Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[oxbow3]

Well then we have to appreciate the President's vision of putting us in a place where we will be fighting the war on terror in the terrorist backyard rather than are own shouldnt we? That way we can get rid of them all by having them gather in one place.

I think you are misunderstanding the article, Avatar. Iraq has become the new afghanistan because we invaded, just as the Russians invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's. It is actively creating support for the terrorists, not just bringing them together in one place. Also, do you really think Bush planned this? The White house called the report "speculative", even though it involved over 1000 terror experts and more than a year of research.

Trust me when Iraq has its government in place and becomes one of the most prosperous nations in that region of the world the nations surrounding it will take notice. Iran for instance is unstable as possible right now. Now that its trapped between Aghanistan and Iraq which are about to become impressive Representative governments with more freedom than those regions ever imagined. How difficult do you think it will be to take care of the rogue government there?

I'm pretty sure Iran was moving towards democracy anyway. The younger generation grew up after the revolution and was in love with the West before Iraq. These people will take over as soon as the old guard dies. I have many young friends who have family in Iran and go back there every few years, and all of them agree on this.

You critisize us for going after Iraq first. I think it was a rather good idea. yeah it was probably not as strong as the others but by taking care of it now we prevented it from ever becoming as strong as the others. We put pressure on the others to show that we know what we are doing. Can you imagine the left complaining about the loss of soldiers if we took on the others? I think it was far wiser to tackle the easier one first get us used to the concept of war again since its been so long so when the time comes and we may end up losing more people we wont turn and run from the responsibility we have to do. Its wiser for us to learn to walk before we have to run. And by learning what we didnt anticipate in this first war we can better anticipate what will be needed in later wars with terrorists. We can deal with our weaknesses now when it doesnt matter as much compared to the future when there could be major casualties on the line for those mistakes we could have ironed out now.

I don't criticize us. I criticize our leaders for going after one of the least likely countries to pose a national security risk. I criticize them for going in alone and without any evidence. It makes us look like arrogant ideologues and increases support for the terrorists in all nations.

I criticize them for not learning from the past, as Iraq already went through a civil war when the people were given democracy 80 years ago. All of this information was available if they listened to the experts and intelligence available to them, which is the best in the world.

I am for letting the facts speak. The administration seems to be for following ideology and foregone conclusions, even when there is little evidence for them in the real world. This is why I can't stand with them. My consciense won't allow it.

 

[Comrade]

J07950-I think the reason that I cannot agree with Comrade and the others is because we have profoundly different ideas of what the role of the US should be in the world. They feel that we are justified in doing whatever needs be done to maintain our position as the sole superpower, including deceiving the public, coups of democratic regimes and pre-emptive military action without international approval. I feel that "with great power comes great responsibility," and that as the great nation that we are, we have a moral obligation to act better than those others who deceive and use violence for their own best interest. There is something known as the "win-win" situation. It is the goal of all diplomacy, and the basis of resolving conflict through civilized means. It is harder than the path of acting only in our own best interest, because we are powerful enough to do what we want. However, it is the only truly moral course.

If you look at what me and Comrade are saying, for instance, it can all be broken down to "We are neither better nor worst than the rest of them." The United States gives an intense amount of international aid to other countries, and I am very proud of that. Yet they also do many things that make me ashamed. He excuses these actions because our enemies are just as or even more immoral than we are. I say that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than those evil empires. He feels that this is a pipe dream, while I am certain that holding to these morals is the only way to prevent the ultimate destruction of the human race. That is where communication begins to break down, though.

If you won't respond to my direct questions, please have the decency not to speak for me instead. I believe the communication breaks down because your morals are completely different than the rest of us.

So why don't I try speaking for you as well:

In your moral world, you feel the U.S. is acting no better than any other nation on Earth. Nay, worse than any nation. This despite having proven to be a genuine protector of Democracy in formerly occupied nations, who are all now quite free and prosperous, thank you.

In your moral world, France and Russia are the epitomes of international approval. And harsh words from various world dictators, U.N. functionaries, and angry Arabs on video getting ready to behead an old woman should override the security concerns of the majority of votes of Americans, who freely chose to tell them all to go screw themselves. (and rightly)

In your moral world, dictators without weapons of mass destruction should be free to continue to oppress and commit mass murder on their own. And when deposed, your moral world allows to view said dictators' terrorist tactics from its old regime as 'legitimate resistance'.

