[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
For RJ : i may be incorrect but based on some of your other posts you seem to be one of the cheerleaders for this effort.
Are you going to tell us that going into iraq in the first place was a good idea? Or less strongly, that going into iraq based on " what we knew at the time " that it was a good idea[/quote]
Is that all you guys ask? Sound like my intolerable in-laws.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Which part of Clinton being a corporate hack doesn’t everybody understand? If you are going to use a Leftist as an example, don’t use Clinton, who was by far the most traitorous “Democrat” I’ve ever seen. Maybe with the exception of Liebermen.”
Strange. But, for the sake of argument, I’ll let it lie.
“I hope they have some sort of democratic government. But you guys are fools if you believe that they are not going to evolve into a hardline Islamic state.”
Maybe. But, I suppose I am a fool.
“When it comes down to it, yes, I hope things work out, for their sake. But I simply don’t look at it so optimistically.
Either way, that does not make this war, or any war so blatantly fought over money, more noble.”
Uh oh, I smell Halliburton. Or was it
“War over oil.” I try to keep up with the “truth.”
“So do I still hate George II and everyone who voted for this damned war? Yes. Will that end if Iraq ends up having a democracy? No.”
At least you are honest about your uncompromising hatred. I respect honesty.
“Why? Because America could give a flying fuck about “spreading democracy”.”
The Revolution/World War I/World War II/Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War I/Gulf War II.
“Spreading democracy is the only decent thing that we can claim about this war, as every other premise has failed.”
So wrong. See deterrance. libya (relinquishing weapons), Pakistan killing/capturing terrorists, elections/captures in Saudi, serious discomfort of syria/iran, etc…
“There is bullshit and lies everywhere in the streets of Washington.”
Who shot jfk? I’ll ask it, since you appear to have all the “real” answers.
JeffR
[/quote]
Lol. I am really begining to think that the Republican party knows how many people look around this site everyday, and they put you in here as a mouthpiece. So if you are going to address FahD with such an intelligent nickname, then I am simply going to call you “Rush”.
Now, Rush, address the issues with something other than “Maybe’s” and “NO!”
So this is a dead horse, I understand. But yes, between Halliburton, all the oil, Bush being an oilman, and all the other fun shit that stinks around the White House, you have no right to belittle someone who looks at this war as more of the US trying to get a strong prescence in the Middle East rather than yourn happy little “spreading of Democracy”. So Rush, you in fact are the sheep- you never even bother to remotely critiscize your government or your King, as I have seen many others do. Which is why you are on the lowest level of political thinking.
The Revolution was about getting our own government and making our own kind.
World War I was about saving democracy? Prove it. Prove that that war 1) had anything remotely to do with the US and 2) rich men didn’t get richer by selling weapons to BOTH SIDES at the same time. Prove that we had any stake in that war. As far as I recollect, all the ruling classes were related to each other in some fashion- the Csar’s family to the English and German rulers.
“In 1914, Britain and Germany went to war. A wave of hostility to all things German or merely foreign reached as far as George, whose cousins included Csar Nicholas II of Russia as well as Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. The last straw was H G Wells’ denunciation of George’s ‘alien and uninspiring court’. ‘I may be uninspiring but I’ll be damned if I’m an alien,’ George retorted. To demonstrate his Britishness he abandoned the name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from Prince Albert, and chose the quintessentially English ‘Windsor’.”
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/georgev.html
Hmmm…Rush sure sounds like…well, defending monarchies to me. Where was that Democracy again?
World War II was a defense against psychotic fascism, as was the Korean War- both involved the attempts to overthrow free nations by totalitarian regimes. In neiter did we “spread democracy” by attacking and overthrowing a soverign nation.
Vietnam…do you really want to go into Vietnam? That was not spreading democracy- it was crushing it. The people decided who they wanted to run their country- we set up Diem and the ARVN because we didn’t want Vietnam to rule themselves.
Were you aware that, "On Sept. 2, 1945, in the square in Hanoi where his body now rests, Ho Chi Minh faced a crowd of a half million people, and, having checked his translation with an American OSS officer, proclaimed Vietnam’s independence in the words of the American declaration of national soverignity. “All men are created equal. THe creator has given us certain invioble rights: the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness”.
And that was the last help he got from the US- even after Britain rearmed French POW’s and participated in a coup against the Viet Minh Executive Committee. Ho Chi Minh then sent letters to President Truman attempting to have the US assert Vietnam’s Independence against the Chinese, and later, the French, when they landed at Haiphong Harbor on March 8, 1946, to reimpose colonial rule over Vietnam. The US never answered his letters, and the war followed, ending with DienBienPhu in 1954. (The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990 , Marilyn Young, 1991).
