Iraq War

[Sgt_Dude]

Well I see a lot of you don't really think I am who I say I am... whatever Im out. Take care and have a good time here.

 

[Member2019]

I agree with you, until you started to re-write history ...

They did not attack us we attacked then.

Okay, you had me until this statement. I agree with you that Iraq is a distraction from Afganistan. However, don't re-write history ...

Iraq invaded, plundered and pillaged Kuwait. They were defeated and agreed to terms of surrender they never lived up to. Clinton even punished them, repeatedly, for such.

Now I agree that Bush takes full blame for the invasion. People try to marginalize that, but Bush made the decision. He is responsible for that.

But Iraq was not a "soverign nation" that we invaded illegal. They had the military to invade Saudia Arabia after Kuwait with ease (5x the size, including armor)! And I'm rather tired of people who utterly forget 1990-1998, let alone the Clinton administration's real actions that are quite aligned with the same "enforcement" (even if the overall policy differed).

Remember Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no connection what so ever with Al-Qaeda.

The Iraqi leadership had little to do with Al-Quieda, I agree. But Iraq's arsenal was a threat if not controlled -- and Hans Blix repeatedly stated that Iraq had no control, no accountability for its WMD stockpiles.

That was unlike Libya, South Africa and ... sadly enough ... even North Korea (although North Korea has knowingly sold its technology).

We are a foreign army of occupation. What would you do if an Arab army occupied the city where you live? I’ll bet you would become an insurgent, and the government would call you a terrorist. At least 70% of the people of Iraq wants us to leave immediately.

If the US decided to invade, annex and plunder the UK, then the European Union defeated us, we surrendered to them and agreed to terms we never lived up to, then that would be a 1:1 correlation.

I cannot even respond further because you can't even compare apples-to-oranges.

You can criticize the Bush administration for countless things, including Iraq, and you will find plenty of ammunition to do so! But do not re-write history and re-invent facts as you want to strengthen your arguments when they are not true and well out of the context of reality.

 

[sammy402002]

Ok DUDE thanks for your service. I value your sacrifice, and have no beef with those who served in the military, But,



Then why did we go into Iraq and leave the people of Afghanistan to fend for them selves with sufficient recourses? Bush, the decider, started to the draw military resources out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq way before the Afghanistan was stabilization. The Taliban is making a big come back, and will be hard to dislodge



They did not attack us we attacked then. Remember Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no connection what so ever with Al-Qaeda. We are a foreign army of occupation. What would you do if an Arab army occupied the city where you live? I’ll bet you would become an insurgent, and the government would call you a terrorist. At least 70% of the people of Iraq wants us to leave immediately.

What is a Terrorist? Anyone who fight against us? Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the ill advised invasion of a sovereign country. Al-Qaeda in Iraq are mostly new recruits to Al-Qaeda and foreigners who were enraged by the invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war is creating terrorist at a rate faster than we can kill them. They are there now, but responsible for less than 10% of the violence. The problem in Iraq is at least a civil war and more like a war of all against all. Most insurgents are not Al-Qaedal terrorist, they are from every ethnic group there is in Iraq. The Kruds are not parts of this but Turkey consider the Kruds terrorist for there own reasons.



You may know more about the military, but these are not issued about being in the military. You seem brain washed by the neocons about what going on in the world at large. This not a condemnation of America, but of the current administration in the White House. There is a big difference.

The "kruds" are the Kurds from Northern Iraq that were targeted for extermination by Sadaam.Remember when He used chemical attacks on them?Everybody(including Myself) has something negative to say about the past.-What will be the future of this situation.We are there and paying a high price.I do not agree with the reason We are there,but We are there.The Kurds have been helped by our being there.Southern Iraq has pretty much erupted into a Civil War.If We left now would that change.We bought the "Whole Damn Farm" when We invaded.We cannot just leave as some have suggested.I did not support the invasion,but just "laying down arms" and leaving would be worse.It is very complex now.-I do know one thing.I will always support our troops in combat.They deserve that.I served in the Army for 3 years and the worst I ever saw was a couple of barfights in Germany.These young Men putting their lives on the line every day have a dedication that deserves respect.I am sorry the Marine(thedude) got banned.I hope to see him back.Fox,You are feisty as always.---Two sides of the War....check out www.theotheriraq.com ..and watch "Combat Hospital" on cnn presents if You can.-Sam

 

[YMIHERE]

Re: I agree with you, until you started to re-write history ...

