Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 01:42 PM       
Although I hate the fact we're there as much as anyone, the fact is that we ARE and we have to make the best of it. All else is inconstructive "crying over spilled milk". We're in it too deep to back off now even as ill-equipped as we are, else, those that have fought on either side have died in vain. If you don't like the pictures, then don't look at them. They are just the facts of a war that's going to continue to some end regardless of how you feel about it. Not because I have any love for Bush, but just because I want a good outcome for the people of Iraq and the american armed services, do I support giving our soldiers full support both emotionally and in terms of physical support.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 02:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Excellent point Kevin
uh, what?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 02:09 PM       
I was trying to be funny.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 04:10 PM       
Quote:
I would still bet more innocent people were killed under Saddam's rule then the current chaos in Iraq. I could be wrong and I could care less.
I doubt it. This isn't the first war America has waged against the Iraqis. The U.S. has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people there over the last 15 years, not to mention the Iraqis who died under the rule of America's subsidized ally Saddah Hussein.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 04:12 PM       
Quote:
I could be wrong and I could care less.
You are wrong, but it doesn't matter. You're inconsequential.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Nov 20th, 2004, 05:14 PM       
Thanks for clearly it up. And you're right that even deaths under Saddam are partially our fault.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 21st, 2004, 07:53 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I was trying to be funny.
I thought it was HILARIOUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
Thanks for clearly it up. And you're right that even deaths under Saddam are partially our fault.
Nearly everything important that's happened in this world withint the hundred years is in some way "our fault." We are, after all, the most powerful country in the history of the world, like it or not. Saying that we supported Saddam at some other time is not a valid argument against ridding the world of him.

It's funny and sad to see so-called "progressives" asserting that a government should never be allowed to change for the good. Hearing this or something like it said tells you a lot about the person allowing it to flop out their mouth: Mostly that their political views are religiously insulated from reality or opposing ideas, which is odd coming from a group generally considered to be comprised of thinkers.

There was more I think I wanted to add, but maybe everyone should just read kelly's post again. I doubt my opinion can be trusted this early on a freakin Sunday...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Nov 21st, 2004, 02:00 PM       
Quote:
Nearly everything important that's happened in this world withint the hundred years is in some way "our fault." We are, after all, the most powerful country in the history of the world, like it or not. Saying that we supported Saddam at some other time is not a valid argument against ridding the world of him.

It's funny and sad to see so-called "progressives" asserting that a government should never be allowed to change for the good. Hearing this or something like it said tells you a lot about the person allowing it to flop out their mouth: Mostly that their political views are religiously insulated from reality or opposing ideas, which is odd coming from a group generally considered to be comprised of thinkers.
Rather than being “religiously insulated from reality,” my worldviews are rooted in experience. I’m an American citizen of European descent. My parents moved to the Philippines in 1954, where my father worked for around 35 years. I spent my first fifteen years there, then several more years as an adult. I’ve spent years of my life living under American subsidized martial law, during which time several thousand people, including one friend and two acquaintences, died in interrogation cells—slow deaths at the hands of people trained, equiped and funded by American tax dollars.

Regarding progressive assertations that governments should “never be allowed to change for the good,” in my experience these for-the-good changes only happen when when the puppet-dictator is no longer useful. The U.S. government’s motives are never altruistic. If the common good of the citizens of any of these countries happens to coincide with American business/military interests, then fine—they’ll exploit that to the hilt. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter how many civilians have to die, if that is deemed necessary in order for them to achieve their goals.

I love the “crying over spilt milk” remark. That, better than anything I could have dreamed up, typifies American livingroom analysis of situations in which human beings are destroyed on a daily basis. Spilt milk.

I’m not an armchair liberal with views based on information that came from PBS or out of the pages of a book. I’m not a progressive, or a liberal or anything else. I’m just somebody who has lived through the horror America creates. I’m still an American on paper, but that’s where it stops. I retain my citizenship, because in the past it’s been convenient for me to carry an American passport; I have no qualms about using this country for whatever I can get out of it. I know there’s nothing positive about my perspective, but, again, it is a perspective rooted in experience.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 07:19 AM       
I didn't want my criticism to be insulting, but I suppose it's hard for that not be taken that way.

There's a difference between what America does and what all governments will do given enough power, though the line is fading. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that's exactly why I'm such a big fan of extremely limited government. All of the world's historical great powers have become abusive. It's just the nature of things, so I'll not try to convince you that being jaded is inappropriate.

The only hope I have for this country is in the theory under which it was founded, which can only be found in books these days. The America of it's founders' imagination no longer exists, but that it once did promises that it might one day be possible to build again. Do I have a lot of faith that this will happen? No. Unfortunately much of our future now lies in the hands of an electorate bred by it's leaders to serve them under the guise of serving themselves.

Even though our original independence from England would have been blocked by a popular vote among the colonists... We were LED into it by those of us who knew better than the rest of us... that was a minority that opposed authoritarian rule. For a modern minority of Americans to lead the majority off the teat of the nanny state would require uninstalling a "Democracy," or at least the appearance of one.