Sure sounds like spreading democracy, huh Rush? Turning your back on a country that helped you in WWII, only to have them turned back over to a colonial empire, even when WE promised them independence?
What about Chile, with Allende in 1973? Were we supporting democracy then? Pol Pot? Nicaragua? Where?
Prove me wrong.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Which part of Clinton being a corporate hack doesn’t everybody understand? If you are going to use a Leftist as an example, don’t use Clinton, who was by far the most traitorous “Democrat” I’ve ever seen. Maybe with the exception of Liebermen.”
Strange. But, for the sake of argument, I’ll let it lie.
“I hope they have some sort of democratic government. But you guys are fools if you believe that they are not going to evolve into a hardline Islamic state.”
Maybe. But, I suppose I am a fool.
“When it comes down to it, yes, I hope things work out, for their sake. But I simply don’t look at it so optimistically.
Either way, that does not make this war, or any war so blatantly fought over money, more noble.”
Uh oh, I smell Halliburton. Or was it
“War over oil.” I try to keep up with the “truth.”
“So do I still hate George II and everyone who voted for this damned war? Yes. Will that end if Iraq ends up having a democracy? No.”
At least you are honest about your uncompromising hatred. I respect honesty.
“Why? Because America could give a flying fuck about “spreading democracy”.”
The Revolution/World War I/World War II/Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War I/Gulf War II.
“Spreading democracy is the only decent thing that we can claim about this war, as every other premise has failed.”
So wrong. See deterrance. libya (relinquishing weapons), Pakistan killing/capturing terrorists, elections/captures in Saudi, serious discomfort of syria/iran, etc…
“There is bullshit and lies everywhere in the streets of Washington.”
Who shot jfk? I’ll ask it, since you appear to have all the “real” answers.
JeffR
Lol. I am really begining to think that the Republican party knows how many people look around this site everyday, and they put you in here as a mouthpiece. So if you are going to address FahD with such an intelligent nickname, then I am simply going to call you “Rush”.
Now, Rush, address the issues with something other than “Maybe’s” and “NO!”
So this is a dead horse, I understand. But yes, between Halliburton, all the oil, Bush being an oilman, and all the other fun shit that stinks around the White House, you have no right to belittle someone who looks at this war as more of the US trying to get a strong prescence in the Middle East rather than yourn happy little “spreading of Democracy”. So Rush, you in fact are the sheep- you never even bother to remotely critiscize your government or your King, as I have seen many others do. Which is why you are on the lowest level of political thinking.
The Revolution was about getting our own government and making our own kind.
World War I was about saving democracy? Prove it. Prove that that war 1) had anything remotely to do with the US and 2) rich men didn’t get richer by selling weapons to BOTH SIDES at the same time. Prove that we had any stake in that war. As far as I recollect, all the ruling classes were related to each other in some fashion- the Csar’s family to the English and German rulers.
“In 1914, Britain and Germany went to war. A wave of hostility to all things German or merely foreign reached as far as George, whose cousins included Csar Nicholas II of Russia as well as Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. The last straw was H G Wells’ denunciation of George’s ‘alien and uninspiring court’. ‘I may be uninspiring but I’ll be damned if I’m an alien,’ George retorted. To demonstrate his Britishness he abandoned the name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, inherited from Prince Albert, and chose the quintessentially English ‘Windsor’.”
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/georgev.html
Hmmm…Rush sure sounds like…well, defending monarchies to me. Where was that Democracy again?
World War II was a defense against psychotic fascism, as was the Korean War- both involved the attempts to overthrow free nations by totalitarian regimes. In neiter did we “spread democracy” by attacking and overthrowing a soverign nation.
Vietnam…do you really want to go into Vietnam? That was not spreading democracy- it was crushing it. The people decided who they wanted to run their country- we set up Diem and the ARVN because we didn’t want Vietnam to rule themselves.
Were you aware that, "On Sept. 2, 1945, in the square in Hanoi where his body now rests, Ho Chi Minh faced a crowd of a half million people, and, having checked his translation with an American OSS officer, proclaimed Vietnam’s independence in the words of the American declaration of national soverignity. “All men are created equal. THe creator has given us certain invioble rights: the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness”.
And that was the last help he got from the US- even after Britain rearmed French POW’s and participated in a coup against the Viet Minh Executive Committee. Ho Chi Minh then sent letters to President Truman attempting to have the US assert Vietnam’s Independence against the Chinese, and later, the French, when they landed at Haiphong Harbor on March 8, 1946, to reimpose colonial rule over Vietnam. The US never answered his letters, and the war followed, ending with DienBienPhu in 1954. (The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990 , Marilyn Young, 1991).