Okay, you had me until this statement. I agree with you that Iraq is a distraction from Afganistan. However, don't re-write history ...

Iraq invaded, plundered and pillaged Kuwait. They were defeated and agreed to terms of surrender they never lived up to. Clinton even punished them, repeatedly, for such.

Now I agree that Bush takes full blame for the invasion. People try to marginalize that, but Bush made the decision. He is responsible for that.

But Iraq was not a "soverign nation" that we invaded illegal. They had the military to invade Saudia Arabia after Kuwait with ease (5x the size, including armor)! And I'm rather tired of people who utterly forget 1990-1998, let alone the Clinton administration's real actions that are quite aligned with the same "enforcement" (even if the overall policy differed).

The Iraqi leadership had little to do with Al-Quieda, I agree. But Iraq's arsenal was a threat if not controlled -- and Hans Blix repeatedly stated that Iraq had no control, no accountability for its WMD stockpiles.

That was unlike Libya, South Africa and ... sadly enough ... even North Korea (although North Korea has knowingly sold its technology).

If the US decided to invade, annex and plunder the UK, then the European Union defeated us, we surrendered to them and agreed to terms we never lived up to, then that would be a 1:1 correlation.

I cannot even respond further because you can't even compare apples-to-oranges.

You can criticize the Bush administration for countless things, including Iraq, and you will find plenty of ammunition to do so! But do not re-write history and re-invent facts as you want to strengthen your arguments when they are not true and well out of the context of reality.

I am fully aware of the history of this region. My objection is when Bush conflates Iraq with Al-Qaeda. He restarted an old war under the guise of a responds to 9/11. You have stated many times why the invasion was justified. I do not disagree with your reasons for the invasion of Iraq, just what does this have to do with new realities of the Middle East. You have stated reasons this is justified to you, but you are the one comparing apple and oranges. What does the apple of what Iraq did in the 1990 have to do with the oranges of 9/11. Are you implying that the invasion of Iraq was a logical step in the war on religious fanatics? Iraq could have waited until the new real terrorist threat was more under control.

I call Iraq a sovereign nation because under any definition I know of it was sovereign. I stand by my statements on the reactions to an army of occupation. I am not doing a rewrite of history. You are connecting dots that do not belong connected.

 

[killroy1233]

some of the time Fox i disagree with you. but lately i cant seem to.


are ground war during the gulf war. ended in three days. 2 months of bombing before that. and we only pushed the Iraqys back into iraq. we werent there to take over iraq. this time. bombing from air went for 2 days. and the ground war lasted 4 weeks. not doing what it needed to do. they say it was a lack of troops. then they should have waited. we did during the gulf war. and during that time we bombed. working in are behalf. im not saying this war was right. all wars are bad. and there souldnt be wars. but this one was messed up from the start.

 

[BNF]

What’s up people…?

The brother of thedude6926 and if you don’t believe me I have pics that show it. He is my twin and he is here though. We come from a family that debates all the time so don’t think he is mad or anything. He is mad at himself for getting worked up and making it personnel. He said he will be back when the ban is done with no hard feelings. He said he will stay away from this one when he gets back…hahahaha.

If anybody still don’t think I am who I say I am just ask for a pic to show it. I don’t mind I would think the same thing.

He regrets that he must ban him for having multiple accounts. He can't understand why the IP matches and why the email contains his other account name.

