[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know Sasquatch, except for the last little tirade of “I don’t like how you post messages – and the tripe that always generates”… I’ve seen Elk write some thoughtful and meaningful posts over the last several weeks.
I really think these things naturally ebb and flow.
It’s strange though, that people are only out of line when they disagree with another, it never matters how they conduct themselves when they are agreeing with the person who would do the complaining.
When I see people complaining stop engaging in such tactics themselves, or start griping about the tactics of those that share similar views to their own, I’ll consider giving a damn.[/quote]
Funny how you seem to answer for one another!
I do agree with you to some extent that the barbs are generally flying in idea opposing directions. But that is human nature, so not at all unexpected. We are generally much less accepting of those we disagree with, and subsequently much more tolerant of those with like ideology. this doesn’t make it utopia, just reality.
But your constant lack of giving a damn is frustrating. Because of the volume of your posts and their content they tend to have a large impact on the direction of alot of threads. You should embrace this responsibility and conduct yourself accordingly. I’m not saying you can’t have fun or blast anyone who you damn well please. But you do what you accuse most others of, and that is if the idea or discussion is not moving in the direction you’d like, your first action/response is to denegrate the poster and ignore the post. I too am guilty, but have tried to move along.
I’d like to see us-(the political forum)-move forward. It’s certainly ok to disagree on content. I’d like to see the personal attacks saved for the once in a whiles. I’ll do my best to follow your example of leadership. Will you lead us to the promise land vroom?
“For example, during the cold war, it could have been argued that the USSR might launch nuclear weapons. Therefor, the USSR should have been invaded, because of the possibility of attack at any time.”
But you oversimplify. It is not a basic ‘if-then’ proposition, as in “if they are a potential threat, then we reflexively attack them”. Pre-emptive attacks are not automatic - the US merely reserves the right should the circumstances warrant.
Is there a substantive difference? Yes, in that each situation is judged on its own merits, rather than making a blanket policy to automatically attack anyone that looks at us sideways.
“In the past, the world hasn’t worked that way.”
If you are referring to the concept of pre-emptive war, then that is actually false - it is not a new idea. From the US’ perspective, it goes all the way back to Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.
“If the US sets up a policy of attacking anyone who could possibly be a threat, but not too much of a threat, I think it will be perceived as the worldwide bully and be reviled by many.”
I think that is a possibility, but I think your fears are overblown. The US doesn’t want to engage in wars all over the world. Part of pre-emptive war is designed to have a Big Stick effect - since the bad guys know we’ll drop the hammer on them, they’ll think twice before getting aggressive.
As for being a bully, until other nations catch up with the US economically and militarily, we will always be seen as a bully. We’ll be a bully as long as there is a McDonald’s in Paris or a war fought by Americans in some foreign country. I don’t think that the concept of pre-emptive war will change any minds that haven’t already decided they think the US is a bully.
“Some don’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks.”
When it comes to national security, I think you are right - but I think that every country has that attitude.
“This exact attitude is what makes the mistreatment of others possible and leads to hatred and the availability of disaffected people for recruitment by groups such as Al Queda.”
The US has done more for Muslims in the past 50 years than all the Arab countries combined, be it foreign aid to Egypt or blood and treasure spilled in Bosnia. Is my point to suggest that the US has a perfect record for making the world happy? No. My point is that we can never ‘do enough’ to counter the pathology that breeds Islamic terrorism.
The problem is not an overbearing West. It is a sick culture and its pathology is self-inflicted.
“This has to be stopped. Weapons, destruction and death are an acute reaction to the symptoms of the problem, but do not address the underlying issues that have allowed the problem to grow.”
But the problem is not the US, therefore the solution does not fall at our feet. If the US got out of every Arab country and stopped buying oil from the Middle East completely, I submit to you that the number of Islamists would not change.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
sasquatch, I will speak up whenever I feel compelled to. When I see the conservatives using at times insidious tactics to try and discredit Vroom it compels me to speak up and I do.
Vroom, doesn’t need me to, he is in my opinion intellectually far ahead of me. He doesn’t ask me to, but me being the kind of person I am, will speak up when I think shitty tactics are being used on someone.
If you don’t think I give insightful posts that’s totally fine, I guess you can disregard them.
Marmadog, is entitled to his opinion as well, but I am not here to conform to anyones standards other then the mods.
I know, I can at times come off pretty unpolished and I can be wrong, but what I say is what I truly feel. Why don’t you attempt to take a look at some of your hypocrisies sasquatch or your like minded friends hypocrisies.
