Moral question for Americans

[DiamondDave]

The bullying is referring to Bush's preference for aggression over diplomacy. We went into Iraq without a UN resolution, if I recall correctly. that pretty loudly said "we don't care what anyone else thinks, we're doing it anyway."

You can say whatever you want about the UN, but I think anyone outside the US would see that as a pretty bullyish move.

1) In Iraq we had the justification the very first time he violated the terms of cease fire. The UN is not a world governing power that is the end-all-be-all for military actions. And I certainly hope it never is.
2) And negotiating with despots and terrorists accomplishes WHAT? And Bush does not bully in all his relations. Yet another myth propagated by the far left
3) Foreign countries have their agendas too. Friend or foe. And it is in their best interest politically and position wise to have a weaker US that panders or backs down. Don't dream otherwise that it is all this kumbaya crap.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

You recall incorrectly.

We had resolution 1441 and more than a dozen other resolution over 12 years offering Saddam final opportunities to make good on his side of the ceasefire (which is legally less than an armistice).

As for diplomacy giving way to aggression. Let me ask this: if this "bully" character as offered by the original poster really did exist how would such a character really respond to "diplomatic overtures?"

Do you really think the thugs I mentioned are sitting in their collective palaces, heads resting somberly on up-propped their hands lamenting to themselves. "Gosh, if only the Americans would sit down and engage me I could set aside this life of suicide bombings, crushing political dissent, WMD research and armed aggression."

I mean, really.

Do you really think Obama--or whatever half-wit with the highest polling among squishy-headed "progressives"--can sit down and talk KIm out of his nukes, Amadinejad out of his mahdi, etc?

Really?

There's a reason why history laugh derisively at its Jimmy Carters and Neville Chamblains.

 

[plt42]

Who is it we're supposed to be bullying? Chavez? Castro? Amadinejad? bin Laden? Saddam? Zaraqawi? al Sadr? Saddam? Kim Jung Il? Putin? Assad?

Victims all, I'm sure.

There are two sides to every coin. Apparently we are seen as bullies.

We think our way of life is the greatest. That doesn't mean we need to force it on every other country under the guise of giving them freedom.

If they ask for help, we should do what we can. Otherwise, we should play nicely in the world sandbox. Otherwise, we'll lose some of our friends ..... oh, wait... that's already happening.

 

[Silence]

Then MOVE. LEAVE. Go to some place more to your liking.

idiot! I don't need to move or leave asshole. I'm free to think and say whatever I want... that's the beauty of this stupid, selfish country... now go jerk off with some icy-hot and STFU!

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

There are two sides to every coin. Apparently we are seen as bullies.

We think our way of life is the greatest. That doesn't mean we need to force it on every other country under the guise of giving them freedom.

If they ask for help, we should do what we can. Otherwise, we should play nicely in the world sandbox. Otherwise, we'll lose some of our friends ..... oh, wait... that's already happening.

"Two sides to every story"?

On its face that means America has its side and is right to pursue its interests...so your mind-numbingly vacant talking point fails under its own weight...

...BUT...

I would love to hear the supposed sympathetic side of Stalinists and jihadists you think deserves equal treatment.

Please, I'm simply aching with curiosity.

As for friends. The self-serving regimes of Putin and the now retired Chirac are not friends. They are opportunists at best. Those are people best ignored and never to be sought after for their opinion.

 

[Caligirl]

1) In Iraq we had the justification the very first time he violated the terms of cease fire. The UN is not a world governing power that is the end-all-be-all for military actions. And I certainly hope it never is.
2) And negotiating with despots and terrorists accomplishes WHAT? And Bush does not bully in all his relations. Yet another myth propagated by the far left
3) Foreign countries have their agendas too. Friend or foe. And it is in their best interest politically and position wise to have a weaker US that panders or backs down. Don't dream otherwise that it is all this kumbaya crap.

The image of Bully is seen in part because we are 'the world's only superpower.' If the world's only superpower invades Iraq using partial intelligence then it makes sense for the rest of the world to see the US as a bully --- because it is scary when the biggest kid on the block does that.