He wishes him a pleasant permanent ban. :wave:

Well I see a lot of you don't really think I am who I say I am... whatever Im out. Take care and have a good time here.

He says goodbye. He also can't understand why he couldn't just wait 9 days to come back and post instead of getting himself permanently banned.

He is finished.

 

[KungFuDude]

Well, now that he's finished, I reassert my supremacy on the name dude. Let this be a warning to you all. There is only one true dude around here! All imitators shall burn or be banned. Right BNF? :glugglug:

 

[Member2019]

UN Principle of Self-Determination (1/2)

We had no interest in Kuwait except that it was a direct pipeline to the west. Only economic interests. We rarely if ever have defended sovereign nations

Although the US shows preference to countries that are of strategic interest to it and its allies, and I readily admit that, that's not always the case. Vietnam is a perfect example, but one we won't repeat. The US will no longer sacrifice its soldiers out of mere ideals, although we have done our part at times to prevent some (but not all, far from it) genocide. We're far from perfect, but we're more than willing to live up to the higher standard people hold us to.

when challenged unless it met our agenda: wwii - becoming a superpower (thanks for that one yanks).

No offense, but that's the most ignorant statement of yours yet! Prior to WWII and even before our entrance, the US had an isolationist attitude outside of the Americas. We had no interest in the affairs of Asia, Europe and other countries except for trade -- we were still in touch with our Libertarian ideals.

The US had no agenda to become a superpower. In fact, Woodrow Wilson, followed by FDR, were the first leaders in the world to suggest a united, world league. Wilson established the League of Nations, which the US Congress did not join -- because the US had a clear isolationist attitude outside of the Americas. FDR then laid the foundation of the United Nations, and the US finally woke up that it could not stand by while the world continued to war with itself.

I won't excuse what the US has done prior to the 20th century. And I will full admit what we've done in the Americas. But we were not a party to European imperialism, and no offense Fox, but many countries of the world believe the US is at fault for European imperialism in centuries past.

Because with the foundation of the UN, the US established the universal principle of Self-Determination. It guides nearly all of what the UN does, regardless of the rhetoric. It's why the US went against its "allies" in Britain and France during the Suez debacle. It's why the US stayed [largely] neutral in the Falkland's War, and didn't defend Argentina (and not merely because the UK was an ally, but Argentina was too -- but unwilling to agree to the UN's principle of self-determination). It's also why Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was "easily sold." Kuwait has a right to its own voice!

Korea/Vietnam - preventing the lie that was deemed the "domino effect" of communism. Iraq - our oil.

First you say it's about US interest. Then you bring up Korea and Vietnam. WTF? Korea and Vietnam had virtually no strategic interest what-so-ever!

Unfortunately, the "containment policy" of communism was supported by ALL American allies. To "sell out" an ally for our own benefit (something JFK did with Turkey in the Cuban Missile Crisis) was heavily frowned up by our allies. Fox, the US answers to many other countries than itself, and that includes on the middle east. In many cases, it's not just a "US agenda".

In fact, I don't know how you can speak of Vietnam when Vietnam was more about past French imperialism than any "US agenda." In fact, a simple history lesson would and should have kept us out as the Vietnamese made no distinction between American and French solders. You talk about how Americans "lump all arabs into the same pool." Well guess what? There are a lot of various nations that lump us Americans into the same European imperialism pool too!

I mean, we could have easily blown up the North Vietnamese dams and flooded the country, spreading disease and utterly reducing the NVA's capability to make war and their ability to supply the VC. But the US has principles. People only talk about what the US does, but never looks at what the US doesn't do compared to "other invaders." I'm really tired of pointing these things out, because I could spend a month talking continuously while I cover the great unjustices done by all major nations of the world during the 20th century (let alone earlier). I mean, if you want to talk about Vietnam, why don't we talk about the "original Imperialists" -- the French!