The description of this country's government as a Democracy is why I hate FDR... Well, one of the many reasons... He was the original tyrant posing as a liberal. True liberals champion the minority and would only ever oppose Democracy, which despite all it's modern hype is simply just a fancy word for mob-rule. It's a huge lie that Democracy is the same thing as representative government.

Ben Franklin said as he left the last session of the Constitutional Congress that we had begun "a Republic, if you can keep it." We didn't keep it. It's was eagerly traded off for the politics of oppressive self-interest as soon as the opportunities began to present themselves.

This all likely seems tangential, but this is the mindset behind my original comment. You said you're not a liberal or a progressive, and that I'll agree with and commend you for saying it. You're a cynic with a damn good reason for being so, but being cynical doesn't fix the things that hurt you... In fact, it only opens you up to more damage. Cynicism is just another form of passive acceptance.

That's not a criticism, either. I sway between cynicism and idealism, neither of which is very productive.

The America we're offering to Iraq is about the same thing as the America you'll find in the Phillipines: marginally better than the system it replaced but still a long way from what it's name should imply. We can hardly export something we don't actually have here anymore, now can we?

Ok, now this truly has become a tangent...

Long story short, we should commend and praise the good things when they're accomplished and condemn that which is destructive. Ousting Saddam was undeniably a good thing. The events surrounding that could obviously benefit from some improvement, but those that choose to see it all as painted black aren't helping anyone.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 07:44 AM       
Damn. Trying to avoid saying something that might piss people off made what I did say mushy...

I deleted the portion of that tirade that started off with "The closest thing to classical liberalism left in this country is called, sadly, neo-conservatism..." because I didn't want to get flamed by a Canadian, but then I read this:

Happy Thanksgiving
The case for unusually cheerful pessimism.
by William Kristol
11/29/2004, Volume 010, Issue 11

WE'RE CHEERFUL. Why not? Bush won. And he won while hanging tough in Iraq. There was no talk of exit strategies, no phony promises that we were soon going to draw down our troop levels, no minimizing of the difficulties of the road that lay ahead. There was only the promise that we would continue to shoulder our responsibilities and do our duty.

The president presented himself for the judgment of the American people with 150,000 troops in the field, taking real casualties and on the verge of launching a major offensive. The people didn't flinch. They showed fortitude and judgment, sticking with Bush and the difficult path he has chosen, a path in some respects made more difficult by mistakes his administration had made, but not one his opponent could be counted on to follow to success.

So the election was good news. And the two-and-a-half weeks since have provided more good news. Bush is determined to take control of his administration. He has thought through his second-term personnel and policy agendas. He seems determined to fix the dysfunctional relationship between Defense and State that too often hampered the execution of his foreign policy in the first term.

Moving Condoleezza Rice to State was the indispensable start. Strong deputies at State and the National Security Council should be next--deputies who can work with Rice and new national security adviser Stephen Hadley, and who know how to make the institutions work in accord with Bush's policy. Backing up the efforts of Porter Goss to shake up the Central Intelligence Agency will also be important. What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the Department of Defense. This, surely, would be an opportunity for a strong, Bush Doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the president's policy. Is John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani, or Joe Lieberman too much to hope for?

Meanwhile, the offensive in Falluja has gone better than expected, and we are following up in Mosul, Ramadi, and elsewhere as necessary. The president is clearly resolved to mobilize all available military, political, and diplomatic resources to bring off elections in Iraq, and successfully to prosecute the larger war on terror and hasten the transformation of the Middle East.

We know that Bush has been reading Natan Sharansky's fine new book, The Case for Democracy. He's acting as though Alexander Hamilton is on his reading list, too. The "test of a good government," Hamilton argued in The Federalist, "is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration." And, he famously noted, "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government"; "that unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed"; a "feeble executive" is often made so by division within it; "a feeble executive...is but another phrase for a bad execution"; "and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government."

As chief executive, since his reelection, President Bush has acted with the kind of "decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch" that Hamilton called for. Obviously a huge amount remains to be done. Obviously mistakes will be made. Obviously reality will provide its nasty comeuppances. Intellectually, it's always safer to be a pessimist than an optimist. But Bush's conduct in office since his reelection allows us, at least for now, to be unusually cheerful pessimists.

--William Kristol

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


Wild Bill's been all "Say No to Kerry!!!" throughout the election campaigns, notably side-stepping a rousing embrace of the Bush record. Only after the better of the two incompetents successfully cons the public into rewarding his sub-par history and the main threat to our world's future has been avoided does he launch into the demands for improvement in the government we're left holding.

Good stuff. Praise for the pigeonholing of Condi, who was a terrible NSA, as well as prodding for both a concrete assignment for Goss and a replacement for the detrimental efforts of a contentious Rumsfeld.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 08:04 AM       
Back to Fallujia...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 03:57 PM       
Preechr is very wordy ... yet mellifluous.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 06:43 PM       
You should just do what I do. Just read the first paragraph, the concluding paragraph, and then assume that all the stuff inbetween is about the government sucking away our ambitions, and all that stuff.



j/k!!!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 22nd, 2004, 08:11 PM       
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.