And unsurprisingly, your moral point of view is shared by both extreme left and our real enemies, the Islamic extremists (and there are quite a few of those).

One has always been a traditional ideological enemy to America, and the other is a real physical threat. And there you are, sitting right among them, sharing their talking points.

 

[sitarro]

Hey Oxbot,
Where do you get your information from ? Why do you choose to ignore the " oil for food " scandal ? Have you heard about it? Russia , Germany , France and the saints at the UN were all involved with helping Saddam skate around the UN sanctions . Wouldn't it have been in all of their best interest to avoid going against the guy that was paying them billions of dollars?
Did you see the photographs of the 2 dozen Russian Migs that were buried in Iraq ? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml (one of many articles written on this discovery) Did you know that some were equipped with the latest avionics from France (equipment developed after sanctions were placed on Iraq)? Do you have any idea how large a Mig 27 , 29 or Foxbat 25 is ? These aircraft were discovered by accident , a sandstorm uncovered a rudder on one of the aircraft. Do you realize how easy it would have been for Saddam to have buried tractor trailers filled with anything including chemical or biological weaponry in the same way ? Or even put said tractor trailers on a single Antonov An-225 Mriya (http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/heisten/antonov/antonov.htm)and fly them anywhere in the world . I have seen this aircraft in Houston , it is huge and it is capable of landing almost anywhere . If one wanted to embarrass the U.S. (both Saddam and his scandal partners) it certainly wouldn't have been difficult to bring an aircraft of this size and load it in a few hours and take previously mentioned weapons anywhere in the world. And yet all we here from you is that we haven't found the weapons of mass destruction . Common sense would tell you that they do exist .How is it that you are so very sure that this didn't happen and they do not exist? Why would you believe that a maniacal , egotistical , paranoid murderer like Saddam wouldn't have been sure to have this kind of weaponry . He certainly had the cash and the will and didn't have a problem with the idea of using this type of weapons but would be forced to hide them while he was getting so much attention while under UN sanctions . This is the same guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and continued to kill more by taking the money made from the oil for food program and rather than spend it on food and medicines for his people , built 35 new palace campuses for himself .
This is also the same guy that blew up 700 oil wells in 1991 that burned and spew oil for 9 months .
What amazes me is that you and many others would defend this monster could actually believe that he wasn't worth getting rid of .
The other thing that amazes me is that you and others like you cannot see the strategic need to start with this jerk .It is also amazing that you ignore the people that were in good positions in Saddam's inner circle that certainly don't want to let a democracy happen for their own reasons . The amount of whimpy Monday morning back seat driving being done here is astounding . The accusations that the administration had no plans for the peace is such a hollow criticism from the same "progressives"that predicted 100s of thousands of American casualties in the beginning of the war . A complex project such as this cannot possibly be planned out to perfection in advance , there are way too many variables .
As for our policies , we went to that desert wasteland ,discovered a product that could make the region rich beyond their dreams , drilled for it and had it taken from us by there government . We never tried to steal it , we wanted and continue to want to buy it for a fair price . It is the religious nutcases in the region that have the problem , not us . You can claim that they show a great amount of intelligence , I don't see it .
I'm sure that you will focus on some problem with my writing or spelling rather than the ideas expressed in what I have written , it is what you do while ignoring what has been stated . I don't care , argue with yourself . . .I'm done . Later .

Oh , by the way , how would you go about changing the perception of these people that have no free press and a lot of which can't read anyway? Just curious to see if you have any answers what so ever , we already know that you can criticize , how about solutions ? :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

 

[IControlThePast]

In your moral world, dictators without weapons of mass destruction should be free to continue to oppress and commit mass murder on their own. And when deposed, your moral world allows to view said dictators' terrorist tactics from its old regime as 'legitimate resistance'.

And unsurprisingly, your moral point of view is shared by both extreme left and our real enemies, the Islamic extremists (and there are quite a few of those).

First, I'm looking for a good debate over the US always supporting Democracy. I challenge that they did not support the fair Democratic election of Salvadore Allende in Chile. The CIA orded that he be overthrown by a coup after their large spending campaign against his candidacy failed. Low and behold, a coup removed him from power and a US friendly government was installed.