Ignorance and arrogance is not an American-only 'thang. In fact, Americans criticize and question themselves and their leadership as much as other nations. In fact, I've never seen -- no, let me re-phrase that -- the immigrants I work with and know tell me they've never seen a people so free to openly criticize and question their government like Americans do. We know we will be held to a high standard -- especially now that the cold war is over and we are considered a "Hyperpower" by many.

Kuwait used to belong to the country that is now Iraq and before that they were all under the same flag. The Iraqis thought they were simply reposessing their own land, the Americans and Brits were the ones who stood most firmly against it and talked everyone into military action back in the early 90s, because of economics, not to protect Kuwait.

You say you want to "prevent war." Then you spew this pre-20th century non-sense? If you want to go back to the 19th century and earlier, before the US helped establish the UN that attempts to enforce the principle of "self-determination, then you will only promote war!

So wish is it Fox? Really? Which is it?

Why don't we just let China invade Tawain? After all, it's Chinese land, right? Oh, and while we're at it, why don't we have other countries invade countless, other "former states?" At what point do you stop?

Fox, honestly, you have the most blind, politically-aligned amount of rhetoric I've ever seen. You will apply some values when they fit your political alignment and agenda, then apply others. You have budged absolutely zero even when I point out these realities. You will apply different logic to justify something over and over, while denying the same concept under the same context to another detail.

The UN Principle of Self-Determination is a major, overriding factor in why UN Resolutions pass or fail, why and how nations are allowed to survive and what guides the majority of US decisions and support. That includes helping errect a government in Afganistan that is Islamic with no right to freedom of religion. That includes helping to errect a government in Iraq that is the same. We can go into countless other nations.

Now of all the UN security council members, the US has a proven track record versus China, France, Russia and, to a lesser extent, the UK (although the UK's voting has not been selfish in the last 20+ years) in the interests of the world. China, France and Russia have shown repeat contempt to "do the right thing" and have constantly been caught "red handed" in their own, selfish interests.

Now I will fully admit the US' actions in the Americas have been far less benign. That also explains the rhetoric pushed out by and popularized by Castro and Chavez. At the same time, Castro and Chavez and blame and bullshit artists far worse than Bush! And most other American nations know it! So yeah, it makes great rhetoric, until you look at what those two are doing to their own people!

If sovereignty is valued, how come the US has violated it so many times?

Give me an example outside of the Americas? Honestly! Give me an example where the UN Principle of Self-Determination was violated!

Hypocrisy? Do we deserve military action against us, then? By our own rules of the game, we do. But it's always different when we do it, isn't it. It's "justified". Don't you think the Iraqis justified Kuwait? Were they right? No. Were we? No.

Again, UN Principle of Self-Determination. If you honestly wanted to avoid war from the mid-20th Century and beyond, you need to apply that universally! Unfortunately Fox, you do not want to in your agenda.

Iraq never attacked us. Never. They disobeyed us.

"Disobeyed us"? Huh? Do you even know anything about 1990?

In 1990, the US systematically denied they had a defense agreement with Kuwait. The US wanted to keep its ties strong with Iraq, even after the invasion. But it was a meeting with Margret Thatcher that led Bush Sr. to change his course. And that's when the US formed the largest coalition ever, of the majority of nations on the planet (and even in 2003, we still built a coalition of almost 50 nations).

We invaded. Unless you are willing to admit Kuwait is just an extension of the west - our country in their backyard, with all their rich oilfields while we laugh at them and reap the benefits across the border. If that is the case - well invasion is never justified - but they had a hell of a lot better reasons for going into Kuwait than we ever did to go into Iraq.

Okay, now you're smoking crack.

If you think Kuwait was solely about a US agenda, I'm sorry. Did we have strategic interests? Yes! Did other countries have strategic interests? Yes! Was Saudia Arabia scared shitless that Iraq, with 400,000 soliders and almost 10,000 pieces of armor could lay waste to its 75,000 strong-army and only 1,000 units of armor? Hell yes! Understand that Saddam Hussein had no interest in stopping with Kuwait, and wanted to control the region! And he had the units to do it (short of maybe taking on Israel)!

