of the legislative process. 5. Appropriations Bill Abuses If annual appropriations bills are not enacted, the government runs out of money and must close down. When Newt Gingrich shut down the government in 1995, pressuring President Clinton in a game of political chicken that Gingrich lose, lawmakers were notified that the public would not tolerate such games. Appropriations bills must pass - a president must not veto legislation, regardless of what objectionable provisions it might contain. Accordingly, Republicans add to these bills an endless array of spending for pet pork-berral projects. As one commentator noted, Republicans are spending "worse than drunken sailors". Under the GOP congressional leadership, "earmarked" (meaning pork) spending has soared. According to the Wall Street Journal, at the end of 2005 there were a staggering 13,998 earmarked expenses, costing $27.3 billion. When the Republicans took control in 1995 there were only 1,439 earmarked items. Needless to say, there is nothing conservative in these fiscal actions but there is much that is authoritarian about the wanton spending of these Republicans.

My view is the Republicans have run amok, and the only thing to change that is to let the opposition party balance the political equation in Washington. In the meantime, I suggest the Republican leadership shed its religious absolutism and authoritarism, if they want to win another election. I am totally for small government, low government expenditures, and free market policies; but they have currupted the basic tenets of conservatism, and they deserve to lose power because of that.

Give the Democrats a chance...

I should have not included the "compromise" part of your quote.... i was only referring to the part how you can't blame the Dems for high prices. My fault. But I'm sickened with the course of the GOP too... I think whoever is the next president in 2008 will be so bad, that 2012 will be the time when republican leadership comes back (I hope).

So you still don't think the Dem congress holds the cards in easing prices at the pump?

Edit:

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton but they have currupted the basic tenets of conservatism, and they deserve to lose power because of that.

Glad we can agree on something Newt in 2012?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The UN has engaged in "conflicts" to counter any nation which launches a war of aggression (i.e. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), or to engage in peacekeeping operations.

first off, don't confuse what the UN does and what the UN gives power to the Security Council to do. from the Charter:

quote:

Investigate any situation threatening international peace; Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute; Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and Enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary.

second, the Security Council has the power to summon NATO or any coalitions of the willing to resolve conflict involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression".

sorry, but sometimes soveriegnty takes a back seat under your beloved UN.

quote:

No where in the charter is the right of self-determination revoked because of a violation to international law, a treay, or Resolution.

read UN Res. 1674.

quote:

Iran was basically surrounded by Sunni Muslim regimes (Taliban & Baath Party). They had much to worry about.

they had nothing to "worry about" with the Taliban. gimme a f**kin break, now your just making shit up.

quote:

Now all Iran has to worry about is an overstretched American military.

...and Israel and sanctions by the International community.

speaking about American Military, when your boy Obama is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office next year do you think Iran will be stronger then?

i ask that because if "worrying", by your logic, is some sort of barometer on how "strong" they are how strong would they be if they have one less thing to "worry about"?

quote:

And you use the word myopic in almost every one of your posts, as if it adds anything important. The basis of international law and order is the respect of sovereignty and self-determination of a nation's state.

up until they break international law and treaty and become a threat to their neighbors and allaround suck a treating their own people.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I think whoever is the next president in 2008 will be so bad, that 2012 will be the time when republican leadership comes back (I hope).

If the Republicans get back to their traditional stances, they have my vote.

quote:

So you still don't think the Dem congress holds the cards in easing prices at the pump?

I see the Democrats reigning in speculation on the crude oil, because speculation is the #1 force in oil futures contracts, which before, airlines and governments were #1. I also see a Democratic presidency, one which does not engage in war mongering, to have an effect on the oil "risk premium". I also see much more increased government support for large scale alternative energy projects. I see more pressure on oil companies, especially Exxon Mobil, on using more of their profits on alternative energy R&D projects. Right now, Exxon Mobil contributed a miserable $100 million to such projects, whereas Shell Oil Company has spent billions on R&D of alternative energy projects. But all of this should not be opposed by Republicans, unless they have Big Oil special interests on their backs, I don't see why both parties couldn't comprimise on lowering American dependence on foreign oil.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If the Republicans get back to their traditional stances, they have my vote. I see the Democrats reigning in speculation on the crude oil, because speculation is the #1 force in oil futures contracts, which before, airlines and governments were #1. I also see a Democratic presidency, one which does not engage in war mongering, to have an effect on the oil "risk premium". I also see much more increased government support for large scale alternative energy projects. I see more pressure on oil companies, especially Exxon Mobil, on using more of their profits on alternative energy R&D projects. Right now, Exxon Mobil contributed a miserable $100 million to such projects, whereas Shell Oil Company has spent billions on R&D of alternative energy projects. But all of this should not be opposed by Republicans, unless they have Big Oil special interests on their backs, I don't see why both parties couldn't comprimise on lowering American dependence on foreign oil.

