The new direction in IRAQ
- Thread starter swordfishME
- Start date
Shelby
Experimental Member
:tongue:
lol MZ I didn't mean to stifle you. I should have said without only throwing insults. You always mix substance and vitriol in a most entertaining way.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Haha, you know what the problem is? Whenever I make a semi-brilliant post without saying "fucktard" nobody responds to it. Then I make a semi-brilliant post with the addition of a few "fucktards" and everyone gets mad about the language.
Maybe I should just show my tits and shut up like a good little girl.:biggrin1:
kalipygian
Expert Member
I wish there really was a left in this country, I think the dems in office are center right. Don't recall any of them ever mentioning Gandhi. Liberal as a self description no longer exists in politics. Obama is against equal rights for gay people, and Hillary voted for the Mexico wall. (I think we should work towards abolishing borders, can someone think of something usefull for all those bozo's who work on the border to do?)
I would like to engage in a conversation on 'Iraq today' but if anyone else is interested I would first like to ask this question.
If we had not invaded Iraq should we have maintained the sanctions and the no fly zones, and if so for how long, or should we have just folded up tents and come home?
If we had not invaded Iraq should we have maintained the sanctions and the no fly zones, and if so for how long, or should we have just folded up tents and come home?
To me, this was not the most jaw-dropping part of D'Souza's argument. His statement that "In fact, since the cultural Left in America is de facto allied with the radical Muslims, we as conservatives have no choice but to ally with the traditional Muslims," shocked the hell out of me.
How is the cultural Left in America the de facto ally of the radical Muslims? Perhaps he has a (small) point if he's saying that both are attacking "our way of life," whoever "our" represents, but that's a flawed argument.
The problem for D'Souza's argument is that the United States is not a melting pot but a heaping serving of jambalaya. And our founding documents are -- granted, as amended to create the current versions based on progressively broader inclusion of disenfranchised citizens -- designed to protect all citizens' rights, not just the rights of everyone who thinks as the majority does.
[Ironically, the Left was historically the group that fought for inclusion of people with names like D'Souza in the political process. But that's veering dangerously close to an ad hominem argument, as when I register my amazement that Governor Schwartzenegger is anti-immigration.]
Because the United States is not a melting pot, "our way of life" is not monolithic, no matter how much D'Souza thinks it is (or should be). We are all different. We start from different values, argue from different premises, rely on different ways of thinking.
I'd like to see more recognition from D'Souza and others who see the cultural (and political) Left as a danger to the state of the essential similarities in what we value, though. We all want much the same things, in the abstract, even though we may define them differently in the particular. We want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We want food on the table, warmth in the winter, the ability to provide for ourselves (or at least to pretend to be able to do so independent of the enormous organizations and institutions that support us daily)... the opportunity to love and be loved, to know that our lives matter to at least one other person on the planet, to feel a spiritual connection with an inspirational force that is larger than we can fully comprehend.
Vilifying the cultural Left -- which, in some elections, has been represented in the votes of approximately half the country -- as a danger to the state and/or to "our way of life" leads to the morally and spiritually bankrupt position of negating the validity of those people who merely think differently from the way we do. Ignoring their rights. Taking that first step down the path of silencing them. Moving toward what would end up as totalitarian government. History has shown us that the Right and the Left have been equally apt to move in that direction, as long as there were enough people who were able to seize and maintain power (and enough people willing to knuckle under gradually to the first signs of it).
Curiously, plenty of people appear to want some form of strong central government that tells them what to do. That bizarre yearning toward totalitarianism -- Is it due to laziness? Immaturity? Some self-destructive political feeling that, lemming-like, sends us as a species over a cliff every few decades as a result of our participation in massive extended wars and other atrocities? -- we also share, to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe it's easier to let others do the thinking, the deciding, the large-scale planning.
What scares me tremendously is that I'm seeing more and more signs of this gradual move toward a broad acceptance of totalitarianism in this country. As long as we have our cell phones and other cool new gadgets, we can ignore the surveillance of our networks. (Religion is not the only opiate of the masses.) As long as we can fill our own bellies every day to past bursting, we can ignore the millions in the world who are starving. As long as we feel personally comfortable enough, we can ignore the political rights and freedoms that are slowly and carefully being spirited away right under our noses.
We need more D'Souzas. Also more Hillary Clintons, more Howard Deans, and more Ross Perots. We need more people who are unafraid to speak out, to take part in our political process, to own both the decision-making and the resulting decisions in our representative democracy in an individually engaged way.
Our nation's problems need bipartisan solutions. Labeling half the nation as being a danger to its own representative government is at best a rather smelly, several-generations-old red (or Red, as McCarthy might've said) herring.
NCbear (wondering what the hell what he's written really means)
Blah, blah, blah
It is easy to be against war. Much harder to start and prosecute one with any kind of moral certitude. And yet backfires are needed to control wild fires.
For those of you who remain against the U.S. (both foreign and domestic) you should consider if it is in your best interest to use propaganda to undermine the U.S. publicly at this time. We are weak and unsure of our next step and the fate of the world does again in fact hang in the balance.
Fascism/Totalitarianism/Fundamentalism/Cultism were not nearly as dangerous 50-60 years ago as they are today. Readily available knowledge/education has made weapons of mass destruction in their various forms accessible to these isms even to groups merely numbering in the scores.
Though incompetently implemented in Iraq to this point the truth is western styled democracy is how Iraq should be ruled. As a matter of extended fact western style democracy should rule all nations of the world and this is not a culturally elitist position. These values have in point of fact favored the individual over the group more so than the previously mentioned isms and everybody is entitled to live their life as their own not the states or groups.
It is easy to be against war. Much harder to start and prosecute one with any kind of moral certitude. And yet backfires are needed to control wild fires.
For those of you who remain against the U.S. (both foreign and domestic) you should consider if it is in your best interest to use propaganda to undermine the U.S. publicly at this time. We are weak and unsure of our next step and the fate of the world does again in fact hang in the balance.
Fascism/Totalitarianism/Fundamentalism/Cultism were not nearly as dangerous 50-60 years ago as they are today. Readily available knowledge/education has made weapons of mass destruction in their various forms accessible to these isms even to groups merely numbering in the scores.
Though incompetently implemented in Iraq to this point the truth is western styled democracy is how Iraq should be ruled. As a matter of extended fact western style democracy should rule all nations of the world and this is not a culturally elitist position. These values have in point of fact favored the individual over the group more so than the previously mentioned isms and everybody is entitled to live their life as their own not the states or groups.
PussyWellington
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Posts
- 541
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Asia/Australia
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Did the magic eightball give you this information, maybe you remote viewed the facts? I can't believe no-one has called you on this Matthew.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
NCbear, that was an amazing post. The problem is that there is such a small percentage of the population that can understand concepts that abstract. Thank you so much for stating it so eloquently, some of us do appreciate that.
Spiker, your post terrified me. If we have to impose Democracy at the business end of a gun, it's not Democracy- get it? How dare you presume to assert how other nation's governments "should be run"?
Spiker, your post terrified me. If we have to impose Democracy at the business end of a gun, it's not Democracy- get it? How dare you presume to assert how other nation's governments "should be run"?
PussyWellington
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Posts
- 541
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Asia/Australia
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Spiker also doesn't realize that United States is a Republic not a Democracy.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Well, he also doesn't realise that assuming as fact that our way is the best way IS a culturally elitist position. And people wonder why I jump to "fucktard" so quickly.
How dare you presume other people don't deserve to lead their lives as they see fit, rather than subjugated to most any 'ism' you care to mention?
I never said the world had to be taken to some end using the gun point.
I've thought about this and I essentially agree with the general intent of Bush and his administration and the intent of what they started. I hate that they lied to the world early on and continue to do so. I hate that they undermined our position with their bankrupt and tortured torture definitions. And I hate more that they are just a bunch of incompetent white men.
If it would have been just about anybody else other than Kerry who ran for President, Bush would be gone and someone competent, who could never had started this war, could have ended it successfully. Kerry is as much a shit as Bush is thinking he was the right man at the right time.
But we still have a good chance of fixing things.
Why is niggling about definitions such an important thing? Do you really think me stupid?
The quote if you need to find it is "western style democracy" in the post you are talking about. I made no reference to United States style democracy.
And people wonder why I jump to "fucktard" so quickly.
You can really be shrill when a poster turns you on.:biggrin1:
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Sorry, but being a dense advocate of war for any reason other than defense in a direct attack is not something that turns me on. It IS something that makes me want to stand on a rooftop and scream "stop the madness".
So you essentially agree with bush's plan, although you admit that he's lied to the public to accomplish his goals, and that it is obvious that his plan has not worked. That makes you dense, and certainly not attractive.
I actually believe that removing an evil dictator, and giving freedom to the Iraqi people is a good thing. Bush has accomplished part one, and is hard at work on part two. I guess Zora and others see it differently.
I meant in general not this post about you getting turned on and going shrill because up to this post you still haven't quite hit that high note yet.
Would you care to define defense, can you? We were directly attacked at our embassies, barracks, ships, airports, and financial houses.
I suppose instead of fessing up to our past evil indulgences and getting rid of Saddam Hussein at great cost, we should have cheaply re-instated him as an ally and set him again to oppose Iran in a continued regional power struggle. No, that wouldn't be evil or even necessary because MZ has bucketfuls of rose colored glasses we can all share.
It's not like I ever voted for the man or would. People think me to be anti-Bush around these parts because I'm always criticizing him and his minions. It's clever how you just read past my saying that it would take a certain kind of person to get us into the war and another to get us out and how invading Iraq was our only real option. (Okay, I tried to set that discussion up about initial Iraq invasion motivation but no one took the bait in an earlier post). Or even ask what do I mean by we can 'still win'. By all means we should just leave. Yes, that is the answer to this problem. Genius!?! Who came up with that? We should get them a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately years of misuse, apparently starting with civics textbooks which came out early in the Roosevelt administration (no, not Teddy, the other one), have obfuscated the distinction. I don't know why someone thought such obfuscation to be important, but they did. The result? It might be hard to find a dictionary now which clearly differentiates between the two concepts. And that has unfortunate consequences. For one thing, it leads people to believe that they have a civic duty to have opinions on everything. But who has the time to be an expert on even one matter of public policy, let alone all of them? Nobody who works for a living, that's for sure. This goes some way toward explaining why American public opinions on political matters are generally incoherent.
Sorry, I'm not pulling my weight here, but I really couldn't find a way to work in a "fucktard".
JustAsking
Sexy Member
njqt,
I totally understand how you feel about that. But here is my concern about it. And I offer this with all due respect, and only because I feel strongly about it.
In America we have no militias running around harassing citizens, hauling people away in the dead of night, nor do we have generals holding palace coups and seizing control of the government. Just like a lot of bad things we don't have, we tend to think that the reason is because it just doesn't happen in America. We feel that somehow Americans are different kind of people than Bolivians or something. This is a very dangerous notion and a false sense of security.
The reason why we don't have this kind of stuff is because of the Constitution and laws like Posse Comitatus. What keeps us from becoming Bolivia or anything else than what we are, is our Constitution and our constant vigilance that it be honored and respected by all branches of the government. If you took those laws away, we would become something very different from the Western Democracy that we are now.
So the reason why I am overly sensitive about Uzi toting American military men in the airports is because most people are not sensitive about it. Trading away our liberty for personal security is one thing that our founding fathers warned us against.
I am very alarmed that noone teaches us in school how unique and fragile our system of government is, and how it takes constant vigilance from everyone to keep it that way. I don't mean to pounce on you, njqt, its just an opportunity to make this point to the thread.
"NJQT", hmmm, are you from Jersey? What exit?
These last two quoted posts are worthy of printing out in their entirety and hung on the wall.
.... And people wonder why I jump to "fucktard" so quickly.
Zora,
I love it when you speak "french", 'Tish. Really, Z, don't ever change. You always make your point and you always make me laugh with the way you do it.
Similar threads