That's one, major reason the world -- even though the US led the charge -- wanted to obliterate his capability to do so!

 

[Member2019]

UN Principle of Self-Determination (2/2)

I'm not defending Sadaam Hussein. But there are ten dictators who are worse and have killed more. Hell Bush has more blood on his hands already depending on which stats you believe.

I love how people account the US for secretarian violence. You praise people like Saddam Hussein for "keeping the peace" by killing innocents and using a Stalin Iron First of oppression over 90% of his people, but you hate the US for asking people to "get along" and they decide to kill one another. I'm sorry, but that's just a biased set of metrics! I'm sorry we, the US, actually have the balls to ask people to "get along."

And as libertarians (those of you that are) I'd expect you to be well aware that this is all and only about our interests and all of this "liberation" talk is baloney. So why use that in your argument when you know it is a false smokescreen to hide the true economic reasons for the wars?

'all of this "liberation" talk is baloney' -- until you realize the US is over there pumping gas at the OPEC price, along with Japan, the UK and 40-something other allies. If we were really interested in "taking advantage" of Iraq, we'd implement European-style imperialism.

But instead, we really try to adhere to the UN Principle of Self-Determination. We're far from perfect, and we've fucked up the Americas pretty bad in our own, selfish interests, but outside of the Americas, the US is one of the most unbiased and unselfish nations you will ever find when it comes to equality and conflict.

 

[Roughneck]

Re: UN Principle of Self-Determination (1/2)

and the US finally woke up that it could not stand by while the world continued to war with itself.

Hi Prof - I think this is where you and I part ways. I fully believe that we could (and should!) have continued to avoid 'entangling alliances'.

That great Senator from Ohio - Robert Alphonso Taft comes to mind

Don't get me started on Woody Wilson and Franklin Fucking Roosevelt! LBJ is a pussy when compared to FDR. It is with great sadness that I recall that he even managed to con an upstanding gentleman and citizen like my Father - a man bitten hard by the Depression, who taught me much about individual responsibility and yet managed to succumb to FDRs treachery.

I won't excuse what the US has done prior to the 20th century. And I will full admit what we've done in the Americas.

And the Phillipines... and Cuba... and China...

But you are right. We've always had a certain section of the population that wished for foreign "conquest and glory". I suppose the original "Federalists" never really went away


cheers,

 

[Member2019]

Entangling Alliances ...

Hi Prof - I think this is where you and I part ways. I fully believe that we could (and should!) have continued to avoid 'entangling alliances'.

Okay, let me step back. I'm not saying I agree with that foreign policy. But it's what drives our policy today.

And the Phillipines... and Cuba... and China...

The Philippines (along with Cuba) had more to do with Panama, (which is the Americas). And I'm sure the Philippinos would take the "US Imperialism" in the Philippines to the "Spanish Imperialist" any day!

But you are right. We've always had a certain section of the population that wished for foreign "conquest and glory". I suppose the original "Federalists" never really went away

The funny thing is that even the "Jeffersonian-era" Libertarians showed the same things when put into a pickle. After all, most people don't realize we first went to Napolean to buy the port of New Orleans, before he offered the entire Louisiana territory.

I like the current US stance on the UN Principle of Self-Determination if we are going to middle in international affairs. We're far from perfect, but I'll take our track record outside of the Americas any day (and even compared to our track record in the Americas against any European Imperialist, let alone various Asian nations, including the Middle East).

 

[Legzman]

Fox if you notice your not the only one to get quoted. This is a HIGHLY political issue. Just about everyone who's responded to this thread is getting quoted! Hell roughneck and prof are quoting each other!

I for one have learned to stay out of political debates on this board as I get pissed off when I'm involved with em! I have admited I don't know that much about politics but I do have my opinions. I just chose to keep them to myself now, when it comes to politics!