Sure sounds like spreading democracy, huh Rush? Turning your back on a country that helped you in WWII, only to have them turned back over to a colonial empire, even when WE promised them independence?
What about Chile, with Allende in 1973? Were we supporting democracy then? Pol Pot? Nicaragua? Where?
Prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Good post, Irish. It still amazes me that the Bush cheerleaders think anyone is buying that this war is for principle. No war has ever been fought for principle. Money, power, and religion (in that order) are why all wars (including this one) are fought.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
“Yes, they would. The war was largely waged on false pretenses. And the future is precarious. But this is still good news, no matter how you look at it!”
I wanted to tell you that I do think you are one of the more reasonable lefties.
However, I disagree strongly with the “largely waged on false pretenses comment.”
[/quote]
Thanks. But I’m not a lefty. There were many reasons to go in. And perhaps there are legitimate concerns with terrorism (but no more than other countries I might add, and less than some). However, I still wholeheartedly feel that the administration trumped up whatever connections existed and made WMDs the selling point without properly investigating, downplayed other legitimate reasons, and only emphasized them after things didn’t pan out the way they professed. I woudldn’t say it’s so much a Republican thing, though I do think it is particuarly characteristic of this administration compared to past ones of either party, so much as a government thing. The government has a habit of selling its agenda and paternallisticly exagerating the reason it thinks will garner the most public support rather than providing objective infomrormation and articulating all valid reasons. Whatever side it comes from, I resent it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Here is an interesting article by a WSJ reporter who just joined the Marines, at age 31. Interesting guy and a different perspective on how to make a difference.
Mightier Than the Pen
Why I gave up journalism to join the Marines.
BY MATT POTTINGER
Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
When people ask why I recently left The Wall Street Journal to join the Marines, I usually have a short answer. It felt like the time had come to stop reporting events and get more directly involved. But that’s not the whole answer, and how I got to this point wasn’t a straight line.
It’s a clich? that you appreciate your own country more when you live abroad, but it happens to be true. Living in China for the last seven years, I’ve seen that country take a giant leap from a struggling Third World country into a true world power. For many people it still comes as a surprise to learn that China is chasing Japan as the second-largest economy on the globe and could soon own a trillion dollars of American debt.
But living in China also shows you what a nondemocratic country can do to its citizens. I’ve seen protesters tackled and beaten by plainclothes police in Tiananmen Square, and I’ve been videotaped by government agents while I was talking to a source. I’ve been arrested and forced to flush my notes down a toilet to keep the police from getting them, and I’ve been punched in the face in a Beijing Starbucks by a government goon who was trying to keep me from investigating a Chinese company’s sale of nuclear fuel to other countries.
When you live abroad long enough, you come to understand that governments that behave this way are not the exception, but the rule. They feel alien to us, but from the viewpoint of the world’s population, we are the aliens, not them. That makes you think about protecting your country no matter who you are or what you’re doing. What impresses you most, when you don’t have them day to day, are the institutions that distinguish the U.S.: the separation of powers, a free press, the right to vote, and a culture that values civic duty and service, to name but a few.
I’m not an uncritical, rah-rah American. Living abroad has sharpened my view of what’s wrong with my country, too. It’s obvious that we need to reinvent ourselves in various ways, but we should also be allowed to do it from within, not according to someone else’s dictates.
But why the Marines?
A year ago, I was at my sister’s house using her husband’s laptop when I came across a video of an American in Iraq being beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The details are beyond description here; let’s just say it was obscene. At first I admit I felt a touch of the terror they wanted me to feel, but then I felt the anger they didn’t. We often talk about how our policies are radicalizing young men in the Middle East to become our enemies, but rarely do we talk about how their actions are radicalizing us. In a brief moment of revulsion, sitting there in that living room, I became their blowback.
Of course, a single emotional moment does not justify a career change, and that’s not what happened to me. The next day I went to lunch at the Council on Foreign Relations where I happened to meet a Marine Corps colonel who’d just come back from Iraq. He gave me a no-nonsense assessment of what was happening there, but what got to me most was his description of how the Marines behaved and how they looked after each other in a hostile world. That struck me as a metaphor for how America should be in the world at large, and it also appealed to me on a personal level. At one point I said half-jokingly that, being 31 years old, it was a shame I was too old to serve. He sat back for a second and said, “I think I’ve still gotcha.”