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. I am not saying necessarily that we need to be kumbaya (but I do certainly think that a strategic kumbaya now and then would be very powerful in rallying allies), but I am saying that it might look outside the US like there is a drunk at the wheel. When you consider the Downing street memo, the Plame outing, the comments by Rumsfeld and Cheney that the war would be over in a couple months, that the insurgency was in it's "final throes" in like 2005, when it turns out that there were no, none nada WMD, ---

By the same token it makes perfect sense that Iran is feeling confrontational since we are breathing down both sides of her neck. And they can see what has happened in Iraq, basic services disrupted, insurgencies and civil unrest - I mean the US can do what's in its own best interest but the response of these other people TOTALLY makes sense.

 

[Silence]

"Two sides to every story"?

On its face that means America has its side and is right to pursue its interests...so your mind-numbingly vacant talking point fails under its own weight...

...BUT...

I would love to hear the supposed sympathetic side of Stalinists and jihadists you think deserves equal treatment.

Please, I'm simply aching with curiosity.

As for friends. The self-serving regimes of Putin and the now retired Chirac are not friends. They are opportunists at best. Those are people best ignored and never to be sought after for their opinion.

good lord, just what we need around here another right wing con spewing their bullshit.

where is the disinfectant and deordorizer?

 

[dilloduck]

good lord, just what we need around here another right wing con spewing their bullshit.

where is the disinfectant and deordorizer?

in the pantry on the left next to the trash bags---now you're going to have to do a few things for yourself over on the DARK SIDE. We're not into doing things for everybody who can do it for themselves.

 

[Silence]

in the pantry on the left next to the trash bags---now you're going to have to do a few things for yourself over on the DARK SIDE. We're not into doing things for everybody who can do it for themselves.

sprays dillo first...

 

[DiamondDave]

good lord, just what we need around here another right wing con spewing their bullshit.

where is the disinfectant and deordorizer?

And the outcry against the left-wing loony libs spewing their bullshit is where? And they're coming out of the woodwork as 'new' posters every day

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

The image of Bully is seen in part because we are 'the world's only superpower.' If the world's only superpower invades Iraq using partial intelligence then it makes sense for the rest of the world to see the US as a bully --- because it is scary when the biggest kid on the block does that.

But all we're doing is taking out terrorist supporting Salinists.

Even if we were 100% wrong (actually our 2002 AUMF vs Iraq mentions terrorism more than WMD as the casus belli) the world--and certainly Iraq and the region--are better off.

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. I am not saying necessarily that we need to be kumbaya (but I do certainly think that a strategic kumbaya now and then would be very powerful in rallying allies), but I am saying that it might look outside the US like there is a drunk at the wheel. When you consider the Downing street memo, the Plame outing, the comments by Rumsfeld and Cheney that the war would be over in a couple months, that the insurgency was in it's "final throes" in like 2005, when it turns out that there were no, none nada WMD, ---

You know, I've always wondered about this DSM thingy. On page 2 it says the people at the meeting were worried about Saddam using CW. Now, it the DSM is supposed to mean what its been offered to mean how could the war planners fake WMD eviudence then be worried about WMD they supposedly knew they were faking?

As for Plame being outted? Yeah...how's that civil suit going?

Indeed, Cheney was wrong about the war being over in a couple of months. It really took 3 weeks. Alas, since that time al Qaeda (you remember them) decided it wanted to fight for owership of Iraq, so they invaded using there assets such as Abu Musab al Zarqawi who, if you'll remember, was in Baghdad after being wounded fighting the US in Afghanistan. So AQ decides it wants to challenge the US and we have a seperate war. Then Iran gets into the act and we have a third war. So far it looks like the US is 4 - 0 when it comes to Iraq and yet y'all just can't seem to support the winning team.

By the same token it makes perfect sense that Iran is feeling confrontational since we are breathing down both sides of her neck. And they can see what has happened in Iraq, basic services disrupted, insurgencies and civil unrest - I mean the US can do what's in its own best interest but the response of these other people TOTALLY makes sense.

Jordan doesn't seem confrontational. Nor Turkey. Nor Saudi Arabia. Nor Dubai. Nor Kuwait. The list goes on.

All arab/muslim countries surrounded by the US and its allies. Yet they don't seem confrontational. Perhaps there is another variable you're overlooking.

Have you tried investigating the possibility that Iran might be an expansionist, terrorist supporting, oppressive regime in pursuit of WMD's? Sounds crazy I know, but perhaps it deserves some consideration.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

good lord, just what we need around here another right wing con spewing their bullshit.

where is the disinfectant and deordorizer?

Your concession is duly noted, you should at least be a sport about it.

 

[Caligirl]

Have you tried investigating the possibility that Iran might be an expansionist, terrorist supporting, oppressive regime in pursuit of WMD's? Sounds crazy I know, but perhaps it deserves some consideration.

Well, we should sit down and have a beer, I'll just respond to one thing here.

You are absolutely right, Iran might be exactly that.

So, tell me, what is the best way to address such a possibility? What approach would get us the most allies, the strongest position, and make Iran least likely to actually move forward on their own weapons escalation?

 

[dilloduck]

Well, we should sit down and have a beer, I'll just respond to one thing here.

You are absolutely right, Iran might be exactly that.

So, tell me, what is the best way to address such a possibility? What approach would get us the most allies, the strongest position, and make Iran least likely to actually move forward on their own weapons escalation?

I think we're doing a pretty good job now with the support of the European community. Irans biggest fear outta be Israel anyway.

 

[Caligirl]

Ya, support of allies is a nice thing isn't it?

 

[dilloduck]

Ya, support of allies is a nice thing isn't it?

It is. Why do people keep claiming they all hate us ?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Well, we should sit down and have a beer, I'll just respond to one thing here.

You are absolutely right, Iran might be exactly that.

So, tell me, what is the best way to address such a possibility? What approach would get us the most allies, the strongest position, and make Iran least likely to actually move forward on their own weapons escalation?

Alas, options are so few. To negoiate with a regime that has reneged on so many previous agreements only makes yourself look foolish and allows them to bide their time...more than likely their original intent in negotiating in the first place.

Then we have the current Russian and former Chirac governments double-dealing for their own profit/power ends and a emasculated world body that can barely spell UN let alone act as UN.

Far be it for me to applaud Clinton and belittle Bush but the destabilization of the Milosevic regime through non-violent means was a strategic success and should be emulated in Iran but Bush seems fatigued by the wars. The fact is: the mullahs in Iran and about the only government less popular than the leadership of Nancy Pelosi (I jest, spare me the ugly PMs). If ever we could end the source of agitation in Iraq and liberate a cosmopolitan people begging
to join the world community but stifled by a brutal dictatorship Iran would be it. Once it goes democratic Syria would be without a sponsor as would Hamas and Hezbollah.

Needless to say the LAST thing worls peace needs is to legitamize the thugs as if they are moral equals with the civilized world.

 

[Caligirl]

Got no beef with that, though I wouldn't say that talking with terrorists legitimizes them.

One factor that is important in the emergence of a democracy is the will of the people, democracy can't really be imposed on a society from outside if the people aren't for it, see civil unrest.

I think soft power that encourages any people within a repressive regime to stand for change, wherever that may be, is another useful tactic that requires no aggression on our part.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

You are brain damaged, thus retarded. Slavery ended in 1865. No one alive was part of that. We fought a bloody Civil War that ended that. And last I checked most of the dead where WHITE men.

It is simply a fact that through out human history stronger more powerful societies destroy weaker ones. The Indians were forced onto reservations because they were unable to force US to die or go away. Last I checked Indians still exist, So much for Genocide. I guess we were just incompetent right?

Maybe we should give back Europe to the Gallic tribes and Germanic hordes. After all that is who Roman took it from and pacified the Gauls. And Israel , well using YOUR logic Jews have EVERY right to be there, after all that land was taken from them too.

Isn't it convenient how you pick and choose what to be ashamed or appalled by.

Last I checked the Indians in North American actually drove out the inhabitants that were there before them AND DID commit Genocide, no trace remains of those peoples. But evil white men should be condemned not the Indian.

You hate your heritage? Move and find somewhere you are more comfortable with their heritage.

As for Jim Crow, last I checked DEMOCRATS created that and enforced it for all those years. AND last I checked WHITE men over turned it and set things right.

Like I said RETARD ALERT.

That is the dumbest skewed perception of history I've ever heard, but this is America and we have no concept of our history so it's understandable.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

P.H.D.

this is a joke, right?

I studied under David Coburn, a world recognized Professor and now a Vice Provost but I don't give a damn what you think