You are mature enough to do this, I don’t think Veg is so I pretty much ignore him unless he makes a direct comment at me then I will respond with the same tone he affords me. [/quote]
Your humbleness is noted. You are much more polished than you publicly acknowlege.
Is it only vroom that is being attacke or having shitty tactics used against him? You say you stand up against this, but only for one. And I don’t believe this to be as politically tied as you do. You assume anyone who challenges vroom must be some right wing nut job. I don’t completely agree with this contention.
I acknowlege my shortcomings sir. I have been wrong and conducted myself poorly in the past and probably will again. Sometimes my Irish/German/Italian heritage fires.
I have learned a great deal from posters on this forum in the past 6 mos or so. My eyes have been opened to some interesting points of view. I’d like for that trend to continue and will do my best to evaluate my conduct and police my hypocricies while debating positions. I would like to think this will include some interesting discussions with yourself.
You need to do some serious thinking, post some comments that are worthy of something other than derision, show an understanding of the world that is deeper than “might makes right” and then maybe you’ll be taken a little more seriously.
I’ve gone to great lengths not to slide into silly personal attacks… [/quote]
vroom:
You and your good friend Elk can continue to pound the keyboard and claim that veg, Thunder, Sasquatch, panther myself and others are simply trying to take away your free speech, but no one is buying it! Have you also noticed that no one is defending the two of you?
They have figured out that personal attacks add nothing to the debate. Do you want to trade insults? Start a thread and see who jumps in. It might be fun…for you.
It’s not that you can call anyone a name that they have not heard before. It’s just that when adults want to debate on the political thread the constant immature tirades take away from the forum and quite frankly T-Nation as well.
Are you waiting for yet another warning from the mods to “Cool it?” Will you feel better if TC gets in the middle of it because he doesn’t want to see this great web site he built turned into a name calling play ground for those who can’t control their obvious anger?
All we would like is some simple common courtesy. I’m sure you are capable of that. And that does go for both sides!
sasquatch, what do you want a forum where you and JeffR, Hedo, Thunder, Zeb, and Zap, agree with each other all day and pat each other on the back.
I don’t like jerffy’s method of posting you don’t see me imploring him to change his style for “the good of the forum”.
Rainjack hasn’t been around lately, but when he is in one of his tirades that he and I can get into cussing up a storm and what not, I have never seen you posting to him about changing his style “for the good of the forum”.
The hipocracy you guys exhibit at times is overwhelming.
Vroom not that I think you would, but don’t change a thing about your posts I look forward to reading them daily much like sasquatch probably looks forward to reading Hedos or Thunders.
It’s about manners Elk that’s all dude. Personal insults and attacks. Twist it however you like but that’s the point.
The guys you mentioned are good people they don’t make unsolicited personal attacks.
I have debated you before. I don’t recall you resorting to calling me a retard. I would dismiss you if you did. Same as if Zeb or T bolt did.
I think it’s up to the regulars on both sides to cut the bullshit. If they don’t it will get enforced upon them. I am sure Biotest(website) doesn’t want their product devalued because some guy thinks his god given right to call everyone he disagrees with ana sshole or tard.
Manners dude, that’s it. Show respect and you get it back. I’ll worry about myself and everyone else should too. It’s not hypocritical to speak out.
But even you must agree that while Jeff posts ‘lean’ a certain way, he very rarely is personally attacking someone–with exception to his nemisis 100–I have however disagreed with him and stated why. From that point there is usually discussion.
I have also disagreed with RJ and we’ve discussed that.
vroom and I had a rough patch. I can work with vroom now because i feel I have a little better understanding of him. Live and learn man. That doesn’t mean there won’t be issues, there most certainly will. Our personalities clash and we both know we are right most of the time:)
You clash constantly with those names you mentioned. Hmmmmmmmm, maybe there is enough hypocrisy to go around. Lighten up friend, and embrace our differences. It’s what makes for good discussion.
Bumps. Here’s to a tall cold one and the Lanche…and Sabrina–that chick is too cool. Blow the girl’s boyfriend and spit the load in the bitch’s hair…awesome.
Gentlemen, I certainly will try to conduct myself in an appropriate and ammicable manner, but I don’t like putdowns feigned in a friendly manner or used in an attempt to dismiss anothers views.
There are a few of the guys on the right who are masters of that tactic. As well as a few who are just as if not more hostile then me or Vroom have been accused of being.
The guys who lean to the left on this forum are definitely in the minority and you guys have successfuly ganged up on and driven some other non Bush supporters away.
Well, any way, have great weekend and enjoy that cold beer… Um, sounds like a good idea.
Okay, I can understand the thinking behind this stance. However, are you okay with other countries taking this same stance and making this judgement in their own situations?