Clandestine efforts by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after his 1970 election victory are particularly well documented in U.S. documents declassified during the Clinton administration. For example, a formal instruction was issued on 16 October 1970 to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." [1] (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm)

There is no doubt that U.S. officials ordered measures up to and including support for a potential coup to prevent Allende from taking office

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Intervention_in_Chile

Your moral position is then to provide a moral example by killing people? The ends justify the means argument is the same on used by the terrorists. In other words, what makes you so superior to them when it comes to conflict? Osama states that he wants US influence out of the Middle East. Our attack is providing a rallying point for Middle Eastern factions while they need to be divided. A free forming international organization cannot be conquered by military force by one country because that country will be stretched to thin and suffer economic hardships. For an example of a free forming international group we can use pre-1917 Communism, specifically in Germany. Bismark did an excellent job of dividing factions and Communism in Germany had little success. However, once Bismark was fired in 1890 and a more militaristic strategy was brought into place, which failed and Communism wound up in charge of what at the time was one of if not the most powerful nations in the world.

The terrorists are fighting frugally. They do not have bombers. I am sure if they were offered offered the choice of having fighters and bombers if they gave up terrorist tactics they would accept it. They are merely fighting back in the most effective means that they can with no regard for the means as long as it justifies their ends. This is simply their warfare. Also on a note of how the ME seems to have lost it after the Renaissance was their culture. The ME viewed long range weaponry (like bombers) as cowardly ways of fighting (much like we are doing with terrorism) and then lost all the battles. Yes terrorism is cowardly, but then again dropping bombs from planes and using tanks is more cowardly than fighting hand to hand.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes terrorism is cowardly, but then again dropping bombs from planes and using tanks is more cowardly than fighting hand to hand.

Obviously you've never served in the Army. Typical.

 

[oxbow3]

If you won't respond to my direct questions, please have the decency not to speak for me instead.

I didn't respond to your direct questions because we were going around in circles. You justify us putting anti-democratic regimes in countries using force because the democratic regimes in place might favor our enemies. Step outside yourself for one second and look at how hypocritical this would seem to an Iranian. Its not just history to them, its the reason for much suffering under a corrupt shah, who spent millions on lavish parties while his people starved.

I didn't respond because its not my purpose to play "who did what when with who." I simply want you to see the issue from other another side.

I believe the communication breaks down because your morals are completely different than the rest of us

True. I was just trying to point out this moral difference as well by my comments and move on. I apologize if I misrepresented you. What are your views?

In your moral world, you feel the U.S. is acting no better than any other nation on Earth. Nay, worse than any nation. This despite having proven to be a genuine protector of Democracy in formerly occupied nations, who are all now quite free and prosperous, thank you.

Earlier in the thread, I spoke glowingly of how proud I am of my country and the president for the efforts they've made towards tsunami relief. I also spoke about all that we do in the way of international aid. You at this forum already know how great we are (hence the name of the message board), so why do I need to repeat such things?

We act nobly often, but especially in the middle east and central america we have acted less than admirably in the last 50 years. The Mid-east in particular is going through a time of strife and change right now, and we are in the thick of it, trying to control how things will turn out, because we have certain interests there. The people do not like us trying to tell them what their country should be like. Many are still very tribal and wary of outsiders, to the point that they will suffer a tyrant but attack occupying liberators, no matter how well intentioned.

My point is not that we are evil, because we are not. I believe our behavior in the middle east is the worst its been for a while though. Our country's worst actions do not define it, just as yours don't define you. The exception in this case is to those upon which those actions are inflicted. They will definitely have a bad view of us, because they've seen us at our worst. I am simply asking if it would not be wise to admit error, hold those responsible accountable, and begin humbly asking for more international support in this effort. Pride is a fault, not a virtue, when one is in error.

In your moral world, France and Russia are the epitomes of international approval. And harsh words from various world dictators, U.N. functionaries, and angry Arabs on video getting ready to behead an old woman should override the security concerns of the majority of votes of Americans, who freely chose to tell them all to go screw themselves. (and rightly)

When have I said anything about France and Russia? And I've also already spoken to Kathianne about how despicable these terrorists' actions are on page 1. You are making an effigy of me on purpose now.

In your moral world, dictators without weapons of mass destruction should be free to continue to oppress and commit mass murder on their own. And when deposed, your moral world allows to view said dictators' terrorist tactics from its old regime as 'legitimate resistance'

I have never claimed support for either of these things.

