Iraq War

[HornyBoy007]

capRenault,

You were claiming that the Lubavitch is a legitimate organization and even comparing it to christianity. I'm really anxious to get some links about that.

 

[Peeping Tom]

It works even better if the poster adds analysis or uses the citation to support a position. Either way, its merely link and run - adds zero to a discussion.

All I can infer from FM's post is that he wears the foil hat.

Originally posted by CaptRenault

When you post an article, it's a good idea to cite the source or post a link to where you got it.

 

[Red Paul]

Wrong on both counts, PT. An article adds as much to a discussion as a post. And disbelieving Bush does not put a guy in tinfoil territory. Whereas believing in a nonexistent WMD arsenal gets one very close to the line.

 

[FaceMaster]

Good analysis, EB. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Red Paul]

Eager -- I got to admit I'm surprised you're not Republican. So, out of curiosity, why were you for Bush on the war?

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
Other than what I have already stated on this subject, I don't want to discuss my own personal viewpoint specifically as it would constitute potentially self identifying information on a public board.

Hmm. Odd, but suit yourself. So far both your personal views and your political analysis have seemed so standard-issue that it's hard to imagine what views you think would mark you out.

 

[jbelushi]

Nader's effect on the election is overated

Don't believe the DNC myth that if Ralph Nader hadn't run, Gore would of won. Please go to the Green Party Website with the stats that prove that most that voted for Nader weren't going to vote for one of the two party canidates. Real damage was done however to Daddy Bush and Dole by Perot. Perot dug into the right wing base giving Clinton victories without a majority over 48% both times. Little Bush got a higher percentage of the total vote than Clinton ever had. Go figure.

Also it is easy to speak of the hanging chads and misvotes, the fact remains, no matter how many times you count, Bush came in on top, according to research by the Miami Herald and New York Times.

Also, lets not forget that Gore tried to supress Military votes by soliders serving overseas.

Besides, the real fact remains that Al Gore and Dems have proven to be inept and weak canidates in the last two elections cycles on the federal level in the eyes of the Americans. Gore even got creamed in his home state.

The real test this election cycle will be how confident the people are with their wallets and 401ks, not Iraq or the War on Terror.

As for Haliburton, there are only 5/6 companies worldwide that do what Haliburton does. Is politically connected? Yes to BOTH sides. It is important to note that Haliburton is the only American Company one in its classification of companies.

I think the best man for America is sadly no longer in the race. Sen. Lieberman is the most qualified. His progressive politics and knowledge and understanding of dealing with the terrorists make him a statesman. Kerry is a POS, he's flip flop on every issue.

As for WMD, I agree with Eager with his opinion. Bush sold the war on that premise and nothing else. WMD physically exists on a REAL scale in N. Korea, Iran and China, which are hard targets. I don't see the US attacking those nations. Iraq is a very soft target b/c due to the fact that the majority of his own detest him.

The problem I find is that there three sides to every story, there is the pro USA, anti USA and the TRUTH. I think what all of us deserve is real journalism. The news not an agenda wrapped into a story. Lets ask the real questions of everybody.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Then, what was the position of the poster, with the tactic link and run? What part of it shall I focus on in the counterpoint? The reality is that the poster doesn't have the political knowledge to form a position, apart from "teh US is ebball" type of drivel.

Reese is in tinfoil land. Anyone relying on such investigative journalism and not formulating a position based on said citation inherits all attributes the source. I'm sure I can find a gem in there:

Fact: If indeed there are no weapons of mass destruction, as it now appears there are not, then Iraq had complied with U.N. resolutions. The Iraqis had been saying for years that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they were just called liars by American administrations. Moreover, Israel is in violation of more than 60 UN resolutions. Thus, UN resolutions are hardly a cause of war.

Reese attempts to argue based on the ebbals of Israel ... pass the foil.

Originally posted by Red Paul
Wrong on both counts, PT. An article adds as much to a discussion as a post. And disbelieving Bush does not put a guy in tinfoil territory. Whereas believing in a nonexistent WMD arsenal gets one very close to the line.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Americans have learned their international politics just fine, as was demonstrated with the war against Iraq. The State has the right to make war, as there is no higher authority to appeal to. The State alone has that right to decide; indeed by definition it is always right in doing so.