The next morning I found myself roaming around the belly of the USS Intrepid, a World War II aircraft carrier museum moored a few blocks from Times Square, looking for a Marine recruiting station and thinking I’d probably lost my marbles. The officer-selection officer wasn’t impressed with my age, my Chinese language abilities or the fact that I worked for one of the great newspapers of the world. His only question was, “How’s your endurance?”
Well, I can sit at my desk for 12 hours straight. Fourteen if I have a bag of Reese’s.
He said if I wanted a shot at this I’d have to ace the physical fitness test, where a perfect score consisted of 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches in two minutes, and a three-mile run in 18 minutes. Essentially he was telling me to pack it in and go home. After assuring him I didn’t have a criminal record or any tattoos, either of which would have required yet another waiver (my age already required the first), I took an application and went back to China.
Then came the Asian tsunami last December.
I was scrambled to Thailand, where thousands of people had died in the wave. After days in the midst of the devastation, I pulled back to Thailand’s Utapao Air Force Base, at one time a U.S. staging area for bombing runs over Hanoi, to write a story on the U.S.-led relief efforts. The abandoned base was now bustling with air traffic and military personnel, and the man in charge was a Marine.
Warfare and relief efforts, as it turns out, involve many skills in common. In both cases, it’s 80% preparation and logistics and only a small percent of actual battle. What these guys were doing was the same thing they did in a war zone, except now the tip of the spear wasn’t weapons, but food, water and medicine. It was a major operation to save people’s lives, and it was clear that no other country in the world could do what they were doing. Once again, I was bumping into the U.S. Marines, and once again I was impressed.
The day before I left Thailand I decided to do my first physical training and see what happened. I started running and was winded in five minutes. The air quality in downtown Bangkok didn’t help, but the biggest problem was me. I ducked into Lumpini Park in the heart of the city where I was chased around by a three-foot monitor lizard that ran faster than I did. At one point I found a playground jungle gym and managed to do half a pull-up. That’s all.
I got back to Beijing and started running several days a week. Along the way I met a Marine who was studying in Beijing on a fellowship and started training with him. Pretty soon I filled out the application I’d taken from New York, got letters of recommendation from old professors and mentors, and received a letter from a senior Marine officer who took a leap of faith on my behalf.
I made a quick trip back to New York in April to take a preliminary physical fitness test with the recruitment officer at the USS Intrepid. By then I could do 13 pull-ups, all my crunches, and a three-mile run along the West Side Highway in a little under 21 minutes, all in all a mediocre performance that was barely passable. When I was done, the officer told me to wipe the foam off my mouth, but I did him one better and puked all over the tarmac. He liked that a lot. That’s when we both knew I was going for it.
Friends ask if I worry about going from a life of independent thought and action to a life of hierarchy and teamwork. At the moment, I find that appealing because it means being part of something bigger than I am. As for how different it’s going to be, that, too, has its appeal because it’s the opposite of what I’ve been doing up to now. Why should I do something that’s a “natural fit” with what I already do? Why shouldn’t I try to expand myself?
In a way, I see the Marines as a microcosm of America at its best. Their focus isn’t on weapons and tactics, but on leadership. That’s the whole point of the Marines. They care about each other in good times and bad, they’ve always had to fight for their existence–even Harry Truman saw them as nothing more than the “Navy’s police force”–and they have the strength of their traditions. Their future, like the country’s, is worth fighting for. I hope to be part of the effort.
Mr. Pottinger, until recently a Journal correspondent in China, is scheduled to be commissioned a second lieutenant tomorrow. He spent the last three months at Officer Candidates School in Quantico, Va. As of early December, his three-mile run was down to 18 minutes and 15 seconds.
[/quote]
Interesting article Hedo. Very cool.
Three miles in 18.25 minutes at 31 is impressive too!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Estimates are between 67% and 73% voter turnout.
And we are cheerleading if we actually see this as an incredibly wonderful thing.
Call me a cheerleader then. [/quote]
Yea, that turnout is better than in this country.
irish:
“Lol. I am really begining to think that the Republican party knows how many people look around this site everyday, and they put you in here as a mouthpiece.”
Personally, I think the Republicans are PAYING YOU!!! Every post drives the nail further into the coffin of the dems.
“So if you are going to address FahD with such an intelligent nickname, then I am simply going to call you “Rush”.”
What nickname did I address him with again?
I just complimented him on HIS OWN AVATAR. He changed it (I noticed).
“Now, Rush, address the issues with something other than “Maybe’s” and “NO!””
Rush?
“So this is a dead horse, I understand. But yes, between Halliburton, all the oil, Bush being an oilman, and all the other fun shit that stinks around the White House, you have no right to belittle someone who looks at this war as more of the US trying to get a strong prescence in the Middle East rather than yourn happy little “spreading of Democracy”.”
