dean is a tool, like sharpton.

he got so denied by his fellow democrats, it was silly.

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM dean is a tool, like sharpton. he got so denied by his fellow democrats, it was silly. >JM<

Nah, he's not a tool. Was definetly the most interesting candidate among the dems.

Some great points in that article. I fully agree.

___________________
www.assortedtrance.com
www.facebook.com/assortedtrance
http://www.soundcloud.com/johannilsson
http://www.di.fm

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish Nah, he's not a tool. Was definetly the most interesting candidate among the dems.

well, in comparison to Kerry, Dean is a superstar!

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM well, in comparison to Kerry, Dean is a superstar! >JM<

I kind of agree on that

___________________
www.assortedtrance.com
www.facebook.com/assortedtrance
http://www.soundcloud.com/johannilsson
http://www.di.fm

i agree he is a tool and Kucinich was better representative of the people that Dean spoke for (seriously).

that was the first coherent editorial 'ive read of his but i have to admit i aree with most of it. but don't you think that stuff was pretty easy to say, meaning that it was borderline fluff...with a little bit of backpedaling thrown in?
c'mon, he's critisizing the UN for what happened in Rwanda and their current hands-off policy in the Sudan real substantive stuff here.

I really didn't like this editorial. I think that it shows to a frightening degree how close alike the two "extremes" Bush and Dean really are:

quote:

The already weak resolution was watered down at the request of a number of countries, including the Europeans.

That would be France (Germany?) and Russia I believe. Here Dean is showing us his fantastic grip on geography, by lumping all of Europe into one easily manageable country. I get unpleasant flashbacks to the embarrassing geography quiz-like interview with Bush prior to his election, and to Donald Rumsfeld's hazy babblings on "old Europe" and "new Europe".

quote:

Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam.

Notice his literal twist of saying that *Bush* was wrong, and then proceeding with stating that *we* were right. Delicate.

quote:

We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land.

Why does he put the "if necessary" prior to UN forces? Why should the internal affairs of Sudan be any more of African and European concern than that of the rest of the world? Unless you start thinking of where the refugees will settle down, that is...

quote:

Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics.

On the contrary: If you are against the concept of war - believe that it solves nothing, or of the belief that each country should deal with their own problems, then an anti-Iraq war/anti-Sudan war attitude is highly consistent.

quote:

And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.

A generalization again: From France, Russia, and Germany to the entire international community.

quote:

Now is the time for the world community to act if they are serious about encouraging an enlightened leadership role for the United States. My challenge to the U.N. and Europe is simple: if you don't like American diplomacy under George Bush, then do something to show those of us in opposition here in the U.S. that you can behave in such a way that unilateralism is not necessary.

Effectively demonstrating the same "with us or against us"-policy that Bush has trumpeted throughout his years in office. Dean is stating with conviction that there should be an intervention in Sudan, and now the rest of the world must show its willingness to do that. Somehow, loyal indulgence to the whims of the US president would demonstrate that unilateralism isn't necessary?!? What kind of logic is that?
What if the rest of the world does not see the need for intervention?

Now, I don't want to come off as someone who opposes intervention in Sudan, as I actually would support that. Just as I support the continued presence in Iraq of foreign troops. But Dean's arguments are hardly convincing, and they illustrate how unilateralistic and simplified his thinking really is.

Mister Opus, you are always seeing straight through the faulty logics of your opponents in this forum, pointing out their fallacies. You should direct that ability at your idol Howard Dean.

Sorry I didn't reply last week. Our company got hit with a coupla fucking viruses, plus my supervisor decided it was a great time for his 2-wk. vacation, which left me picking up the slack.

Anyway, on to your points:

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I really didn't like this editorial. I think that it shows to a frightening degree how close alike the two "extremes" Bush and Dean really are:

To a certain extent, I may agree. Though I tend to find myself agreeing more with the left extremist at times much more often than the right extremist.

quote:

That would be France (Germany?) and Russia I believe. Here Dean is showing us his fantastic grip on geography, by lumping all of Europe into one easily manageable country. I get unpleasant flashbacks to the embarrassing geography quiz-like interview with Bush prior to his election, and to Donald Rumsfeld's hazy babblings on "old Europe" and "new Europe".

I honestly did not know this. But it does lead to one question - did the other European countries, such as Denmark, protest or dissent from this watered-down version, or did they go along with the likes of France, Russia, and Germany? If so, then Dean is incorrect in his generalization. If not, then they are just as guilty for NOT speaking out against the watered-down version.

quote:

Notice his literal twist of saying that *Bush* was wrong, and then proceeding with stating that *we* were right. Delicate.

I don't think Dean was being delicate at all. Most people, including most Europeans, felt it necessary to deal with Saddam one way or another. The primary controversy was how Bush dealt with Saddam. Otherwise, the UN would not have given the U.S. approval to send troops over there, would they?

quote:

Why does he put the "if necessary" prior to UN forces? Why should the internal affairs of Sudan be any more of African and European concern than that of the rest of the world? Unless you start thinking of where the refugees will settle down, that is...

I don't think Dean was necessarily concerned with refugee settlement with his statement here. What I do think he was getting at is it should be a local problem first, but if it's clear the local region cannot take care of it's problem (or more to the point here - it is directly responsible for it's problem), global intervention is necessary for at least humanitarian reasons. But I do concede your point on his wording.

quote:

On the contrary: If you are against the concept of war - believe that it solves nothing, or of the belief that each country should deal with their own problems, then an anti-Iraq war/anti-Sudan war attitude is highly consistent.

Consistent, yes. Rational and humanitarian, hell no. What if those countries in question cannot deal with their own problems, or are directly responsible for their own problems? At what point is it necessary for others to become involved?

quote:

A generalization again: From France, Russia, and Germany to the entire international community.