I wonder if you would be saying such things 2 years ago. If you knew then that Iraq was no imminent threat to us, but that North Korea was fast developing nuclear weapons and Iran was the #1 supporter of terror in the world, would you still have supported invasion? I really hope not. Yet that is what our leaders did.

Many Americans are suffering from a cognitive bias known in psychology as the "sunk cost effect."

For example, when you pre-order a movie ticket, the price of the ticket becomes a sunk cost. Even if you decide that you'd rather not go to the movie, there is no way to get back the money you originally paid and you have a sunk cost on your hands[....]

Economists argue that, if you are rational, you will not take sunk costs into account when making decisions. In the case of the movie ticket, there are two possible end results. You will either have:

-Paid the price of the ticket and suffered watching a movie that you do not want to see, or;
-Paid the price of the ticket and used the time to do something more fun.

In either case, you have "paid the price of the ticket" so that part of the decision should cancel itself out. If you regret buying the ticket because you do not think the movie is worth the money then your current decision should be based on whether you want to see the movie at all, regardless of what you have paid for it - just like deciding whether you want to go to a free movie. The economist will suggest that since the latter option only involves you suffering in one way (spent money), while the former involves you suffering in two (spent money plus wasted time), the latter is obviously preferable.

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the business decision being made.

This line of thinking, in turn, may reflect a nonstandard measure of utility, which is ultimately subjective and unique to the consumer. If you buy a ticket in advance to a movie you find is bad, you have still made a semi-public commitment to watching it. You may feel that you "save face" by sticking it out, a satisfaction you cannot draw if you leave. To leave early is to make your lapse of judgment manifest to strangers, an appearance you may rationally choose to avoid. You may in fact find some amusement in how bad the movie turned out to be, and take pride that you recognise it to be bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

People continue to stand behind their actions even after they have turned out badly in order to avoid the perception of loss and to save face. It would be psychologically painful to admit that they were wrong, and that the loss of life and other resources invested in this project is all for naught. Thus, they persist in supporting the war even when they are shown evidence that verifies that it was not worth it.

Another reason may be that traditionally conservative people feel that they must either go with the republicans or the democrats. No other political party has a chance of coming into power in America. Since they do not accept the liberal point of view, and also because Kerry had no clear vision for Iraq, they continue supporting a policy which, while seriously flawed, is preferable to having no plan at all. This is a problem with our political system which could be fixed in several ways. I prefer the "approval voting" method over our present one, among other reforms, but that is a discussion for another day.

Let me ask you the same question I asked DD. How do you feel about being deceived? And would you continue to support this administration if there was another party with a real chance of winning?

And unsurprisingly, your moral point of view is shared by both extreme left and our real enemies, the Islamic extremists (and there are quite a few of those).

"My point of view" is not what you have said. This is only a caricature, remember?

 

[IControlThePast]

Obviously you've never served in the Army. Typical.

Obviously you have yet to point out something wrong with my statement. All you have created is an Ad Hominem generalization with no support or any kind objection to my statement or my state of being. I have not served in the Army but have several friends that served/are serving in Iraq and write me about it, and my family has served in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. If you could point out how the cowardly nature of each type of warfare is not mutually inclusive I would appreciate it.

 

[oxbow3]

Hey Oxbot,
Where do you get your information from ? Why do you choose to ignore the " oil for food " scandal ? Have you heard about it? Russia , Germany , France and the saints at the UN were all involved with helping Saddam skate around the UN sanctions . Wouldn't it have been in all of their best interest to avoid going against the guy that was paying them billions of dollars?

I was under the impression that it was unethical members of those countries in the UN, not the countries themselves.

Did you see the photographs of the 2 dozen Russian Migs that were buried in Iraq ?

If this is true then France needs to be held accountable. Unfortunately, the US does not have the high moral ground in the UN right now because of what is viewed by most members as an illegal pre-emptive war, so this would be difficult. I am for international morality, not for any one nation in particular.

If one wanted to embarrass the U.S. (both Saddam and his scandal partners) it certainly wouldn't have been difficult to bring an aircraft of this size and load it in a few hours and take previously mentioned weapons anywhere in the world. And yet all we here from you is that we haven't found the weapons of mass destruction . Common sense would tell you that they do exist .How is it that you are so very sure that this didn't happen and they do not exist? Why would you believe that a maniacal , egotistical , paranoid murderer like Saddam wouldn't have been sure to have this kind of weaponry . He certainly had the cash and the will and didn't have a problem with the idea of using this type of weapons but would be forced to hide them while he was getting so much attention while under UN sanctions . This is the same guy that killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and continued to kill more by taking the money made from the oil for food program and rather than spend it on food and medicines for his people , built 35 new palace campuses for himself .
This is also the same guy that blew up 700 oil wells in 1991 that burned and spew oil for 9 months .

