| Author | Message | ||
     Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 670 Registered: 2-2004 |
Michael, Much appreciated. Your distaste for being lumped with Coulter is duly noted. As often as I find myself strongly disagreeing with you, I've respected your posts, because they're well thought out, and I don't doubt that you want the best for this country. Principled disagreements openly debated are one of the reasons that this country has achieved so many great things. Bub, I disagree with you. As much as I don't like how we've gotten into Iraq, and as many people I know who share the same sentiment, I never once have heard anyone say to me that they hope we fail in Iraq. It is nutty, extremist, and incredibly arrogant to hope that this mission fails just so that you're proven right. That being said it's possible to say I told you so without being happy about the results. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1958 Registered: 5-2001  |
I'd be willing to bet 20 bucks that Guy did not read the original article. And Joe, thank you for your effort to turn around MJ's ridiculous assertion to show how wrong it was. Some conservatives feel the need to hide their bloodlust by accusing others of being anti-American, hating freedom, hoping for failure at any cost, etc. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 515 Registered: 8-2004 |
You lose Notey. I posted that quote last year. The article came out in 2003. I also read the articles from the left saying it was taken out of context.Didn't buy the argument. Donate the 20 bucks to charity. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 504 Registered: 5-2001  |
I for one cannot help but see the hatred for Bush that spews from numerous MOL posts as being so venomous that it has poisoned the author's objectivity. Yes, I expect that my statement will undergo a similar twist and spin, but that's all these liberals can ever do. They never come up with a solution, they simply attack the messenger. They find fault with the progress that has been made because the goings on aren't perfect. Hey War is hell! With the objective being Democracy establishing a foothold in the Middle East. What plan do you Kerry supporters have? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 667 Registered: 5-2004  |
Face, your second paragraph (last two sentences, specifically) reminds me of the classic definition of chutzpah. A man kills his parents, then begs pity from the judge, for he is an orphan. Bush started a war, then complains that war is hard work (or Hell!). It's not just the progress of the war that the left is upset about (if I may be so bold as to speak for them). it's that there IS a war. You're essentially saying that you can't have an opinion about an attempt to solve a problem unless you THE way to solve it. That's ridiculous. I can see many problems in the world, and can complain about how the world is solving them (or not solving them) without having to know the solution. It's possible to know that a path is the wrong path, without being certain about the right one. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 238 Registered: 8-2003 |
Face - that war you are talking violated international law, was immoral and unjustified. Rastro has it right when (s)he says that the left is upset that there IS war in the first place. So many innocent lives lost, more than 100,000 Iraqi and 1370 American. Has that sunk in? The catastrophe called 9/11/01 was completely hijacked by the guys who see this century as the American century. Such arrogance, such megalomania, such intolerance! I was there too when the towers collapsed just like most others who commute to the city to work. The rationale for war kept changing if you've noticed, from the moral highground that you and others (who know who they are and I think are deluded about this whole notion of "spreading democracy") are commentating on this issue.From WMDs to nuclear weapons and now to bringing about democracy, freedom and liberty. BTW, Condi Rice who wrote a position paper in Foreign Affairs in 2001 did not make a single mention of the word "democracy" when she was waxing eloquent about the middle east and Russia. To quote Hobsbawm again, "Other than creating complex problems of deceit and concealment, electoral democracy and representative assemblies had little to do with that process. Decisions were taken among small groups of people in private, not very different from the way they would have been taken in non-democratic countries." That's the basic problem with this approach to "spreading freedom and democracy." It's a cult, a coterie which has taken upon itself this messianic mission to radically alter the geo-political map of the world in the name of saving them from themselves. We'd be naive to believe that the goal of the war against Iraq was to liberate it; "spreading democracy" was an afterthought' after they discovered that there were no WMDs; the mission was to install a puppet regime that would serve the vital interests of the US (not the European Union's) just as in the case of Saudi Arabia (one of the most repressive regimes in the world; the foremost sponsor of Wahabbi terrorism and one of the most anti-semitic this side of Russia) and the UAE. IMHO, the only way for the US to redeem itself is to reslove the Israeli-Palestine conflict. America has the wherewithal to do it and I only hope that Condi's "bold agenda" is sincere about it. We all want peace in the world. Conventional wisdom according to Wolfowitz and his ilk dictates that Israel will be secure only when the Arab nations bordering it will turn democratic but the policy being adopted by the US and Israel to introduce democracy at gunpoint will only alienate the those nations and the rest of the world. This policy was obviously drafted when it was a full moon night. As an aside, the good news is that Douglas Feith, the man who manufactured the link b/w Saddam and Al Qaeda is going to resign in May. I will definitely toast to that. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1960 Registered: 5-2001 |
