quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Hah! did you get the answer you were looking for? are you sure you not letting your personal hatred for Bush cloud your judgement toward enabling the free world to stand up against oppression? cause you know, and i think you would agree, that words only mean so much. and that applies to Bush too. why do think that Germany France and Britain are spearheading the diplomacy regarding Irans nuclear aspirations? there have been no indications of inducing the Bush Doctrine towards Iran or N.Korea. i have no doubt that there are policies already in place that we do not know about ready to be enacted upon certain political and military thresholds.

Certainly my views are going to be influenced by the way I feel about the Bush administration, with that said I would have much more respect for this president and current administration if I felt he was pursuing the right path. It makes me sick to see young men still being killed in Iraq on a daily basis after he said "Mission Accomplished" That behavior was arrogance personified.

If America has to continue in Iraq at this rate for who knows how long where does that leave us. There simply has to be a stronger involvement of more nations in Iraq and other world leaders simply do not want to get involved in that task, especially with the current U.S. administration, so we will continue to bear the high cost in lives and fiscally. Even with Kerry I don't think troops will be sent by France, Germany, or Muslim nations but there must be a greater commitment of other nations to helping out and I don't know if George W. Bush can accomplish that based on his overall foreign policy when it comes to Iraq.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Last edited by NYCTrancefan on Sep-21-2004 at 18:41

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Actually, you said "always" and "usually" in the same sentence. I dare say you said "usually" precisely so you would have an out when you were called on it.

An out, it is simply a recognition that the U.S. in the past supported many dictatorships and crony governments around the globe. So our actions weren't squeaky clean. However you cannot deny that this is perhaps the most despised administration. Whatever may have happened in the past, the U.S. is certainly not viewed favorably now, but like I stated if you are American and don't travel elsewhere in the world then it doesn't really matter. I love this nation and what it stands for, under Bush I cannot say the same when it comes to policies. Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan An out, it is simply a recognition that the U.S. in the past supported many dictatorships and crony governments around the globe. So our actions weren't squeaky clean. However you cannot deny that this is perhaps the most despised administration. Whatever may have happened in the past, the U.S. is certainly not viewed favorably now, but like I stated if you are American and don't travel elsewhere in the world then it doesn't really matter. I love this nation and what it stands for, under Bush I cannot say the same when it comes to policies. Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

Historically, some of the most "despised" administrations have been some of the most effective ones, and vice versa. Not to mention that the right decision is not always the most popular one and is certainly not always the easiest one. I sincerely believe that with historical perspective(maybe 20 years from now), Bush will get a favorable review. The president is supposed to lead, not just follow popular opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Altruism is a crime against humanity. It goes in direct opposition with the right of self-determination. I choose freedom, you choose veiled socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Altruism is a crime against humanity. It goes in direct opposition with the right of self-determination. I choose freedom, you choose veiled socialism.

And might I ask what are your concepts of freedom, why should young American blood be shed in Iraq for the freedom of Iraqis as is now purported by the Bush administration, since the WMD logic has fallen flat on its face. Shouldn't Iraqis be fighting for Iraqi freedom tooth and nail. Let's be honest Iraq is a poorly managed effort of International power politics by the Bush administration. We can speak of all the freedoms we want but people exist in different cultures, customs, and overall societies than our's or Western European.

Since when is the concern for others, not conducting one's self in a manner of utter avarice and having a sense of care in dealing with those less fortunate veiled socialism, I challenge you to demonstrate to me how altruism goes against self determination. From my take in order for one to even be altruistic they have to have the option of self determination available to them in the first place, I must be missing something.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan And might I ask what are your concepts of freedom, why should young American blood be shed in Iraq for the freedom of Iraqis as is now purported by the Bush administration, since the WMD logic has fallen flat on its face. Shouldn't Iraqis be fighting for Iraqi freedom tooth and nail. Let's be honest Iraq is a poorly managed effort of International power politics by the Bush administration. We can speak of all the freedoms we want but people exist in different cultures, customs, and overall societies than our's or Western European. Since when is the concern for others, not conducting one's self in a manner of utter avarice and having a sense of care in dealing with those less fortunate veiled socialism, I challenge you to demonstrate to me how altruism goes against self determination. From my take in order for one to even be altruistic they have to have the option of self determination available to them in the first place, I must be missing something.

Because altruism, by definition, places the needs and desires of all above the needs and desires of the individual. In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". It's fine for society to demand all it wants from me, but it's somehow a crime for me to demand something I need and want from that very society. My death somehow is supposed to benefit the whole? Give me a break. I am here on this earth by chance, and I will make the most that I can for myself based on my rational mental capacity. I will not be a slave to society, which, IMO, is what socialism is preaching in its core philosophy.

Are you not the slightest bit concerned about where Iraqi WMD's are? They were there in 1998--there is documented proof of that, not to mention mass graves full of evidence. Simply because they have not all been tracked down yet(even though some HAVE been found, just not the "stockpiles" that you demand), doesn't mean they never existed, and certainly doesn't mean that other motivations for war are somehow less noble or justifiable. I understand, you think the world is better off with a ruthless dictator in power.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Because altruism, by definition, places the needs and desires of all above the needs and desires of the individual. In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". It's fine for society to demand all it wants from me, but it's somehow a crime for me to demand something I need and want from that very society. My death somehow is supposed to benefit the whole? Give me a break. I am here on this earth by chance, and I will make the most that I can for myself based on my rational mental capacity. I will not be a slave to society, which, IMO, is what socialism is preaching in its core philosophy. Are you not the slightest bit concerned about where Iraqi WMD's are? They were there in 1998--there is documented proof of that, not to mention mass graves full of evidence. Simply because they have not all been tracked down yet(even though some HAVE been found, just not the "stockpiles" that you demand), doesn't mean they never existed, and certainly doesn't mean that other motivations for war are somehow less noble or justifiable. I understand, you think the world is better off with a ruthless dictator in power.

Shakka you have set yourself up for a poignant rebuttal and I quote "In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". Can you tell me what is taking place in Iraq with U.S. soldiers sacrificing themselves there on a daily basis. Can't that be classified as an altruistic task if they are fighting for "Iraqi freedom and democracy." What is it to them if Iraq is free, would they not be better served to be protecting America on the homefront.

On the WMD subject I guess they are hidden in Syria, transported by trucks before the war, that must be why all the Iraqi scientists are spilling the goods on their locations Last off you have painted me as liberal, socialist supporting, and someone who has no quarems with a dictator in power I respond by saying for someone who views altruism as a morbid philosphy of social blight, you sure seem to endorse the concepts of "freedom and democracy in Iraq" as claimed by the Bush administration at the expense of American lives being sacrificed in a far off land, what would you term that.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Shakka you have set yourself up for a poignant rebuttal and I quote "In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". Can you tell me what is taking place in Iraq with U.S. soldiers sacrificing themselves there on a daily basis. Can't that be classified as an altruistic task if they are fighting for "Iraqi freedom and democracy." What is it to them if Iraq is free, would they not be better served to be protecting America on the homefront.

I am aware of this contradiction--it's an internal struggle. I support the primary reason we are there, which is a smaller part of the larger war on terrorism, and therefore the protection of our nation and our interests. The fact that 30 million people get to experience independence and freedom in the end is icing on the cake for me.

quote:

On the WMD subject I guess they are hidden in Syria, transported by trucks before the war, that must be why all the Iraqi scientists are spilling the goods on their locations Last off you have painted me as liberal, socialist supporting, and someone who has no qualms with a dictator in power I respond by saying for someone who views altruism as a morbid philosphy of social blight, you sure seem to endorse the concepts of "freedom and democracy in Iraq" as claimed by the Bush administration at the expense of American lives being sacrificed in a far off land, what would you term that.

So then, the WMD rationale isn't completely off-base, as you adamantly claim ad-nauseum. The fact that they were moved, doesn't exactly exonerate Saddam Hussein, nor does it debunk the claim that there are WMD's, as you just admitted that they still exist. The fact that we've found small amounts of them substantiates my claim. Nor does the fact that Saddam strategically moved them make him any less of a threat. Nor does it take away from the justification of being there, particularly when it was the stated policy of the United States since 1998 that regime change in Iraq was official policy.

But since we're talking about war--what does a guy like John Kerry bring to the table? He has said he voted for it, then voted against it, then said that knowing what he knows now, he still would've gone in, and then most recently saying that we should've never gone there. I'd prefer a guy like Bush who at least sticks to one policy without changing his mind on a whim to try to sway the polls in his favor.

In any event, with respect to your comment about sacrificing people in far off lands for freedom, blah blah blah...an important thing to remember is that everyone in the U.S. military VOLUNTEERED for service. Whether they admit it or not, they put themselves in that position. They made the decision on their own. Most of them find great honor in volunteer service, and I in turn believe them to be among the most honorable people in our country. I hardly consider them altruists. They choose self-sacrifice whereas an altruistic society demands it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what would you have us do?

Well, what could we have done instead.. funny enough, Bush has not regreted the war on Iraq in any way, having in mind all the reports given to him on the various issues.

We could go and say..

Intelligence and $$$ was diverted tours Iraq, making the efforts of Al Quaida and recruiting a go go ..

Its proven that the War in Iraq was a mistake ( IM going by the allegations that the President and Colin Powell gave to the UN and the Nation.. there was Weapons Of Mass Destruction.. Where? ) ..

Was Saddam and inminent threat?!?!.. why did we go to Iraq without finishing with the one war that the world supported US with, which was cathing the terrorists, not invading other countries.

So Ok.. We are in Iraq, theres no choice but to stay, but it is honest for one to say that we have created a bowl of terrorist in Iraq, in other words, we have invited terrorists from all parts, extremists and such, to make a country of nightmares, killings, behadings and such.

Now, having all that in mind.. lets go back to the beginning.

If Bush would have listened, oor, at least, have founded the efforts and intelligence to focus on mr Bin Laden instead, we may have allready have the guy, or, we may have been able to destroy Al Quaeda in great part, and then deal with the TRUE threats in the world, Iran and North Korea, which HAVE been proven to be creating, or posses weapons of mass destruction.

I think it is honest for anyone to admit many of this points, instead of blindly go and just say oh.. Iraq War, we are winning, there is progress.. BS!

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So then, the WMD rationale isn't completely off-base, as you adamantly claim ad-nauseum. The fact that they were moved, doesn't exactly exonerate Saddam Hussein, nor does it debunk the claim that there are WMD's, as you just admitted that they still exist. The fact that we've found small amounts of them substantiates my claim. Nor does the fact that Saddam strategically moved them make him any less of a threat. Nor does it take away from the justification of being there, particularly when it was the stated policy of the United States since 1998 that regime change in Iraq was official policy. But since we're talking about war--what does a guy like John Kerry bring to the table? He has said he voted for it, then voted against it, then said that knowing what he knows now, he still would've gone in, and then most recently saying that we should've never gone there. I'd prefer a guy like Bush who at least sticks to one policy without changing his mind on a whim to try to sway the polls in his favor. In any event, with respect to your comment about sacrificing people in far off lands for freedom, blah blah blah...an important thing to remember is that everyone in the U.S. military VOLUNTEERED for service. Whether they admit it or not, they put themselves in that position, which makes them honorable indeed. I hardly consider them altruists. They choose self-sacrifice. An altruistic society demands it.

First off I was being sarcastic as you can see by the grin in my commentary about the WMDs being moved to Syria. On what does John Kerry bring, he brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process, he brings a new administration that isn't tainted by a sense of arrogance and diplomatic bungling in dealing with our allies in regions throughtout the globe, he brings a common sense approach that America must ideologically, socially and politically separate the terrorists from the social cucoons in which they ferment through implementing sound American foreign policy that garners the support of the common people to aspire to look at America as a nation of proud ideals. If terrorism is a global threat then let us treat it as such, not the I lead and you follow mentality as prescribed by G.W. Bush so often.

Those in the military chose self-sacrifice to defend their nation, I am yet to see what is the threat that Iraq posed to the United States of America that North Korea or Iran doesn't. Would you choose self sacrifice for Iraqi freedom, I know I wouldn't. Every man must fight for his own freedoms, so thereby I wonder why the Iraqi security forces disappear whenever a conflict starts while Americans pay the price. Until WMDs are found in Iraq, which I hold little hope of ever happening, I view this war as an effort of sheer foolhardiness by this administration.

Of course there are terrorists in Iraq now, the terrorists have now found a new pilgramage of jihad in Iraq and they will keep coming as long as we are there no matter how many we kill. The mentality of hatred against America is so rife in that region that there is no shortage of "wannabe holy warriors" entering Iraqi cities. If Iraq didn't have terrorists before they certainly do now. As I type this another American has had his head chopped off by individuals that the U.S. cannot even find after all these months of Zarqawi in Iraq. Unbelievable. My beef lies in what G.W. Bush has failed to bring to Iraq, despite his delusional claims on a daily basis. We'll stay in Iraq and keep fighting this by ourselves and the Brits to a much lesser extent for who knows how many years to come, what a nice thought.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan First off I was being sarcastic as you can see by the grin in my commentary about the WMDs being moved to Syria. On what does John Kerry bring, he brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process,

Yes because Germany France and Russia will jump in joy when Bush is gone and will say ,'' YAY! lets send our soldiers to go die instead of the U.S. because Kerry knows what to do...."

Fact of the matter is Kerry reveiled he will pull out troops as soon as next march and completely in 4 yrs? So Kerry wants to basically change the skin color of the soldiers dieing in IRAQ?

Its much easier said than done ...