Apparently, the sanctions were working. I have said more than once that 90-95% by our best estimates of his WMD's were destroyed by 1998.

What amazes me is that you and many others would defend this monster could actually believe that he wasn't worth getting rid of .

When did I defend him? I defend our soldiers who died for a lie. Don't they deserve to know what they're risking their life for? Don't they get to choose?

The other thing that amazes me is that you and others like you cannot see the strategic need to start with this jerk

The reason I don't support this is that I don't want america to be the world's police, plain and simple. Study modern african politics sometime. I assure you there are people in power now atleast as bad as Saddam. We can't invade all those countries singlehandedly.

The amount of whimpy Monday morning back seat driving being done here is astounding . The accusations that the administration had no plans for the peace is such a hollow criticism from the same "progressives"that predicted 100s of thousands of American casualties in the beginning of the war.

In war, it is always better to err on the side of caution. I would have rather had us go in with hundreds of thousands more troops (as some generals told the administration we needed back then) than with what we did, because we overestimated the cost. Instead, we underestimated that we would be hailed as liberators, and lost many troops as a result.

Anyone with any knowledge of middle eastern culture or history could have told you how xenophobic they are, though. I have to conclude that the administration chose to believe its own estimates, rather than weigh the info from the real experts available to it.

Oh , by the way , how would you go about changing the perception of these people that have no free press and a lot of which can't read anyway? Just curious to see if you have any answers what so ever , we already know that you can criticize , how about solutions ? :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

I would have us practice fair, moral policy in the middle east for a couple of decades. The old generation which witnessed our worst first-hand will go out of power, and the younger generation will go back to loving the west, like they were before all this in many countries.

If a threat rises up, let the world deal with it together. Then no-one can blame us for any mistakes that may be made.

Public relations only works with products, not with countries. With countries, actions always speak louder than words.

 

[Said1]

@ Oxbow:

Did you find the links you were looking for? Google can be a real let down when we can't find info that coincides with our opinion isn't it?. Lamo.

 

[Comrade]

First, I'm looking for a good debate over the US always supporting Democracy. I challenge that they did not support the fair Democratic election of Salvadore Allende in Chile. The CIA orded that he be overthrown by a coup after their large spending campaign against his candidacy failed. Low and behold, a coup removed him from power and a US friendly government was installed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Intervention_in_Chile[/quote]

Legacy and debate

Pinochet and AllendeMore than thirty years after his death, Allende remains a controversial figure. Since his life ended before his presidency, there has been much speculation as to what Chile would have been like had he been able to remain in power.

Allende's story is often cited in discussions about whether a "Communist government" has ever been elected in a democratic election. Communist sympathizers say yes, and consider Allende's plurality a mandate for communism. Anti-Communists say no, claiming that Allende went much farther to the left than voters could have expected.

Allende is seen as a hero to many on the political Left. Some view him as a martyr who died for the cause of socialism. His face has even been stylized and reproduced as a symbol of Marxism, similar to the famous images of Che Guevara. Members of the political Left tend to hold the United States, specifically Henry Kissinger and the CIA, directly responsible for his death, and view him as a victim of American Imperialism.

Members of the political Right, however, tend to view Allende much less favorably. His close relationship with Fidel Castro has led many to accuse him of being a Communist who was destined to eventually transform Chile into a Castro-style dictatorship.

The nature of U.S. involvement in the coup that deposed Allende remains a heated debate topic in the context of U.S. conduct during the Cold War. While there were several coups in Latin America during this period, Allende's downfall remains one of the most controversial. See also: Chilean coup of 1973.

Your moral position is then to provide a moral example by killing people?

If we could have influenced events in order to cause a coup of Saddam, Castro, or Kim Il Jong, or every other socialist who promised great things prior to the inevitable lockdown when they seize private property, whether or not they are killed in the process is not part of the moral equation. Their life of tyranny with respect to the oppression of their people negates the need to consider the moral cost of his death.

The ends justify the means argument is the same on used by the terrorists.

No, the terrorists have different ends, and certainly different means.