Originally posted by HornyBoy007
That's I was saying, if Americans try spend a little more time on learning international politics things will certainly be better.

And just who may that be and says who exactly?

Those appealing to internationalism are re-enacting an old myth of European origin; mainly due to the influence of the Catholic church, which can never recognize the sovereignity of a State - it claims to be the only monopoly on the knowledge of the differences between good and evil. It has always insisted on having the right to dictate its version of policy upon the State and to settle disputes.

The important distinction is that America is a sovereign Republic, setting its own policy and prserving the rights of nature. The priests, of old and the new age, simply have no recourse here.

there is a legitimate international organization for that.

 

[willyapd]

EagerBeaver,

Good analyst but I don’t think that the key to the election is wmds, its jobs.
Finding wmds will defiantly help Bush though.

Its way to early to speculate who will win. Also you have to remember that Kerry saw the intell reports to and agreed to attack Iraq, he did not change his stance on the war until Dean was kicking his ass. Kerry has a habit of flip flopping on issues.

 

[willyapd]

Sen. Lieberman is the most qualified. His progressive politics and knowledge and understanding of dealing with the terrorists make him a statesman. Kerry is a POS, he's flip flop on every issue.

JBelushi First nice name, second agree with you to some extent. The Sen. Lieberman is a good man I agree with a lot of his views, but he has no personality at all. As far as my Sen. Kerry, I agree he is a piece of shit!! I wish Weld beat him a while back.
We cannot go after China billions would die!!! N. Korea has not been dealt with yet, a much more complicated situation. As for Iran look on a map you got Afghanistan and Pakistan on1 side and Iraq, kuwait, Saudi, Qatar, and the gulf on the other. And a shit load of US troops in the region. Iran also has some major internal political problems.

http://www.vtransit.com/vt/tour/images/map-b.jpg
map of Iran

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom:
"... the Catholic church ... can never recognize the sovereignity of a State - it claims to be the only monopoly on the knowledge of the differences between good and evil.
"... America is a sovereign Republic, setting its own policy and prserving the rights of nature. The priests, of old and the new age, simply have no recourse here."

PT -- You say posting an article is no good because you can't figure out what part of it to respond to. But then you picked out a section and responded to it. You see? Just had to try.

Also, anyone who wrote the quotes above shouldn't be talking about others needing tinfoil.

Finally, as long as you're telling people what sort of posts to do, give some thought to more precise typing.

 

[Red Paul]

Re: Nader's effect on the election is overated

Originally posted by jbelushi
Don't believe the DNC myth that if Ralph Nader hadn't run, Gore would of won ... Real damage was done however to Daddy Bush and Dole by Perot. Perot dug into the right wing base ...

Also, lets not forget that Gore tried to supress Military votes by soliders serving overseas.

Besides, the real fact remains that Al Gore and Dems have proven to be inept and weak canidates ...

1) Well, Gore did get more votes than Bush. So he could have been a better candidate, but it looks like Bush was a worse one.

2) Can you link to something on Gore suppressing military ballots? I'd like to see more about that.

3) On the effect of Nader, remember that by the man's own estimate he took away more than enough Gore voters -- that is, people who specifically would have voted for the Democrats without Nader in the race -- to throw Florida to Bush. See if this URL works; the relevant material is down in the middle: http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/20/chait-j.html

On the Perot effect, the polls I've seen about 1992 showed half of his support leaning Republican and half Democratic. In other words, it was a wash. (No link on this, since it was all a long time ago.) The economy was still trying to get going again after a recession, and that's always bad for incumbents. In 1996, Clinton had the advantage of healthy economic growth, so he could cruise to reelection.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Demonstrate, if you will, any problems with the stuff I wrote. But wait ... that was my original statement, that so far in this thread there was no abstraction or intellectualization, just link and run plus various frothings of the mouth.