Surely you don't mean that every other country outside these 3 countries favor our foreign policies?

quote:

Effectively demonstrating the same "with us or against us"-policy that Bush has trumpeted throughout his years in office.

Eh? To me Dean is stating that you can clearly demonstrate something AGAINST Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric, not do the same as Bush. Not sure where you're at here.

quote:

Dean is stating with conviction that there should be an intervention in Sudan, and now the rest of the world must show its willingness to do that. Somehow, loyal indulgence to the whims of the US president would demonstrate that unilateralism isn't necessary?!? What kind of logic is that?

So you think Sudan can fix it's own problems, even though it's quite clear that their gov't are the ones who are behind these atrocities?

quote:

What if the rest of the world does not see the need for intervention?

Then why did the UN have a mandate at all if that were the case (though it was watered down)?

quote:

Now, I don't want to come off as someone who opposes intervention in Sudan, as I actually would support that. Just as I support the continued presence in Iraq of foreign troops. But Dean's arguments are hardly convincing, and they illustrate how unilateralistic and simplified his thinking really is.

I disagree. Dean is directly stating against a unilateral policy, and that we should be doing something about Sudan for humanitarian reasons.

quote:

Mister Opus, you are always seeing straight through the faulty logics of your opponents in this forum, pointing out their fallacies. You should direct that ability at your idol Howard Dean.

Hey, nobody's perfect, but I do my best in my downtime.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I honestly did not know this. But it does lead to one question - did the other European countries, such as Denmark, protest or dissent from this watered-down version, or did they go along with the likes of France, Russia, and Germany? If so, then Dean is incorrect in his generalization. If not, then they are just as guilty for NOT speaking out against the watered-down version.

I don't think Europe has that many members of the Security Council. I would expect the UK to have backed the US in this, though, and likewise with just about every other European country had it been on the board. But I cannot prove that, only refer to the backing the US recieved for the Iraq war from countries such as Norway, Denmark, England, Netherlands, Poland, Bulgaria, Italy, and Spain.
As far as I see it is unfair to lump all of these in with France - especially considering their lack of influence in the Security Council.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't think Dean was being delicate at all. Most people, including most Europeans, felt it necessary to deal with Saddam one way or another. The primary controversy was how Bush dealt with Saddam. Otherwise, the UN would not have given the U.S. approval to send troops over there, would they?

I'm not refering to the moral issue of going against Iraq - simply stating that Dean is starting out by criticising Bush's manner of starting the war against Iraq, as if he alone did it this way, and then turns the thing into a collective decision when the praise is to be handed out.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Consistent, yes. Rational and humanitarian, hell no. What if those countries in question cannot deal with their own problems, or are directly responsible for their own problems? At what point is it necessary for others to become involved?

Dean is saying that if Europeans do not take the US' side on this issue, then we are acting political - i.e. having different agendas depending on who the involved parties is. I'm claiming that taking the US' side in this manner, but rejecting it when it comes to intervening in Iraq, is the *true* political act. The consistent and non-political act would be to either reject intervention in both cases or support intervention in both cases. That the latter seems to be the ethical defensible choice is irrelevant to Deans argument.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Surely you don't mean that every other country outside these 3 countries favor our foreign policies?

No, but I'm not the one spewing the generalizations. Dean is. Therefore, it suffices for me to just find a single counter example, whereas Dean would have to prove his point for each member of the international community.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Eh? To me Dean is stating that you can clearly demonstrate something AGAINST Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric, not do the same as Bush. Not sure where you're at here.

Not being unilateralistic does not IMO simply mean to build a coallition when it is time to kick ass in some third world-country. It means to listen to other countries proposals and consider seriously whether they have a point, *before* deciding that we need to kick ass in some third world-country.
Dean takes as given that there should be intervention, and now simply wants others to jump on the bandwagon. While I agree with him about the subject matter, I do not think that jumping on in any way proves that unilateralism doesn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So you think Sudan can fix it's own problems, even though it's quite clear that their gov't are the ones who are behind these atrocities?

No, but I'm aware that my beliefs on Sudan and what is happening there are not sufficiently well founded, and that there might be valid reasons for not intervening with military force, or that embargoes might harm civilians more than the militias. Dean apparently have no such concerns, are confident that he knows best, and wants to get on with it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Then why did the UN have a mandate at all if that were the case (though it was watered down)?

Don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I disagree. Dean is directly stating against a unilateral policy, and that we should be doing something about Sudan for humanitarian reasons.

Hope what I have written is clearer now?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hey, nobody's perfect, but I do my best in my downtime.

Yeah, I suspect so

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic That would be France (Germany?) and Russia I believe. Here Dean is showing us his fantastic grip on geography, by lumping all of Europe into one easily manageable country. I get unpleasant flashbacks to the embarrassing geography quiz-like interview with Bush prior to his election, and to Donald Rumsfeld's hazy babblings on "old Europe" and "new Europe".

Speaking about hypocritical, you "EUROPEANS" go lump sum yourself into an entity called the EUROPEAN Union, and then get all antsy at people who call you Europeans instead of French, Swedes, Germans, idiots, etc...

And what's wrong with New Europe and Old Europe? It exist, I believe you call it "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe"

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Speaking about hypocritical, you "EUROPEANS" go lump sum yourself into an entity called the EUROPEAN Union, and then get all antsy at people who call you Europeans instead of French, Swedes, Germans, idiots, etc...

Hmm not sure "the idiot" has joined the EU yet

quote:

And what's wrong with New Europe and Old Europe? It exist, I believe you call it "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe"

Ever been to any "eastern european" EU country? They are actually pretty much like western europe....

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Hmm not sure "the idiot" has joined the EU yet

Ahh my bad!

I could've sworn there was a nation of idots somewheresabouts Europe

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.