In other words, what makes you so superior to them when it comes to conflict?

The fact that our miltary is a force for good in the world. The Islamic Extremists goal of destruction, tyranny, and reveling in bloodshed should make it obvious what they intend, for them and us.

What your attempting to say is we have no right to defend our interests from them, since we'd have to use real violence to stop them. That seems to scare you?

Osama states that he wants US influence out of the Middle East.

So he can establish an Islamic Caliphate, yes. The next natural step would be to wage war on the rest of the world, piece by piece.

Our attack is providing a rallying point for Middle Eastern factions while they need to be divided.

No, our attacks have undermined the will and strengh of their numbers and we've seen little of the promises you make on this subject...

The idea you want to state is if we run and hide from them, give them what they want (right now, at least), they'll stop hurting us. Just another classical appeasement meme which says that fighting our enemy will only make them stronger. Peace in our time, right?

A free forming international organization cannot be conquered by military force by one country because that country will be stretched to thin and suffer economic hardships. For an example of a free forming international group we can use pre-1917 Communism, specifically in Germany. Bismark did an excellent job of dividing factions and Communism in Germany had little success. However, once Bismark was fired in 1890 and a more militaristic strategy was brought into place, which failed and Communism wound up in charge of what at the time was one of if not the most powerful nations in the world.

Yes, Germany had a problem flighting Communism with military force. However, the USA has mastered it. Reason being we fight to ensure Democracy in place of Communism. Germany did not. Germany could very well have won the war on Russia if they had offered freedom and incorporation for the already oppressed in conquered areas like the Ukraine.

The terrorists are fighting frugally. They do not have bombers. I am sure if they were offered offered the choice of having fighters and bombers if they gave up terrorist tactics they would accept it.

Well sure, but then we'd have to unleash our full arsenal.

They are merely fighting back in the most effective means that they can with no regard for the means as long as it justifies their ends. This is simply their warfare. Also on a note of how the ME seems to have lost it after the Renaissance was their culture. The ME viewed long range weaponry (like bombers) as cowardly ways of fighting (much like we are doing with terrorism) and then lost all the battles. Yes terrorism is cowardly, but then again dropping bombs from planes and using tanks is more cowardly than fighting hand to hand.

How about the soldiers blown up on the side of the road, while transporting toys and school supplies to the children of Iraq. Are they cowards too?

 

[oxbow3]

@ Oxbow:

Did you find the links you were looking for? Google can be a real let down when we can't find info that coincides with our opinion isn't it?. Lamo.

What links? Is there a question that I said I would get back to you on?

 

[Comrade]

I didn't respond to your direct questions because we were going around in circles. You justify us putting anti-democratic regimes in countries using force because the democratic regimes in place might favor our enemies.

Do you actually know of one single regime which has elected a communist party into power, because I'm real curious where you keep getting this idea that a communist government is democratic?

Step outside yourself for one second and look at how hypocritical this would seem to an Iranian. Its not just history to them, its the reason for much suffering under a corrupt shah, who spent millions on lavish parties while his people starved.

Is Iran a Democracy now? And noone has suferred and starved there since the Shah, right? But at least their wealthy now, right? What, is that a NO to all three? Well at least the uncorrupt, oh so liberating Mullahs are not our enemy now, having left them alone for so many years, right?

I didn't respond because its not my purpose to play "who did what when with who." I simply want you to see the issue from other another side.

Well, I've seen your side and it invariably requires distorting history to favour communism and oppose America on every foreign policy decision. The KGB has so much and come out admitting to making up your very talking points in the 60's about Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and so on. Since the 90's, its taken a life of its own. But all the talking points of the earlier wars are intact and unchanged.

http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/sovietrhetoric.html
The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.


So not only is it the same tired propaganda from a tyranny that supported the left in our country, but its originator, the USSR, is now defunct. Talk about a losing cause!

True. I was just trying to point out this moral difference as well by my comments and move on. I apologize if I misrepresented you. What are your views?

Let's move on then.

Earlier in the thread, I spoke glowingly of how proud I am of my country and the president for the efforts they've made towards tsunami relief. I also spoke about all that we do in the way of international aid. You at this forum already know how great we are (hence the name of the message board), so why do I need to repeat such things?