It seems like the Dems want to find any possible method OTHER than the most simple, which is increase our own supply by allowing us to get it now from ourselves. They're just making it so much more difficult by coming up with all these extravagant ideas and complicated, multifaceted strategies to do everything else but. Look how oil prices dropped like a rock in the last few days once Bush lifted the executive ban... imagine how far they'll go down if ANWAR, shale, and the OCS get the green light for drilling. Congress is standing in the way... they're the only ones. I'm about 2 weeks from trading in my gas guzzler if this shit continues, and I want to keep it!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Edit: Glad we can agree on something Newt in 2012?

Newt? lol, absolutely not!

Here is my dirt on Mr. Gingrich..

quote:

People who knew Gingrinch early in his political career have described him - and because he is a man who still wants to be president of United States such assessments remain relevant - in less than glowing terms. David Osbourne spoke with many of them when he was preparing his telling profile for Mother Jones magazine, and he was given information descriptive of an authoritarian leader. Osbourne reported that Gingrich was dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, and amoral; he can be a bully, hedonistic, exploitive, manipulative, a cheater, prejudiced toward women, and mean-spirited, and he uses religion for political purposes; he also wants others to submit to his authority and is aggressive on behalf of authority. A number of Gingrich observers described his nature: 1. Lew Howell (a former press secretary): "Gingrich has a tendency to chew people up and spit them out, and when he doesn't need you anymore he throws you away. Very candidly, I don't think Newt Gingrich has many principles, except for what's best for him." 2. Chip Kahn (who managed Gingrich's first two campaigns): "Ambitious bastard." 3. Mary Kahn (a reporter who covered Gingrich before marrying Chip): "Newt uses people and then discards them as useless. He's like a leech. He really is a man with no conscience. He just doesn't seem to care who he hurts or why." 4. L.H. Carter (once a close friend and advisor): on returing to Georgia after Newt was elected: "[H]e turned in my car and looked at me and he said, 'Fuck you guys. I don't need your anymore'" Carter added, "The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral. There isn't any right or wrong, there isn't any conservative or liberal. There's only what will work best for Newt Gingrich. He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He Richard Nixon, glib."

haha... I like him. He hasn't abandoned his conservative principles, is a brilliant man, and has real success with his "contract with america" while speaker. His American Solutions group comes up with real strategies for progress... he's rock solid with understanding the lessons from history that need to be learned, and is a long term planner, not all knee-jerk like Bush (or McCain). Don't sweat the anecdotal stuff... in truth, we have no idea what really happened at the time and there are 2 sides to those kinds of stories. LOL reminds me of when some woman told Churchill he was a drunk, and he said, "Yeah? Well I can sober up tomorrow, but you'll always be ugly."

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo first off, don't confuse what the UN does and what the UN gives power to the Security Council to do. from the Charter: second, the Security Council has the power to summon NATO or any coalitions of the willing to resolve conflict involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". sorry, but sometimes soveriegnty takes a back seat under your beloved UN.

Ok, AND? I already said the UN engages in conflicts which are started by aggressor nations starting a war of aggression, which is a breach of peace. Please tell me where I was wrong. If one nation violates unjustifiably, the sovereignty of another nation, then that is a breach of international law, and their sovereignty should likewise be annulled. I have always agreed with this enforcement.

quote:

read UN Res. 1674.

It says the world has a responsibility "...to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Notice how it also says, "The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter,..."

quote:

they had nothing to "worry about" with the Taliban. gimme a f**kin break, now your just making shit up.

I guess the Taliban massacre of Shiites and killing of 7 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-sharif (1998) is nothing to worry about.

quote:

...and Israel and sanctions by the International community.

Niether are right on the border of Iran, which was the context of my statement.

quote:

speaking about American Military, when your boy Obama is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office next year do you think Iran will be stronger then?

If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price. Let's stop playing international bogeyman. Iran hasn't launched a war of aggression in at least the past 100 years. Obama would do something your beloved Mr. Bush never did. Sit down and talk with our enemies. We talked with the North Koreans. We talked with the North Vietnamese. WE TALKED WITH THE SOVIET UNION. Please explain to how sabre rattling and diplomatic isolation has EVER worked??

quote:

i ask that because if "worrying", by your logic, is some sort of barometer on how "strong" they are how strong would they be if they have one less thing to "worry about"?

You seem to think Iran is the next "Nazi Germany". Let me say again. If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price.

quote:

up until they break international law and treaty and become a threat to their neighbors and allaround suck a treating their own people.

And what? The USA is the holy liberator of the world? Get real dude. Our government is guilty of torture, unjustified war, proxy wars, launching coups of foreign governments, and I tend to consider all of these violations of international law. So let's not get all high and mighty here.