Maybe it's just good debates for them and they like to debate obviously. I don't think they intend to piss you off.
Ugh *sigh* can't we all just get along? :dunno:

 

[Roughneck]

just wondering, what's the point.

To show others not just why you're wrong - but exactly HOW wrong.

... and maybe in the off chance that you might begin to be open and see life with a broader perspective (forgive an old man his vanity: if it worked for me, why not you too?). I don't know about Prof. - but as I've mentioned before, when I was your age, I didn't see things any differently from you.

What changed? Life. Life changed me. The 6-8 years of pure misery I endured after discharge from the Army, taught me. Trying to reconcile my morally inconsistent positions with the world at large, taught me. Learning what "fair" and "just" truly mean, taught me. Living with my wife and raising my children, taught me.




cheers,

 

[Big P13]

Well, back to the topic. A big step in bringing this war to an end will be, in my opinion, kill that cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. It sickens me that he was allowed to live in the first place after directing attacks on American troops from that mosque. The fact that they were allowed to hide out in that building, and it not be bombed is an absolute travesty to me. I understand that our government was still trying to pretend we were in the "win the hearts and minds" phase of the war, but that's just negligent. Now they say he's taken control of the Ministries of health, and of education, has control of a large portion of the oil industry over there, and has a militia of approximately 50,000. He seriously needs to be eliminated, and in a way that there's no coming back from.

 

[Big P13]

Make him a Martyr. I don't think martydome is quite the powerful state as it was once believed. We martyred the hell out of Zarqawi, and I think that has been better for us than having him alive.

I was against this war from the beginning. I never believed what the administration was telling us in fact. I felt that we were being lied to regarding all of the immediate threats that we were supposed to be facing. I thought that it was extremely suspiscious that we had two oil men in the whitehouse, and they wanted to go to war in an oil-rich country. I felt that we should have finished up in Afghanistan and gotten the man respnsible for attacking us on our soil before we considered doing anything else in any other countries. And I realized at after 9/11 we had the support of the world behind us, and that Bush was going to fuck that up by going into Iraq prematurely. I understand the importance of making it at least look like we were victorious in this war. If we don't come out looking like we've won, I do believe that it will embolden terrorists, and make us look weak to them the way Bin Laden was emboldened by Reagan pulling out of Beirut after the attacks on the Marine Barracks (god I hope I have that right. I'm sure Prof will let me know in detail if I don't). But it was that pull out that led to Bin Laden's comment about the U.S. a paper tiger wasn't it?

I think we missed a golden opportunity to pull way back, and look victorious when we got Zarqawi. We could have used that event to say "Hey, we took out the head of Al-qaeda, we cut off their head here in Iraq, so they will become ineffective," whether we knew it was bullshit or not. We could have at least spun it, since we seem to be better at that than anything these days, to lessen our involvement in what's going on over there now.

 

[Roughneck]

Most people don't read our long posts anyway, you can tell by the types of responses or lack thereof.

Lack of responses doesn't imply lack of participation. You can tell simply by the differences between "views" and "replies" on any given thread. Maybe people read, either agree or disagree but don't feel like contributing and move on.

What if you're wrong about some things too?

What if I'm right about some things?

You've changed and learned as you've gotten older - so have I. Maybe you have some rights and wrongs and I have some rights and wrongs. Maybe it's all relative. Maybe giving power to the people would never work but where has it ever really been tried without some form of corrupt representation in the way of majority decision.

The trouble my dear Fox - is that you are so terribily inconsistent. And so woefuly ignorant of history.

Let us start with inconsistency:
This "power to the people" that you keep harping about - just how do you propose to do it? Do you want to abolish the State? Representative democracy? Popular democracy? Representative Federal Republic? Pick one. Anyone. Or suggest one of your own.

But please stop it with meaningless statements about "power to the people". It is neither declarative nor descriptive and is utterly meaningless. It makes for a great "soundbyte" but that is about the extent of it's use...