What if Iraq decides that Kuwait is planning action and needs invasion? What if North Korea decides that South Korea is really dangerous to their way of life or something?
The problem with situations like this isn’t necessarily the US, but the fact that it is very difficult to do whatever you wish and then expect other people to listen when you tell them that they cannot.
[quote]I think that is a possibility, but I think your fears are overblown. The US doesn’t want to engage in wars all over the world. Part of pre-emptive war is designed to have a Big Stick effect - since the bad guys know we’ll drop the hammer on them, they’ll think twice before getting aggressive.
As for being a bully, until other nations catch up with the US economically and militarily, we will always be seen as a bully. We’ll be a bully as long as there is a McDonald’s in Paris or a war fought by Americans in some foreign country. I don’t think that the concept of pre-emptive war will change any minds that haven’t already decided they think the US is a bully. [/quote]
A bully isn’t a bully because of his size and strength. A bully is a bully because of what he does with that strength to those that do not have such strength.
Adding to the fuel used by fanatics to spread hatred about the US is hardly a good way to combat the ability of those fanatics to garner new recruits. This is an area that I feel many people are weak on.
There is a balance of opinion out there at any point in time. It can be made better or it can be made worse. Making it worse means that hundreds or thousands more people decide to employ themselves as cannon fodder in attacks against US interests.
That is expensive. There is a real cost to marching around like a bull in a china shop, it isn’t a kumba-ya let’s all be friends thing at least.
[quote]The US has done more for Muslims in the past 50 years than all the Arab countries combined, be it foreign aid to Egypt or blood and treasure spilled in Bosnia. Is my point to suggest that the US has a perfect record for making the world happy? No. My point is that we can never ‘do enough’ to counter the pathology that breeds Islamic terrorism.
The problem is not an overbearing West. It is a sick culture and its pathology is self-inflicted.[/quote]
You do make a good point, but at the same time it does depend a bit on how far you go back in history. The west played a large role in propping up regimes or before that carving out little empires.
The fact that the US may do a lot for these places isn’t really the point. These actions are often bargaining chips in diplomacy. Whether or not they are even seen as beneficial by the bottom level citizens is something to think about. Whether or not that has ever been the purpose of such gifts is also something to think about.
I presume you meant islamofascists? Anyhow, the number of islamofascists tomorrow is not the same as the number today. I think it is short sighted to imagine we can actually find them and kill them all and declare an end to the war on terror.
That is not how it will end. You may feel that I have nothing to offer with respect to finding that end, but I submit that something needs to be found, and it has to be something other than simply throwing away lives until everyone is dead.
By the way, I’ve said before, I’m all for covert action to eliminate terrorists, people that train terrorists, schools that twist the religion into one hatred and so on. These steps don’t have to be all military either… with the amount of money being spent on war, redirecting some to long term plans, countering some of the situations currently in place, may help lead to a long term solution.
I consider a long term solution one in which the elements of muslim society that are taught and brainwashed with islamofacism are so small in number that they cannot organize or conduct acts of terrorism in any type of sustained or managed effort.
Keep in mind, with today’s weapons, even a lone person is dangerous – so limiting the number of dangerous angry people is simply a good thing. Wiping out nations is probably not going to eliminate unhappy people. It does not eliminate the danger. It may eliminate state sponsorship, or the possibility of it, but again, the state is not what we ultimately have to fear.
It is very small groups of people who are very angry and willing to kill themselves to do something about it. Do you really think you can have a war against that and “win”?
This is a television clip from ABCNews in 1999 discussing ties between OBL and Saddam Hussein.
It includes information on yellowcake and giving sanctuary to known terrorists.
I recommend scrolling down into the comments section and clicking on the “Link” in the one of the comments to get the version with both visual and lack of narration.
I was having a discussion with deansumo in another thread when he directed me to some purportedly anti-war evidence.
I ran across this statement from bin laden dated 2003:
"While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam’s secular “socialist” government had lost credibility.
“Socialists are infidels wherever they are,” the statement said. But it added: “It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”
“While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam’s secular “socialist” government had lost credibility.”
Well, as I said earlier, it took a hell of a lot more for OBL - an insane Sunni fanatic - to overcome a bloody and millenium-old rivalry with a Shi-ite organization (Hezbollah) in the name of combining terror power.
I doubt the fact that Saddam’s ‘secularism’ - although peculiarly, when attacked by the US, Saddam called for jihad, not very secularist of him - would stand in the way of OBL’s grand plan. If OBL can work with a Shi’ite, he can work with a pseudo-secular Sunni.
Vroom - haven’t forgot about you, short on time, and I’ll respond later.