We act nobly often, but especially in the middle east and central america we have acted less than admirably in the last 50 years. The Mid-east in particular is going through a time of strife and change right now, and we are in the thick of it, trying to control how things will turn out, because we have certain interests there. The people do not like us trying to tell them what their country should be like. Many are still very tribal and wary of outsiders, to the point that they will suffer a tyrant but attack occupying liberators, no matter how well intentioned.

My point is not that we are evil, because we are not. I believe our behavior in the middle east is the worst its been for a while though. Our country's worst actions do not define it, just as yours don't define you. The exception in this case is to those upon which those actions are inflicted. They will definitely have a bad view of us, because they've seen us at our worst. I am simply asking if it would not be wise to admit error, hold those responsible accountable, and begin humbly asking for more international support in this effort. Pride is a fault, not a virtue, when one is in error.

Just be mindfull that others which share your talking points, think 'bettering' our behavior in the world means to give in to communist tyranny.

Note how IControlThePast is reiterating hard left talking points like Chile entirely outside the context of the Cold War, ignoring the danger of this Marxist and his close association with Castro, and the fact he was never elected in a Democracy, nor ever promised liberty to the people. No, we're rather to believe the evil USA went in and shot the poor guy who was just trying to free his people. :duh3:

When have I said anything about France and Russia? And I've also already spoken to Kathianne about how despicable these terrorists' actions are on page 1. You are making an effigy of me on purpose now.

Well, not really. You just stepped in there right in front of my hammer.

I have never claimed support for either of these things.

I was referring to what you consider 'the world opinion' on the war, that being France, Germany, Russia, China, every dictator in the world... and ignoring the U.K., Australia, Eastern Europe, all Democracies in Asia, etc...

I wonder if you would be saying such things 2 years ago. If you knew then that Iraq was no imminent threat to us, but that North Korea was fast developing nuclear weapons and Iran was the #1 supporter of terror in the world, would you still have supported invasion? I really hope not. Yet that is what our leaders did.

That's entirely too simplistic to address. You don't honestly propose invading North Korea as an alternative.

Many Americans are suffering from a cognitive bias known in psychology as the "sunk cost effect."

Not really, because if we pull out now, it would be worse than ever. The effect you describe requires that cost of pullout < cost of sticking it out.

Let me ask you the same question I asked DD. How do you feel about being deceived? And would you continue to support this administration if there was another party with a real chance of winning?

I've heard this talking point on the streets... 'Bush lied, people died'.

Can't you come up with something more original to frame your arguments around?

How about, 'Clinton Sucked, Now we're F*cked'? :teeth:

 

[Comrade]

By Salvador Allende

"As for the bourgeois state, we are seeking to overcome it, to overthrow it." -- In an interview with French Journalist Regis Debray in 1970.

"I am not the president of all the Chileans. I am not a hypocrite that says so." -- At a public rally, quoted by all Chilean newspapers, January 17, 1971

"¡Viva Chile! ¡Viva el pueblo! ¡Vivan los trabajadores!" ("Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!") -- last known words (in a radio broadcast on the morning of September 11, 1973)

Tell me this guy wouldn't have made the perfect Lenin of the West.



At least Pinoche didn't rip off other peoples material!

 

[sitarro]

Hey Oxbow ,
When you speak do you sound more like RT-D2 or the robot on the series "Lost in Space"?
Just curious . . . :usa:

 

[Comrade]

Attempting to reprogram oxbow unit #4553:

When addressing the War on Iraq as a consequence of 9-11, instead of Bush having lied about the possession of Iraq's WMD capability as the sole motivation behind our Middle East strategy of Islamist containment, refer to how Clinton failed to contain the problem at its earlier stage, doing nothing but lauching a few cruise missiles in the direction of some camps and an even an asparin factory, while two of our embassies were in rubble and a warship attacked.

The password is:

"While Clinton sucked, we got f*cked"

 

[Comrade]

You can always tell its Friday night by the number of edited posts that show up, myself included.

 

[sitarro]

Attempting to reprogram oxbow unit #4553:

When addressing the War on Iraq as a consequence of 9-11, instead of Bush having lied about the possession of Iraq's WMD capability as the sole motivation behind our Middle East strategy of Islamist containment, refer to how Clinton failed to contain the problem at its earlier stage, doing nothing but lauching a few cruise missiles in the direction of some camps and an even an asparin factory, while two of our embassies were in rubble and a warship attacked.

The password is:

"While Clinton sucked, we got f*cked"

:2guns: :whip3: :teeth: :clap1: some of these smileys are for previous posts .