You claim you are not "aligned" but in the middle. Then you turn around and make claims like:

I love the Clintons and Gore because of the things they did or tried to do for the world, and the fact that America was a lovely place to be under them and becoming more equal for all.

In an earlier thread when I pointed out that you know nothing about Libertarianism, you responded that I was being snide and that instead of making such remarks, I ought to show you what it is. I should have responded then and there itself but didn't. Let me address it now:
You're a big boy. You can read and write. You claim to have a college education.

When you have the time to make lengthy rebuttals to my posts, when you can spend that kind of internet time - don't make excuses about slow computers. You live in Buffalo - SUNY at Buffalo has excellent computers AND libraries (Just Lockwood alone on North Campus should be enough). Get yourself a guest login card at UB and use their computers. Or check out some books. I can make recommendations about titles if you wish - but you need to do the spade work. You need to learn and understand things on your own - no one else can do it for you.

It's the LEAST you can do. Anything short of that is intellectual sloth. If nothing else it will save you the embarassment of appearing ridiculously ignorant when you make arguments as it will become apparent you know nothing of the subject matter at all.

Now, history:
And why do you continue to diminish the achivement of US independence? Are you saying that the US Revolution didn't grant "power to the people"?

You keep talking about "revolution" and "granting power to the people". How do you plan to do this within the framework of the Constitution? Or do you think the Constitution is an outdated concept and needs to be heavily edited or revised? Do you know or support any candidates who claim to follow your agenda (or are at least as close to it as possible) ? Do you know that there was already a "Revolution" in the US and that it was brutally crushed by the Federal Government? How do you plan on avoiding the same fate? If your Revolution is successful - what about the aftermath? What type of government will you put in place (and don't answer it with "whatever the people want" - if the people want to allow for "Whites only rule", will you allow that?) ... or will you decide against establishing a State at all?

I don't mind arguing with someone whose views are diametrically opposed to mine - so long as they know the stuff they are talking about.

So you have more years than me. Maybe "older" doesn't necessarily always mean "wiser". About some things, yes, maybe not about others.

Age has nothing to do with wisdom - as my Brother-in-Law and my own daughter display quite well enough (she is by far the smarter and wiser of the two).

Age has everything to do with accumulated experience.

And maybe real life kills faith in real and dramatic and important change

I am not and can never be a pessimist - I am after all, a Father. Which Father doesn't hope for and work towards a better future for his children and grand children?


cheers,

 

[Member2019]

Re: UN Principle of Self-Determination (1/2)

(2) Don't believe it for a second. It was far too well-planned, imo from day one.

So the entire US entrance into WWII was planned so it would become a superpower? Care to share?

(3) It's not our responsibility to do anything about Taiwan.

So what you're saying is the US should not honor any defense agreements it has with other countries? Wow! Now what do you think that'll make our allies think? Do you really stop to think things through?

It's the U.N's responsibility.

And the UN has what power? -- No, let me rephrase that -- The UN has shown it's ability to exert power to do what?

(4) I'm not aligned to any side.

Fox, if there is a huge difference between you and I, it's the fact that I will apply logic evenly, even when it goes AGAINST what people "assume" is my political alignment (hence why I don't have one). You will defend a political alignment, applying conflicting logic.

I love the Clintons and Gore ...

I rest my case. I don't "love" or "hate" any politician because I recognize what they are. Most are not "leaders" and you have choosen to make a political alignment and defend it, even when your own views differ from their actual actions!

(5) Neither have you. Neither do most people with strong political opinions.

No and yes! No, I have "budged," I "budge" every day because I don't make blind political alignments. But yes, that's what most other people do, including yourself. You refuse to disagree with whatever platform you have adopted, and you will allow that platform to be at odds with your own views because it's "the lesser of two evils."

Not only I, but several others have pointed out that your own statements are in stark contrast to each other. E.g., you want to US to do something without the UN, but then you turn around and talk about how the US shouldn't do anything without the UN. Which is it?