And what threat is Iran to its neighbors? They haven't invaded anymore for more than 100 years. The government isn't carrying out a genocide for Allah's sake.

No one is denying Iran's government fails to meet international human rights standards. But guess what? Niether does our favorite trading partner China. We still talk to them don't we? How about we allow the Reformist Movement to do its job of reforming the country from WITHIN. I also lament the fact that, even after Reformist-ruled Iran helped us topple the Taliban, Mr. Bush chose to call them part of an "Axis of Evil". That mistake doomed the Reformists for years to come. Enraged Iranians turned to a nationalist firebrand Mr. Ahmadinijad. See where things are going Q?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... I like him. He hasn't abandoned his conservative principles, is a brilliant man, and has real success with his "contract with america" while speaker. His American Solutions group comes up with real strategies for progress... he's rock solid with understanding the lessons from history that need to be learned, and is a long term planner, not all knee-jerk like Bush (or McCain). Don't sweat the anecdotal stuff... in truth, we have no idea what really happened at the time and there are 2 sides to those kinds of stories. LOL reminds me of when some woman told Churchill he was a drunk, and he said, "Yeah? Well I can sober up tomorrow, but you'll always be ugly."

"Contract with America" was mostly a good promise to reform the government. But Newt as president? I don't think so. If John McCain wasn't so gung ho "let's use our military to enforce our interests", I'de actually vote for him.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess the Taliban massacre of Shiites and killing of 7 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-sharif (1998) is nothing to worry about.

while i do conceed that horrific, barbaric and truly disgusting event was not helpful in the least, the Taliban never expressed aggression towards Iran itself. Mazar was at the opposite end of the country and represented the last territory the Taliban had yet to conquer. they had lost an effort to overtake it the year before.

additionally, the UN sponsored Iran and the Taliban to sit down together in Dubai in 1999. they smoothed things over and a Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil assured Iran they were was committed to punishing the killers of the Iranian nationals.

quote:

Niether are right on the border of Iran, which was the context of my statement.

well, your context or whatever the hell is wrong and yes, myopic. a percieved threat is a percieved threat. it doesn't matter where the threat is coming from.

quote:

If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price. Let's stop playing international bogeyman. Iran hasn't launched a war of aggression in at least the past 100 years. Obama would do something your beloved Mr. Bush never did. Sit down and talk with our enemies. We talked with the North Koreans. We talked with the North Vietnamese. WE TALKED WITH THE SOVIET UNION. Please explain to how sabre rattling and diplomatic isolation has EVER worked??

what the hell are you going on about? you equated Iranian strength with their percieved threats.

the International community has leveled the strongest sanctions on a ME country since Saddam 1998. Israel has threatened to set their nuclear development program back 5-10 years. the US has countered their Navy with the promise to the world we'll keep the Straights of Hormuz open. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW? HOW WERE THEY NOT STRONGER WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON SADDAM FOR 12 YEARS?

quote:

You seem to think Iran is the next "Nazi Germany".

no i don't. i think their attitude towards the Jews invite eerie similarities (they're posers really compared to the Nazis) but i don't think they're going to Blitzkreig into Armenia any time soon.

you're the one that thinks they're so damn strong for some reason. i just want them to be transparent with their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium. thats all!

i'm not at all opposed to them developing nuclear power, just be f**king cooperative with the International community. simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this.

quote:

OLBERMANN: If the surge is over and it was successful, why are there still 18,000 more troops in Iraq than there was before the troop escalation? Shouldn`t we be at January 2000 levels or, gosh, maybe even lower than that? MADDOW: You might remember when Bush announced in January of 2007 that all these excess troops were going to go over, there was a little bit of a linguistic refusal (ph), with some people resisting Bush`s efforts to call this a surge, saying, instead, actually, this seems like it`s an escalation of the war. Bush won the linguistic battle. It did become known as the surge. But it turns out the people who wanted to call it an escalation were exactly right. There are more troops there after the surge is over before than there were before the surge started. That means that we`ve escalated our involvement in Iraq -- but with this sort of terminology and with the kinds of arguments they made about this -- they did succeed politically in turning most of the last 18 months into a debate about this one tactic, this one escalation tactic rather than a debate about the overall war. OLBERMANN: Or a debate about the last big topic, which was, of course, these benchmarks. The administration says the Iraqi government met 15 out of the 18 benchmarks. They`re supposed to be 18 out of 18, but, in fact, those are just done satisfactory in those. They`re not met and they are no where on internal disarmament and distribution of, internally, of oil money. Now, how is that a success? MADDOW: And the overall point of the surge was to bring about, to create enough breathing room for there to be political reconciliation. The whole point of the surge was to create a sort of temporary peace so that the Iraqi government could get its act together. And the oil law, while that is fraught with political meaning here in the United States, what it means to Iraqis is that there will be an economy in Iraq. That there will be a natural resource that is put on the market for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that that money will be distributed in a way that keeps Iraq from fracturing. The fact that there isn`t an oil law, even when we have no big contracts, or western oil countries, written by American advisors to the Iraqi oil ministry, means that there`s no guaranteed future that Iraq will continue to exist as a single country. There haven`t been provincial elections; they haven`t handed over security in all 18 of Iraq`s provinces the way they said they were going to. The surge may have done something. It may have reduced violence. There were also other things that contributed to that like the Mehdi Army cease-fire and the "Sons of Iraq" paying the Sunni militias not to fight us. But the point of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation. The main Sunni political bloc in Iraq still does not participate in the Iraqi government. The Kurds walked out yesterday. It just hasn`t happened.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...2885742&start=8