 

[oxbow3]

Do you actually know of one single regime which has elected a communist party into power, because I'm real curious where you keep getting this idea that a communist government is democratic?

what are you talking about?

Is Iran a Democracy now? And noone has suferred and starved there since the Shah, right? But at least their wealthy now, right? What, is that a NO to all three? Well at least the uncorrupt, oh so liberating Mullahs are not our enemy now, having left them alone for so many years, right?

No, the people who lived under the Shah and were responsible for the resulting revolution are still in power. The 8 year war with Iraq completely ruined the country. There are still bomb gutted buildings that were never rebuilt even in the capitol.

The present President is a moderate but the ideological theocrats are in power a few more years. A year ago, they used massive police force to disrupt student protests in favor of democracy. Democracy cannot happen overnight, despite the wishes of this administration. The people must embrace the civil society and philosophy of democracy first. Otherwise, elections will accomplish little true progress. The young want democracy more than anything though. They are tired of fundamentalism.

Well, I've seen your side and it invariably requires distorting history to favour communism and oppose America on every foreign policy decision. The KGB has so much and come out admitting to making up your very talking points in the 60's about Vietnam, Korea, WWII, and so on. Since the 90's, its taken a life of its own. But all the talking points of the earlier wars are intact and unchanged.

What is it with you and communism, I never talked about any of this.

The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.

Did I say they didn't? I think you've got me confused with someone else

So not only is it the same tired propaganda from a tyranny that supported the left in our country, but its originator, the USSR, is now defunct. Talk about a losing cause!

There is nothing communist about morality, accountability, tolerance or peaceful resolution of conflict. Is this speech canned?

I am not particularly learned on the Cold War. Be careful of the right tho; this administration has acted more communist than the left ever dares. The PATRIOT act lets federal agents go into your house without ever telling you, or anyone outside of homeland security ever knowing about it. There are scores of legal US residents who are still imprisoned since 9/11 without even being charged. I'm sure you don't care about stuff like this though.

Just be mindfull that others which share your talking points, think 'bettering' our behavior in the world means to give in to communist tyranny

what communist tyranny? China?

Is your philosophy is that we have to stay immoral because our enemies do, too?

I was referring to what you consider 'the world opinion' on the war, that being France, Germany, Russia, China, every dictator in the world... and ignoring the U.K., Australia, Eastern Europe, all Democracies in Asia, etc...

I didn't say they were more ethical, just smart enough to see that the evidence didn't warrant going into Iraq. Im sure some of the mid-east nations could have given us a heads up on the insurgency factor too if we listened. World opinion means little. World support is all that matters, as the coalition of the willing shows. The coalition is either not strong enough or doesn't care enough to give more than 1/8 all together towards this cause.

That's entirely too simplistic to address. You don't honestly propose invading North Korea as an alternative

No. I'm saying that if we were looking for a national security risk, there are enough candidates that we did't have to make up stuff to invade Iraq. All the talk of him being so dangerous that it desn't matter if he had WMD's or supported terrorists or not is unfounded. Yet you still persist with no evidence to support this.

And how is this simplistic? Stop making excuses and answer the question.

I've heard this talking point on the streets... 'Bush lied, people died'.

Can't you come up with something more original to frame your arguments around?

How about, 'Clinton Sucked, Now we're F*cked'? :teeth:

unoriginality does not equal being wrong. Answer the question.

 

[freeandfun1]

I haven't read through this dribble cuz I know Ox and the others don't really care about looking at reality. For example, I read one sentence where Ox talks about the Shah and his lavish parties. Well, it shows that he doesn't do his research. Those religious leaders that replaced the Shah, well, they do the same if not more lavish shit. Many Iranians are upset now that they realize they replaced a tyrannical Shah that allowed women, Christians, etc. to have a place in their society with religious radicals that don't. If you are outside their their little religious leadership groups, you ain't got say in nut'n. So in reality, they are no better off than they were. A matter-of-fact, many of them would tell you they are worse off now - thanks to Carter!!!

Read something other than your liberal BS. The Iranians now realize that in many ways, the Shah wasn't so bad!

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm on a rant. The Shah imprisoned the evangelical Muslims. The left raised hell about that, yet now they scream that Bush shouldn't be president because according to them, he is too evangelical. If they had their way, he would be either dead, or in prison. WTF? Double standard? Yes. That is part of the left's modus operandi.