Is that what this is about? Trying to make me budge?

Yes! It's about stopping you from your ideals that don't make any sense to anyone -- other than to agree with is against "what the left is saying today." That gets really old. It also shows you lack the willingness (even if you have the intelligence) to sit back and try to take an unbiased view for once.

(6) It's good to think in different ways and use all types of logic available to you. My consistency lies in my beliefs, even if I argue them a hundred different ways that is because I am trying to help as many people as possible understand.

I see a crapload of rhetoric, a lot of idealism that is non-existent and little "real-world applicable values."

In fact, if I point out when Clinton did the same thing as Bush, I'm a liar. And when I point out someone you've quoted as saying something positive about Bush, you then marginalize your own example. That's political rhetoric 101 in actin.

I'm done with the political threads for awhile. It's obvious that some people here only have an agenda to push, and they don't want to carefully analyze and understand why things happen. Finger point, blame, hate and overall state how the government should take control of our lives, because we obviously don't know the first thing how to help our fellow man. Insulting to say the least.

 

[Member2019]

Re: UN Principle of Self-Determination (1/2)

On the contrary, I just want a government that answers to us, to the people. That is controlled by the will of the people, rather than imposing its will on the people.

And you have provided no such detail. In fact, you have side-stepped every concept, every detail, every explanation I made to try to educate you on the American Nation. You seem to want to apply European socialism rule to our nation, yet you turn around and act like it will provide an American Libertarian solution. WTF?

I don't want a government that takes control of our lives (I think in many ways they already do, often making us think our choices are our choices by influencing us into mass fear), on the contrary, I want the people to take control of the government. It's important to make that distinction.

And it's important to note that everything you have suggested in the past is about TAKING AWAY CHOICE! If there is one thing about enlarging government to take on more roles to help people, it's about removing the option from INDIVDIDUALS.

You come to the US saying how bad we are, yet don't step back and realize the fact that the government does not provide everything is part of the reason why we are more free?!

You're done with political threads? I've heard that before. I'll believe it when I see it. Or rather, don't see it. A long response from you on one political thread or other, that is. :glugglug:

I've said it before and I've stayed away for 2-3 months. And I'm going to do it again for awhile. Just not worth it.

 

[ÆGEAN]

How bad is it? How can it get any better? Is it worse than Vietnam?

it is like 'Nam for the US/Aus/etc and Afghanistan for the Soviets during the 80's merged into one...

i hope we have a good exit plan... this war is going now where but we have to get the 'job' done... even if it is a C grade effort...

 

[Philbert]

Good God Ms Molly...
Prof, don't go!
I read Fox to get my thoughts collected, I find it easier to hear something silly and react to it than to dredge up all the thoughts I have on a subject and organize them. Call me lazy...
But seriously, I look to a few members for clarity and intellectual "honesty" in serious discussions, I quite selfishly learn a great deal about how I relate to things from both another's viewpoint and mine...the line of agreement is clear; I learn from where we disagree.
If I only have some alarms go off, the poster and I pretty much see things in a similar light. When my mental klaxons go apeshit, I immediately look to see just where the obvious madman has strayed from the correct path (insert smilely for sarcasm here; just funnin' BNF) and this makes it easier for me to know what I think, as well as to see where the other fool :angels: has strayed. (Still just kiddin', BNF)
I love to read your posts, and many others that post here on other subjects than just "the Greatest Boobjob on an Asian SheMale HC in a DVD only available in Germany/GB";...while I admit I read those posts and love it, they are not quite the intellectually stimulating fodder I so truly enjoy and have found (surprisingly) quite often on the FreeOnes site.
This is a very unique place, and you help make it so.

(Just for the record, I am a flaming Hetero and this is soley on an intellectual basis! )
I hope you really don't stop posting in these kinds of threads, there are some guys who actually benefit from your ( and other's) efforts.

Whew! The End

:bowdown: