cherdano Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated - look around at the elections of Japan, Sweden, Germany, the one upcoming in France, and the stalwart that is PM Howard in Australia. I don't know about the others, but you should better leave Germany out of that. German parliament still has a majority of the social democrats, the green party and the former communist party (which are all way left of the US democrats). Sure, the social democrats lost quite a bit, and the conservatives have the biggest party, but that was a reaction to perceived bad government for a couple of years, not a shift in values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "I look at the war in Iraq with grave concern because we don't have enough high-ranking generals that are willing to fight it out like the warriors they claim to be. " ROFL. What a rationalization! This war was doomed from the start. "Looking back at the election, I came to realize that it was not conservatism that was defeated" Hee, hee. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 The war was definitely not doomed from the start. There is no rationalization in this, especially when you've been to that part of the world and understand how the "other side" lives. For the most part, Iraq celebrated when Saddam went to the noose (granted the taunting was just beyond what is acceptable - no need for that), especially the Kurds. I'd go reenlist if it wasn't for the knees and wrists being so dinged up. Of course we should thank Mr. Clinton for drawing down our troops to think levels for this but.... Furthermore, I believe the war is being won. It's just unfortunate that many feel that war is that of a mathematical equation with one finite solution; that's simply the furthest from the truth. War is a very dirty business, and with even the very light casualty totals we've had, many feel that it's too much. That is the fault of everyone: the generals, the media, President Bush. We had gotten used to having such clear superiority with all of our technology that when this became the hard slog that it is, we as society thought the sky was falling. I talk from time to time with my former members of my squadron, who are overseas in theater. Realize I've known them for 12+ years now so they don't B.S. me when they talk about the hardships and the difficulties. I've yet tho to ever read them complaining about the job; they are proud to be there, and have openly questioned why they are not fully supported at the task at hand. I'd do anything in the world to have them home, but if they're over there, I absolutely refuse to accept anything but victory. It is attainable; it's up to the public to enforce its will. It isn't certainly for lack of effort on our military's part in the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Take a lesson from the Ethiopians: they are fighting to win resoundingly, and are getting the job done. Why won't we unleash our forces to do the same? One word: politics. Bunch of pussies our generals and admirals are becoming - stop reasoning and start fighting. Dwayne I would have thought that at least one of the lessons from Iraq had become perfectly apparent by now: Its relatively easy to seize territory and kill people. Creating a stable society is hard work. "Nation building" requires time, effort, lots of money, and a sustained commitment to process. The Ethiopians are in the same position that the US was 4.5 years ago. They seized a lot of territory. However, its far from clear whether they will be able to stablize Somalia or even Mogadishu. Only time will tell... If this is a representative example of your learning curve at work then you probably don't want to be asking if people think that you're "stupid or ignorant". You probably won't like the answer the comes back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Furthermore, I believe the war is being won." This is totally delusional. We are not "losing" in the conventional sense of the word, but we have started a civil war, and have no way to stop it. "It isn't certainly for lack of effort on our military's part in the field." True. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Like any oligarchy, the transition from populist sentiment to autocratic obligation is relatively quick and often hidden behind "benevolent" or "necessary" actions for the good of those under the control of the power wielders. Oligarchies tend to "devolve" into dictatorships as the stronger elements within the inner circle fight for supremacy. The eventual loser is always the people under their thumbs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Furthermore, I believe the war is being won." This is totally delusional. What a nitemare. Recurring with cold sweats and nite terrors. When will they wake up, or will the drugs that they have been fed keep them forever in their stupor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Just because I view this as a long-term item (I look at Iraq as a battle) doesn't entitle the view of delusionment to be what I'm about. This is part of the reason I comment little here anymore; whenever I say something directly, I'm labelled in one way or another as inferior or mental and I've had enough. It's ridiculous that name-calling is the response to something fundamentally different and non-mainstream. To say I'm furious right now is an understatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Just because I view this as a long-term item (I look at Iraq as a battle) doesn't entitle the view of delusionment to be what I'm about. This is part of the reason I comment little here anymore; whenever I say something directly, I'm labelled in one way or another as inferior or mental and I've had enough. It's ridiculous that name-calling is the response to something fundamentally different and non-mainstream. To say I'm furious right now is an understatement" "...the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post..." "No longer does the newspaper have a free run. The scrutiny is so high these days that when the NYT, the WP, the AP, and Al-Reuters step out of line, the chorus starts signing immediately. It's unfortunate that these formerly prestigious organizations have had to resort to blatant lies in order to attempt to maintain share." You are one of the more "provocative" posters in the Water Cooler (possibly the only thing you and I have in common), and you can't expect a free ride. If you can't take it, I suggest that you don't dish it out. You are also free to ignore posters whose posts you don't like. I have done this, and it's a good solution. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations." You don't think you dish it out? My goodness. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I didn't start it. I just responded to it when I see the nonsense that's passed along as fact. I simply am passionate about it and therefore this is why I have had my fill of this. To me, there's nothing wrong with dissent, there's everything wrong with the self-righteousness of tone that some espouse. I call it like I see it; never have I deliberately or intentionally to my knowledge have I embarked in character assassinations. Delusional, mistaken, mis-informed, confused, wrong.....these are all terms that I would accept (and have been called on more than one occasion) as descriptors of my stance or statement. :unsure: As a personal afront? :angry: We all know of lots of those terms and everyone in here (almost entirely) are all civil and intelligent people. ;) Now if you were CSDenmark, you might have a legitimate beef.. :o ..but then so do all of the people that converse with him :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Al Qaeda.....the bogeyman for the 21st century.....now who is telling the fables? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 [....] Of course, the fact that Fox viewers are less informed about World niews I'd be careful using a term like "fact" here. Sorry, you're right. It could be publication bias. Or it could be that the questions were selected so that conservatives were more likely to find the truth incomfortable and therefore provide a wrong answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment ...... The assertion that "liberalism" involves redistribution of wealth surprised me, but having looked the term of in the source of eternal truth (wikipedia) I saw that this is actually a common way of using the word "liberalism" in the U.S. I wonder how the word has aquired so different (and so strange) meanings. In history class, I asked my teacher if it was really true that before the civil war, the democrats were pro slavery and the republicans against. He asked me "well, who's conservative and who's liberal"? Since the democrats were conservative and consequently pro slavery. I knew that nowadays the democrats are called "liberals" so I wondered if the two parties exchanged ideology, or if it was just a semantic change. Or some combination of both. Here in Europe, very few people call themselves "liberals". Ideologies are pretty much dead, but even when they were allive, we only had a number of different kinds of socialism (Trotskism, Stalinism, Maoism etc.). Then we had social democrats who in some countries were (and are) refered to as "socialists" and finally the "non-socialism" which united all those right-wingers modern enough to recognize that ideology was dead. There was a short era following the fall of the Berlin Wall when a few avant-garde non-socialists thought that they needed a colour for their flag now they were about to concour the World, and called themselves neo-conservatives or neo-liberals, refering to the names of the respective party. Those right-wing ideologies dissapeared. Today, if you hear the word "liberalist" it's probably a swear-word used by a left extremist, refering to everything that is not left extremist. Of course you can be "liberal" with respect to specific issues (immigration, polution, tobaco, prostitution, World trade etc) but someone liberal with respect to one issue generally cannot be expected also to be liberal with respect to other issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment and such are noble goals, they both fail when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation. Dwayne, you took the words almost from my mouth. Back in my ultra-liberal college days I said often that perfect, or pure socialism was probably the idea but could never occur due to the human factor that always ruins everything. But I think you should add to your statement: capitalism as well has a fundamnetal flaw, and that is it fails when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation. Power and greed; greed and power; evil twins that corrupt all geat ideals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 "In history class, I asked my teacher if it was really true that before the civil war, the democrats were pro slavery and the republicans against. He asked me "well, who's conservative and who's liberal"? Since the democrats were conservative and consequently pro slavery. I knew that nowadays the democrats are called "liberals" so I wondered if the two parties exchanged ideology, or if it was just a semantic change. Or some combination of both." Sort of, good point Ya in the USA there is a pretty vague usage of liberal and conservative but we do seem to use the heck out of those terms. Republicans hate minorities, only care about the rich, want all woman to die in back room abortion clinics and love war and love fascists. Republicans want to conquer the world or kill anyone who opposes them. :) Democrats are a bunch of old age hippies who are against, cops, guns, war and want unlimited government paid abortions in the ninth month and want take all the money from the rich for free health care, education, homes for all. Democrats want love and peace and Justice for all. :) As for History you are right on point. The South before and right after the civil war until about....1930 or so was Jim Crow country and Democratic. Lincoln was a Republican. Jim Crow came about when the Presidential election was stolen with the promise to withdraw Union soldiers from the South. Keep in mind that blacks in the deep south could not attend the major state universities and even until the early 1970's were not on southern football or basketball teams. Hard to believe but that was our country. It took losing in sports to open up many of the deep southern major universities just a bit. Roosevelt, a Democratic President changed all of that. Since then the Democrats take the Black and most other minority votes for granted. The Republicans starting around 1930 used the fear of the black vote to take back the South and gained power that they lost during Roosevelt's 4 terms of office and when many Republicans fought aganst the Civil Rights bills of the 1960's to win in the South. I am generalizing here and the issue for many Republicans is how to reverse the perserved racisim of the party and broaden their appeal to black and Hispanic voters among others. In general they have failed miserably in attracting or retaining the few voters they gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Furthermore, I believe the war is being won. Hi, Dwayne. I know the water cooler can be an emotional experience, but I feel it is good to hear world views - as you are part of this world I find it good to hear your views as well, and as such hope you continue to express what you believe. None of us knows for sure if he is right - we each express our views colored by our knowledge and experirence. The one thing that bothers me about your beliefs is the quote above - and it has nothing to do with winning or losing in Iraq. You seem to support the war cause without question - the only concern being winning or losing. That's not even the question, is it? The only question that should be asked is what happened to get us into that conflict. It is imperative we know as a nation our reason for attacking a sovereign state. Have you seen the latest news, that the Iraqui government has signed a deal to allow U.S. oil companies to repair the Iraqi oil industry and then afterwards U.S. oil companies will take 20% of the profits for the next 30 years? Did you know that Iraq had previously nationalized the oil industry. Did you know that an oil pipeline is being planned to strecth across Afghanistan - something the Taliban would not allow? If it turned out that the reason to go to war had virtually nothing to do with terrorism and a whole lot to do with a plan to expand U.S. domination and enrich the oil companies, do you think for a minute the U.S. population would allow the war to continue? Can you tell me now what was our reason and justification for going to war in Iraq?Does anyone know? The official reasons changed each time the previous claim proved to be false. Did we finally go to war, "Because Saddam tried to kill my daddy."? Or might there actually be some merit to the idea that a number of the signers of the PNAC manifesto ended up in powerful positions within this administration, and that plan included war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran? Just more coincidence? So, you see, winning or losing is irrelevant - because either way, if we were led into war by a group of men bent on creating an empire, and then we allow them to get away with it unpunished, we have already lost no matter what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Dwayne, like Winston I am not having a go at you, but I am genuinely curious about some of your statements. :"...the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post..."Why do you think these are traitorous? Is it because they are presenting arguments against involvement in Iraq? Surely in a democray we are entitled to express all opinions and why do those opinions have to be those of the current administration? You mention John Howard of Australia. It might interest you to know that amongst many people Howard is the most laothed Prime Minister in Asutralian History. I certainly feel that way as do most o my friends. Why do we feel this way? Howard's govt has incarcerated many people for years with no trial. What is their crime? They are asylum seekers in my country. Howard with his small minded selfish mentality has changes this country from one of the best places in the world to live to a mean spirited place. Howard has abandoned an Australian citizen, David Hicks, held for 5 years by the US without trial and without being charged. Where is the tenet that everyone desrves a fair trial. Howard blatantly lied to the citizens of Oz about our reasons for backing the US in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? Sure we found a lot of them didn't we? This is the man you hold up as a stalwart? As I mentioned before, there are some of us here in Oz who seriously believe that Bush, Howard and Blair are war criminals and should be tried as such. It will be interesting to see how history remembers them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 To be fair, a few Ausies I have spoken with seem anti Muslim immigration in the extreme. I point out that a poor Indonesia is just a short boat ride away and the rich Ausies are few and far between in a huge country. The response is one-sided. Is this very much a minority view? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Anti Muslim, or anti muslim immigration?There is no doubt that the scare tactics employed by certain Western Govts, including my own, have hardened attitudes. Yes, depending to whom you talk you can certainly hear anti muslim comments. There was a nasty riot about 1 year ago between muslims and red necks on one of the beaches in Sydney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Immigration, they seem to be virulently against an aggressive open immigration policy from Muslim nations. To be fair this seemed deeply ingrained not a result of a few months or years of speeches. When I suggested that it would not take that many generations(40 years?) of immigrants to make Aust. primarily a muslim nation the response was heated. Just asking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 From where comes this current tide of anti-muslimism? Is it an extension of anti-terrorism? If so, it is misguided, as terrorist action is not limited to those of Islamic faith. Has anyone stopped and wondered why President Bush has singled out "Islamic extremists" as the de facto face of terror? Sure makes it easier to find a middle-east country to blame, doesn't it? Hard to imagine the U.S. being up in arms about Iran supporting the IRA. And it seems al-Qaeda has gone global, which is quite an accomplishment for a non-profit organization run by an old man with liver disease rotting in a cave in Afghanistan - we have basic al-Qaeda, then al-Qaeda Iraq, al-Qaeda Brittain, and now we have just shot up al-Qaeda Somalia - wow, those guys really get around. If we could just get them all to move to al-Qaeda-stan maybe we'd know what country to attack next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Monday January 08, 2007By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb Iraq has world's third-largest oil reserves. Photo / ReutersBAGHDAD - Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi Parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in Iraq since the industry was nationalised in 1972. Of course, it takes a New Zealand newspaper to carry the story - you wouldn't expect any U.S. coverage. Iran, anyone? Russia? Venezuela? But the war wasn't about oil, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 "Has anyone stopped and wondered why President Bush has singled out "Islamic extremists" as the de facto face of terror?" Again Winston you hit the nail on the head. If you reject this theme than what Bush and his supporters are doing is insane, I think I said this before?Even if you agree with this theme, you can agree that what Bush and his supporters are doing is just plain wrong...but not insane :o elections matter. Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.