Speaking of tinfoil, that is a specific reference to allegations of a conspiratory nature. Just where, in my statements, did I make such claims? Refute me, if you can, and I'll post back.

Originally posted by Red Paul

Also, anyone who wrote the quotes above shouldn't be talking about others needing tinfoil.

I guess pointing out my typo is the strongest point of your argument, insofar as you making any argument whatsoever.

Finally, as long as you're telling people what sort of posts to do, give some thought to more precise typing.

 

[Peeping Tom]

It is not that charisma is essential for a Presidential candidate. Bush has the persona of a wet paper bag and that didn't prevent him from successful election. What is disturbing is that the left perceives this as a deficiency.

The Democrat's woes are solely due to a lack of substantiative policy. This has been the case since the shift in American politics began with the Republicans, and American electorate, dumping the pink Republican Bush Sr.'s policy platform. Clinton was successful in that, as a populist demagogue, he rallied the electorate in fair weather. It was fortunate that Clinton's other preoccupations kept him from tinkering much with the policies laid down by his advisors. The climate has changed and the Dems haven't. Objectively, Lieberman would have been a good Democrat candidate, but the far left elements just wouldn't have that. Hopefully, with the demise of Dean, the disaffected will jump to the Nader campaign.

Originally posted by StripperLover

If you don't think that Lieberman totally lacks charisma or he & Kerry are on a par in that regard you are not being objective. That's coming from a Jewish Canadian. Not only is his public persona lacking in charisma, the tone of his voice confirms this perception.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom
Demonstrate, if you will, any problems with the stuff I wrote. ...

Speaking of tinfoil, that is a specific reference to allegations of a conspiratory nature. Just where, in my statements, did I make such claims? Refute me, if you can, and I'll post back.

I guess pointing out my typo is the strongest point of your argument, insofar as you making any argument whatsoever.

PT -- Your ideas. Well.

You have some trouble expressing them. That includes typing, though I raised the point only because you decided to instruct others on netiquette. It's a glass houses sort of thing.

Now, "tinfoil." You could say the phrase applies only to wacky beliefs about conspiracies. Or you could say it applies to wacky beliefs of any sort. That was the sense in which I used it when citing your thoughts on the Catholic Church. Maybe when William Safire writes a column about this we'll find that only the first meaning is allowed. Or maybe not. I don't think it matters much.

You want to know why I won't debate your arguments. Chief reason: arguing with the tinfoilers of the world is a waste of time. They have boring ideas and don't listen. Second reason: you really do have trouble expressing yourself.

The most striking thing about your posts is how unaware you seem of yourself and your behavior. For instance, "frothings of the mouth" is how you describe other contributions here, but it sounds like a pretty good tag for yours.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Meaning: You have trouble understanding them.

Originally posted by Red Paul

You have some trouble expressing them. That includes typing, though I raised the point only because you decided to instruct others on netiquette. It's a glass houses sort of thing.

With respect to netiquette, tinfoil means exactly what I said. You can't define things to reflect the interpretation you desire.

Now, "tinfoil." You could say the phrase applies only to wacky beliefs about conspiracies. Or you could say it applies to wacky beliefs of any sort.

Now this is getting good. You chose to not discuss the role of the Catholic church prior to the development of sovereign States. Maybe you need to read something more sophisticated than a column.

That was the sense in which I used it when citing your thoughts on the Catholic Church. Maybe when William Safire writes a column about this we'll find that only the first meaning is allowed. Or maybe not. I don't think it matters much.

I know why - you can't. Still, the onus is on you.

You want to know why I won't debate your arguments.

I'm fully aware of what I write and what the style employed aims to acheive. So far you can't answer. I'm waiting ... demonstrate, with your superior intellect and clarity of expression ...

The most striking thing about your posts is how unaware you seem of yourself and your behavior. For instance, "frothings of the mouth" is how you describe other contributions here, but it sounds like a pretty good tag for yours.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Ok, I'll bite.

Originally posted by ElfGoneBad

Would anyone like to speculate as far as what would it take for George W to get re-elected?