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo while i do conceed that horrific, barbaric and truly disgusting event was not helpful in the least, the Taliban never expressed aggression towards Iran itself. Mazar was at the opposite end of the country and represented the last territory the Taliban had yet to conquer. they had lost an effort to overtake it the year before. additionally, the UN sponsored Iran and the Taliban to sit down together in Dubai in 1999. they smoothed things over and a Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil assured Iran they were was committed to punishing the killers of the Iranian nationals.

The Iranians still considered the Taliban an enemy, and were actively supporting the Northern Alliance. Iran also considered Saddam Hussein's Iraq also to be an enemy. Now that their enemy is no longer Sunni Muslim regimes, but Zionist-American interests, it is obvious Iran is stronger than it was in 2000. Not only stronger, but more defiant.

quote:

well, your context or whatever the hell is wrong and yes, myopic. a percieved threat is a percieved threat. it doesn't matter where the threat is coming from.

Did I ever deny other threats beyond Iran's border? No. The context of my statement clearly was Iran's border enemies.

quote:

what the hell are you going on about? you equated Iranian strength with their percieved threats. the International community has leveled the strongest sanctions on a ME country since Saddam 1998. Israel has threatened to set their nuclear development program back 5-10 years. the US has countered their Navy with the promise to the world we'll keep the Straights of Hormuz open. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW? HOW WERE THEY NOT STRONGER WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON SADDAM FOR 12 YEARS?

It's call the "balance of power" equation. Eliminate Baathist Iraq, and Taliban Afghanist, who fills in the power vacuum? Iran. They realize this, and they are strong enough to fill that power vacuum in the absence of American forces. And if Iran isn't so strong, why is Bush trying to build missile defense shields in eastern europe?

quote:

no i don't. i think their attitude towards the Jews invite eerie similarities (they're posers really compared to the Nazis) but i don't think they're going to Blitzkreig into Armenia any time soon.

Iran supports by far the largest population of Jews of any Muslim country. Iran clearly is not against Jews, but against Zionism.

quote:

you're the one that thinks they're so damn strong for some reason. i just want them to be transparent with their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium. thats all!

I said they are stronger after their border enemies were eliminated (balance of power). I would like them to be transparent too. And if we actually show some respect for their sovereignty/self-determination, we will be able to negotiate. Iran has offered very generous terms, but have been rebuffed each and every time. Iran even sent Mr. Bush an offer where their support of Hezbollah was even on the table. Guess what happened? The offer was never answered. This was when the Reformist government was in power.

quote:

i'm not at all opposed to them developing nuclear power, just be f**king cooperative with the International community. simple.

Iran is open to negotiation and cooperation. But on a level playing field. They will not bow down to US pressure for what they perceive as their right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear programs. And there is not, as of yet, any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a nuclear weapons program. Here are but a few attempts by Iran to negotiate...

1. The IAEA reported that Iran had undertaken to submit the required information for agency verification and "to implement a policy of co-operation and full transparency" as corrective actions. CLICK

2. The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.

Iran presented four proposals during the course of its 2004-2005 discussions with the Europeans. In addition to Iran's nuclear program, the proposals covered subjects such as Tehran's support for terrorist organizations, regional security issues, and economic cooperation. CLICK

3. These offers include operating Iran's nuclear program as an international consortium, with the full participation of foreign governments. This offer by the Iranians matched a proposed solution put forth by an IAEA expert committee that was investigating the risk that civilian nuclear technologies could be used to make bombs.CLICK

4. Iran has also offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, thus ensuring that its heavy water reactor at Arak cannot be used to make bombs either. CLICK

5. More recently, the Iranians have reportedly also offered to operate uranium centrifuges that automatically self-destruct if they are used to enrich uranium beyond what is required for civilian purposes. CLICK

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.