Face, liberals offer suggestions, plans, and ideas all the time. Because these are different from the status quo, the liberals are called extremists and told that their ideas suck. Bush and his cronies start pumping up the war machine for Iraq. Liberals far and wide have a great alternative: Don't go. The suggestion is ignored. The administration takes down Saddam and Bush makes his infamous battleship appearance... but, suprise suprise, our troops are spread too thin to get a solid handle on the situation. There is complete pandemonium, looting, and violence. Liberals suggest: well, since you've gone and done this, we better be thorough about it, put a lot more boots on the ground and try to drum up as much help as we can. Of course, they are ignored, and our troops can't even protect themselves properly, let alone the populace they liberated. There is a need for massive amounts of help restoring infrastructure and providing logistical support for troops. Cheney's old company Halliburton is given a no-bid contract. Liberals say: are you out of your ****ing minds? This is a way to get some other countries involved and to spread the responsibility around, and the whole no-bid situation is instrinsically unfair. Naturally, they are ignored again. Halliburton does a crappy job, and vast quantities of money are thrown around in shady schemes. This whole "liberals only complain and never offer any alternatives" notion is a complete crock. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 239 Registered: 8-2003 |
MJ and the rest, Listen to DEAD CAN DANCE. AION. | ||
| Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 505 Registered: 5-2001 |
The brave hero of Chappaquiddick has decided to provide his solution for Iraq. He's calling for the United States to pull our troops out of Iraq. "There will be more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course," said Teddy. What kind of message does that send to the “insurgents?” It no doubt will provoke more attacks upon our soldiers and probably end up getting some of our boy’s killed. With those words yesterday Ted Kennedy signed a death warrant for more American soldiers. Then again, Ted Kennedy specializes in cutting and running. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne. (credit to Neal Boortz) | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4380 Registered: 10-2001 |
If Kennedy said anything differently (in other words the correct thing) he'd be a Republican. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1505 Registered: 1-2003  |
Rastro, I have to disagree. Without knowing the right path, it is impossible to know the current one is wrong. Its easy to say that the right path would have been continued sanctions and inspections. I feel that was the wrong path, BECAUSE I feel that going to war, toppling Saddam, and freeing the Iraqi people is the right path. I felt it was since 1998 when Clinton bombed Baghdad. If you can only see bad options, can't you at least admit that this is the least bad path to follow. Its fine to disagree with how we went to war, but thats like crying over spilled milk. Its done. Fine, you don't like it, you don't like Bush, but surely you must see that pulling out now, on the eve of free elections, is ludicrous. Surely you must see that the UN is impotent and corrupt, and not a body we should rely on for anything having to do with any form of security. Surely you must see that if the elections go reasonably well, we have to support the new government as best we can. You've got to see that this is not a "dangerous and reckless course". I understand you don't like the very idea that we have to do it. Fine, but its done and all the bitching in the world won't change it. Why shouldn't we make the best of it? Why shouldn't we do everything we can to support a free and democratic country in the Middle East? It would seem far more dangerous and reckless to pull out and leave them on their own. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 372 Registered: 9-2004 |
“There comes a point in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified ... and only time will tell if the United States is facing a moment of wisdom, or is resigned to cultural decay.” already a serious moral setback to the United States: a moral setback both in how we start, how it was justified, and because of some of the egregious incidents that have accompanied this proceeding.... The United States has never been involved in an intervention in its entire history like it is today. It is also a military setback.” The Bush administration now faces potentially crippling challenges in recovering both international legitimacy and domestic unity, he said, and the government had little credibility either at home or abroad: “Today no one will believe us if we declare that we are convinced Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons without any overriding evidence to sustain our position.” “The global war on terrorism lumps all terrorists together, lumps all Islamic terrorists together and pits them as enemies against us. Strategy is not about uniting your enemies and dividing your friends. It’s the opposite.” Zbigniew Brzezinski Republican Brent Scowcroft told his audience of prominent journalists and foreign policy experts, drawn from various Washington think tanks, that the Bush administration’s unilateralism and arrogance were alienating former allies in Europe and the Middle East. US foreign policy was failing to address the implications of the globalization of the world economy, he said, which made it impossible for a single power, even one like the United States with unchallenged military superiority, to simply dictate to the world. Iraq was the focal point of conflict, he said, adding, “With Iraq, we clearly have a tiger by the tail. And the elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. Indeed we may be seeing an incipient civil war at the present time.” While Brzezinski, Scowcroft, the New York Times and others counsel cutting one’s losses, such a course would constitute a public admission by Bush that his foreign policy had failed, and would lead, sooner rather than later, to the effective collapse of his administration. Thus goes the logic of Bush’s war. The initial pretext, long discredited and forgotten, was Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda (which has been immeasurably strengthened by the US conquest of Iraq). Then the public was told that Washington was bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. But, as Ignatius spells out, the US occupation requires the same brutal methods as those employed by the military dictatorships and absolute monarchies which serve as Washington’s allies in the rest of the Arab world. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 219 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael, Normally when I critique a position I look first for factual errors or omissions and then logical errors. I can't remember the last time I challenged someone on moral grounds. But something you wrote earlier to explain your support for the war went so far beyond the pale of civilized thought and basic respect for human life that your factual and logical errors are trivial in comparison. So I'll respond to your silly logo and slurs against the United Nations by re-posting what you said on Jan 26, 2005 at 3:05 pm (your post #1491). I think this sufficiently refutes everything else you've conjured up to defend the Bush policy of war-conquest-and-domination:
| ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 783 Registered: 7-2004 |
It's amazing that some people are so adament about wanting to prove critics of the president wrong, they don't give a sh*t how many lives are lost. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1508 Registered: 1-2003 |
And I 100% stand behind that. If the Bush doctrine is a success, and liberty and freedom is spread to the middle east, tens of millions of lives WILL BE SAVED, and the world will be changed for the better. The world will be more peaceful, women's rights will be recognized in places where women are valued less than a pig or a goat. Genocide will be a thing of the past, and people of all nationalities, races, and religions will be able to travel freely throughout the world without fear of attack. So yes, a million or more deaths would be worth it. But then its obvious you don't care how many millions die at the hands of brutal dictators and terrorists. Or how many more are brutally oppressed without even basic human rights. Its groups like yours that used to love to spout catchphrases like "as long as peoples are oppressed, no one is really free" But you don't actually want to DO anything about it. As for the UN... only a fool won't see how useless they are. As an aid organization, they're OK, as OK as any other beaurocracy that gives a tiny fraction of money to actual aid while the majority goes to corruption and administration. But for real security or moral or legal authority they are a useless organization of hippocrates. Its funny. just 2 days ago the UN recognized the holocaust for the FIRST time in its history. ALL arab states boycotted, all that is except one, can you guess which one didn't? Wait for it... wait for it... IRAQ. It will take sacrifice to change the worldf for the better. A million lives to save tens of millions and give basic human rights to hundreds of millions more. Yup, well worth it. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 373 Registered: 9-2004 |
It will take sacrifice to change the world for the better. A million lives to save tens of millions and give basic human rights to hundreds of millions more. Yup, well worth it. So Michael Janay, When are you joining-up? Our troops are over-extended! | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1512 Registered: 1-2003 |
So Paul, Here's the question for you... How many lives ARE worth losing to save millions from murder, torture, and rape; and to free hundreds of millions from tyranny the likes of which you can't even comprehend? None? Is it not worth one life to save millions? One? A hundred? A thousand as long as they aren't American? An unlimited number of UN Blue Helmets? How many innocents have to be killed by terrorists, tyrants and thugs before their freedom and liberty is worth fighting and dying for... before we realize that for the safety and security of our children, all children of the world need to grow up free? For me, it was 3000. Drop your feigned moral outrage, you don't care about people dying, you care about your moral absolutism, nothing more. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 220 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael, Yes terrorism is evil and we must strive to eliminate it. And that is one reason why the United States needs to renounce the Bush war of conquest and subjugation, because this policy is multiplying the numbers of terrorists and the threat of terrorism exponentially. We need to return to the American values embodied in the United Nations Charter -- that war is only justified when under attack or under imminent threat of attack. Terrorism is dealt with by intelligence, international cooperation and police action. You advocate more than a million deaths, if necessary, to accomplish Bush's war of conquest. Your perspective is antithetical to the sanctity of human life. You have no standing to question whether I or anyone else cares about people dying. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13034 Registered: 10-2001  |
When you get the terrorists to live by the rule of law let us know. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 221 Registered: 2-2003 |
Terrorists of course, are criminals, who live outside the rule of law and should be treated accordingly. The point here is that Bush's war is a breeding ground and a training ground for terrorism, making the problem much worse. |