To begin, it is easier on the incumbent. Starting with the issues:

• Kerry. Hardly an inspiring politician, who appears to the public as another Gore. Enough said.
  
• Iraq. This has been overplayed at this point pre-campaign. The WMD issue isn't costing Bush as much as it might. This follows from design: the White House, from the beginning, used WMD as a theoretical fiction. This is a looming trap for Kerry. There are far more issues with Iraq. Traditionally, in times of war the incumbent is favored. If it does get too focussed on WMD, all Bush has to say is that the over-range missiles were causus belli and at that time he made the decision, only delaying it due to lack of military preparedness. Bush can display a firm success: the Sultan rotting in American jail. I find the silence from intel suspicious - this tells my instinct that something has happened.
  
• Economy. The recovery is underway and with three more quarters for results, this one goes to Bush. Democrat harpings on the tax cuts will go badly for Kerry - no Presidential candidate can survive proposing an increase - the American electorate will not tolerate it. The Dem's take on the deficit is a dangerous gamble - one cannot claim proponency to socialist programs and have a conservative (even Libertarian) budgetary outlook.
  
• Gay marriage. The Dems are investing heavily in this one. It will yield possibly the worst blowout for their campaign. There are several issues beyond the Democrat (and public) radar on this issue. First, marriage isn't a right - it's an entitlement. Bush's stance: If the far Right religious beards want to stop it, fine, go ahead, ammend the Constitution. The Left isn't seeing what is happening at all - Bush has washed his hands of it, as he is powerless in Constitutional matters. In the same vein, Bush gave the beards an incredible no-yuo and they don't even know it. If this one heats up, Bush will point out that he referred the matter to the appropriate source - the people.
  
• Foreign relations. This will be a Bush asset. The Dems, as with Iraq issues, are at a disadvantage. The action has already been done. Bush can say he acted for America - how will Kerry counter?

The Democrats are doing a very poor job handling political capital. For four years they have been pressing the National Guard service issue. In one stroke, Bush, who could have revealed the records earlier, destroyed what had become an institution to the Dems. This displays the brilliance of the Rove team. Expect similar hidden bombs on other issues - in a certain sense, they are fairly self evident.

The Dems need to take a reality check. The Cold War has been over for 13 years. The political landscape has changed greatly since then. Neoconservatism brings a significant shift to the view of the State: it is no longer driven by the interest of morality but by virtue, not the beard but Liberty. It is this shift to virtue that is directed outside the State, where it belongs, rather than having the moralistic tendency being applied inwards, where it is damaging to the citizenry. What is good for Liberty is good for the State. These factors are currently ignored in the policy thought of the Dems, in fact one of chief sources of their enragement with Bush is the fact that his neoconservative approach results in preventing ideology from entering policy, an anathema, as socialism by definition requires the opposite - that ideology becomes policy.

In short, the Left needs their rabble back. From this arises a new revelation, the elitism that was always found buried deep with their movement, yet hardly ever discussed. The Dean campaign reeked of this elitism, his staunch supporters and vanguard all pointing to this saviour. What the squeegy kids, disaffected academics, anti war protesters, trade meeting rioters and EU bureaucrat imitators overlooked was that mainstream America has a traditionally dim view of such activist elitism. Joe Sixpack is now a Republican and that trend has been going on since the sixties.

The Dem's battlecry: Anyone who can oust Bush - Bush must be removed at all cost. Just who exactly, and why?

 

[willyapd]

Great analysis Peeping Tom! You could work for the fox news network!!! Or were you just peeping outside the window of ANN COULTER

I hope Kerry supporters are going to be very disappointed come Nov.

ANN COULTER
http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/silver-dress.jpg

 

[CLAVIE]

WMD war !

After 9 years war in Iraq, more than 2 million Iraqis innocents was killed after US occupation, a country is completely destroyed, economic is comletely fell into ruin and people is living under the bomb daily,

US gouvernement blocked its Human Right network undertake investigations at the scene and continues to report false imformation on their media.

Now looking back, is it really worth this war?

is this a war between good and evil, who is good and who is evil?

Is it democracy have the right to kill without being punished?