|
Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Yeah we should all listen what antiwar.com says and take it as the mighty truth :rolleyes: |
as opposed to NYT and fox, they are actually always right. Since we talk about Ron Paul http://antiwar.com/paul/ |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
an outstanding article destroying the hippie/liberal myopia that passes as responsible intelligent thought written by the preeminent atheist of our time. |
Can't quite agree with you about how outstanding this article is by our tipsy little Brit, Mr. Hitchens. He's quite well known for trumping up the same bull line he's purporting in this article for years now. Unfortunately his little straw man argument about the line of us libruls only carries so far. For example, saying lines like:
| quote: | | It is idle to think that "we" created this gruesome phenomenon and idler still to imagine that there is any possibility of our compromising with it. |
Straw man (shocking). The argument is not that we created the phenomenon. Rather, the wars we're involved with, especially the one in Iraq is helping the recruiting and support of the jihad, which does run directly counter to what you neocons thought would occur, is it not?
And when our sloshed friend says things like this:
| quote: | | We have fairly convincing evidence that a majority of Afghans do not, at the very least, oppose the presence of NATO forces on their soil. The signs of progress are slight but definite, having mainly to do with the return of millions of refugees and an improvement in the lives of women. There are some outstanding stupidities, such as the attempt to spray the opium poppies, but in general the West has behaved decently, and a huge number of Afghans resent the Taliban and its allies if only on the purely nationalist ground that it represents a renewed attempt to turn Afghanistan into a Pakistani colony, as it was before 2001. |
Well, I'll let Hitchens Watch finish him off:
| quote: | I don't believe we have any such 'fairly convincing evidence' of the kind, but if Hitchens has something to offer, he ought to have offered it, rather than rely on pure assertion. By most accounts I've read, the West has most certainly not "behaved decently". Even in mainstream reports, like recently on 60 Minutes, Aghans were interviewed and they all said they hated the Americans, primarily for the latter's use of seemingly indiscriminate airstrikes. One man, whose house had been bombed to smithereens for no reason at all, explained that before the war, they hated Russians and liked Americans. Now, they hate Americans and insist that American soldiers have behaved even worse than the Russians did. And Karzai has repeatedly been calling on America to scale-back on its airstrikes, though nobody seems to be listening.
I wonder if Hitchens believes there is fairly convincing evidence that the Iraqi people want us on their soil? He probably does, as he appears willing to believe practically anything at this point, so long as it's pro-US.
Anyway, the whole piece feels like it was phoned in, as Hitch just recycles all the bunk arguments he made back in 2003 when, at least then, we weren't sure if they were going to turn out correct or not.
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/ |
Hitchens is too easy. The guy can't say anything else. Poor fella needs to find AA and retire. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
And what is your problem with liberals? |
first off i take no offence to having Neoconservative principles so using it as pejorative means nothing to me.
my problem with liberals focuses mainly on the it's foreign policy aspects because i believe the West, the free world, is at a very serious crossroads. domestically, i'm am far more un-conservative than you may think
whats with your problem with the spead of freedom and democracy and release from the binds of totalitarian and fascist rule?
| quote: | | I understand the hate toward Ron Paul because of his principles and even calling out neocons in public but liberals certainly follow neocon agenda to a tilt, in fact both Clintons are more neoconic than most neocons themselves. |
when did i EVER say i hated Ron Paul?:rolleyes:
...and f**k the Clintons. who gives, really, wtf they think? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Yeah we should all listen what antiwar.com says and take it as the mighty truth :rolleyes: |
What do you care? You don't read anyone else's sites other than your own that bolster your bull. So why bother with your stupid ing ad hominem arguments? Either read the story, scrutinize it on it's merits, or shut the up and go back downstairs to your playstation. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
whats with your problem with the spead of freedom and democracy and release from the binds of totalitarian and fascist rule? |
1. Lying about the actual motives of spreading it
2. Spreading it with a ing gun and bombs versus having the opportunity for diplomacy that does the same job, if not better and spares lots of lives, money, and reputation
3. We are undermanned and underfunded to be the World Police, nor do the vast majority of Americans want our country to become just that
4. Current Bush policies of torture, illegal detainment, and illegal wiretapping that runs counter to the Constitutional principles of our Founding Fathers and makes us look like hypocritical s
Just a few off the top of my head. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
an outstanding article destroying the hippie/liberal myopia that passes as responsible intelligent thought written by the preeminent atheist of our time. |
I read the title, and thought, most anti-war voters don't want isolationism. We want non-interventionism. Two very different things. And something the likes of washington and jefferson thought of similarly. Regime-change policies on countries that have not invaded others has got to go..
| quote: |
whats with your problem with the spead of freedom and democracy and release from the binds of totalitarian and fascist rule?
|
Supposedly moral undertakings into foreign lands are the beginning of empires. Our role in the world is not to occupy other sovereign nations to choose their system of government. International law guarantees the right of self-determination for all sovereign nations, and what you are advocating is the US take on a systematic policy of foreign occupations. If that's what you want, the inevitable consequence will be more terrorism, more extremism, more hatred of the US, more instability.
The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are but 3 examples of what neocons can cause when they have control of foreign policy. Giving billions of dollars to a military dictatorship in Pakistan... Mr. Q, whatever happened to democracy? Let's go to Iraq to spread democracy (even though in the 80's we supported saddam's dictatorship), and now we support Pakistan's dictatorship. That's the great neocon hypocrisy. They preach democracy, but do the opposite, and have been for decades. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
1. Lying about the actual motives of spreading it |
and what do you believe the real motives are? and please include Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia conflicts during the Mid 90's since i recogniosed that a lot of erdega's animus towards our country stems from those.
| quote: | | 2. Spreading it with a ing gun and bombs versus having the opportunity for diplomacy that does the same job, if not better and spares lots of lives, money, and reputation |
like i've told you and others here before, no greater and more prosperous democracies have been born than from the barrel of a gun.
| quote: | | 3. We are undermanned and underfunded to be the World Police, nor do the vast majority of Americans want our country to become just that |
undermanned and underfunded may be true to an extent, but imagine if all free countries exerted half of the effort we put into supporting the cause of Democracy and free peoples around the world
| quote: | | 4. Current Bush policies of torture, illegal detainment, and illegal wiretapping that runs counter to the Constitutional principles of our Founding Fathers and makes us look like hypocritical s |
i think it's hypocritical of leftists like you (nowhere near the majority of Americans) to think that pheonomenon like you described is particular to only Bush.
i believe it's attention is justified and needed out of political discourse but to bring down and villify and demagogue to the point of being dishonest about it is tearing this country apart, not the other way around.
and further, none of the pheonomena you have described is without it's legal recourse. so far none of it has materialized as you described. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and what do you believe the real motives are? and please include Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia conflicts during the Mid 90's since i recogniosed that a lot of erdega's animus towards our country stems from those. |
You're welcome to point out to me where Clinton had to convince Congress and the American people about WMD threats and bombs pointed at our heads if we didn't participate with the UN, rather than call it out immediately as a humanitarianism mission and a halt to genocidal actions.
Now of course Bush used those arguments, but you know as well as I that the perception of "grave"/"imminent" threat of Saddam's WMDs coupled with al Qaeda links was two primary reasons sold to everyone prior to invasion. Only later did humanitarianism and Saddam needing to be removed come into play. I think you remember well that our original intention was to merely "disarm" Saddam, not remove him, right?
| quote: | | like i've told you and others here before, no greater and more prosperous democracies have been born than from the barrel of a gun. |
Those historical moments that I believe you are referring to was when diplomatic relations were exhausted or impossible. However, when diplomacy has been an option, things have gone a wee bit better with less casualties, less $, less problems all around.
| quote: | | undermanned and underfunded may be true to an extent, but imagine if all free countries exerted half of the effort we put into supporting the cause of Democracy and free peoples around the world |
I can imagine quite a lot. I can imagine I'm a millionaire. I can imagine peace, love, and tree-hugging nonstop throughout the world.
Imagination is terrific, but reality has to be incorporated as well.
| quote: | | i think it's hypocritical of leftists like you (nowhere near the majority of Americans) to think that pheonomenon like you described is particular to only Bush. |
To a certain extent I may agree, but it's never been more blatant and outright abusive as we have seen today. But I am all ears to your examples to help your argument.
As for my views not being with the majority of Americans, I believe I've demonstrated with polls in the past how much aligned my views are with the majority. Are you going to make me get those out again?
| quote: | | i believe it's attention is justified and needed out of political discourse but to bring down and villify and demagogue to the point of being dishonest about it is tearing this country apart, not the other way around. |
I believe in the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks! I guess we share unsupported beliefs in common.
| quote: | | and further, none of the pheonomena you have described is without it's legal recourse. so far none of it has materialized as you described. |
Actually there's been quite a lot of legal recourse, to which I've posted about ad nauseum on this forum. Of course I'll agree the ultimate recourse hasn't occurred, but that is the result of the Legislative. Which, of course, with our spineless Democrats failing to do what the majority of Americans put them in Congress to do in '06, I doubt you'll have anything to fear for the remainder of Bush's term. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I think you remember well that our original intention was to merely "disarm" Saddam, not remove him, right? |
wrong. the motives were explicitely laid out at Bush's speech to the UN in 2002 and 2003. the text is there and there is no need to cherry pick.
these ideals were predicated and reinforced by Clinton's urging of Congress, and ultimately passed bi-partisanedly, in Public Law 105-338 the Iraqi Liberation Act 1998.
i'm not gonna hi-jack this thread anymore with Clinton's convincing of Congress to go into the Eastern Bloc or lob cruise missiles at other countries. there's plenty to debate there in another thread.
my fundamental question to you remains. what do you believe the "real" motives are if you are so quick to rebuff our efforts in the Middle East at the expence of ignoring what Democrat leaders have said years before Jan 2001? |
|
|
|
|