I’m going to ask you to expand your mind a bit. What if (gasp) we could do MORE THAN ONE THING AT THE SAME TIME?
The HORROR!!!
We could remove a direct threat/put a strong presence in the Middle East/protect our oil supplying allies/AND SPREAD DEMOCRACY!!!
“So Rush, you in fact are the sheep- you never even bother to remotely critiscize your government or your King, as I have seen many others do. Which is why you are on the lowest level of political thinking.”
Really? That’s a nice little sound-bite.
Ladies and Gentleman, would anyone else like to make the statement that I never criticise George W. Bush?
Good luck. I can, of course look back to very recent history and repost my criticism, if you would like.
“The Revolution was about getting our own government and making our own kind.”
What kind of Government would that be, pray tell?
What were we inventing and trying to spread?
“World War I was about saving democracy? Prove it.”
I’ll make it nice and succinct.
Here is President Wilson calling for the declaration of War:
“The world must be made safe for democracy.”
“Prove that that war 1) had anything remotely to do with the US”
See unrestricted submarine warfare.
“and 2) rich men didn’t get richer by selling weapons to BOTH SIDES at the same time.”
See every single war, ever.
“Prove that we had any stake in that war.”
Oh, freedom from domination, ability to conduct commerce, german agents in Mexico.
“As far as I recollect, all the ruling classes were related to each other in some fashion- the Csar’s family to the English and German rulers.”
I don’t think Wilson was related. I could be wrong.
“Hmmm…Rush sure sounds like…well, defending monarchies to me. Where was that Democracy again?”
Rush?
Oh, see above. It’s really not ok to torpedo our citizens on the high seas. Wars start that way.
“World War II was a defense against psychotic fascism, as was the Korean War- both involved the attempts to overthrow free nations by totalitarian regimes.”
Really? Please ask some Germans who lived during the period whether they think they don’t live in a Democracy now. Or France, Belgium, Holland, Norway etc… You do know, of course, that circa 1940 these countries were under a FACIST GOVERNMENT. I would, of course, say that spreading Democracy TO GERMANY AT THE LEAST was on their mind.
“In neiter did we “spread democracy” by attacking and overthrowing a soverign nation.”
Germany? Italy? Japan?
You could, of course, make the statement that there were plenty of people (aka MacArthuer) who advocated spreading freedom through North Korea and into China.
“Vietnam…do you really want to go into Vietnam? That was not spreading democracy- it was crushing it.”
Really? Any Vietnam Veterans here think they were fighting to “crush democracy?”
Hint: I think they were trying to spread Democracy/protect Democracy against Communism. It’s just a guess.
“The people decided who they wanted to run their country- we set up Diem and the ARVN because we didn’t want Vietnam to rule themselves.”
Um?
"Were you aware that, “On Sept. 2, 1945, in the square in Hanoi where his body now rests, Ho Chi Minh faced a crowd of a half million people, and, having checked his translation with an American OSS officer, proclaimed Vietnam’s independence in the words of the American declaration of national soverignity. “All men are created equal. THe creator has given us certain invioble rights: the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness”.”
I’m sorry, are you saying that the main ho was trully interested in Democracy?
You do know, of course, that he was a DEDICATED COMMUNIST!!! Please read just how he studied jlesk’s pal, marx. Oh, how much fun he had with Chinese/Soviet Arms. Oh, a Communist Building we will go. Wait, he wouldn’t have hummed a vaguely religious theme.
I’m all ears.
“And that was the last help he got from the US- even after Britain rearmed French POW’s and participated in a coup against the Viet Minh Executive Committee. Ho Chi Minh then sent letters to President Truman attempting to have the US assert Vietnam’s Independence against the Chinese, and later, the French, when they landed at Haiphong Harbor on March 8, 1946, to reimpose colonial rule over Vietnam. The US never answered his letters, and the war followed, ending with DienBienPhu in 1954. (The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990 , Marilyn Young, 1991).”
Maybe we weren’t interested in establishing a KNOWN COMMUNIST SO ALLIED WITH CHINA/SOVIETS. You do know (with the exception of jlesk’s parents) we considered communism to be a bad idea?
I’m having fun!!!
“Sure sounds like spreading democracy, huh Rush? Turning your back on a country that helped you in WWII, only to have them turned back over to a colonial empire, even when WE promised them independence?”
Um, what? You are a riot.
“What about Chile, with Allende in 1973? Were we supporting democracy then? Pol Pot? Nicaragua? Where?”
First of all, I didn’t mention those countries. Maybe tomorrow, I’ll continue the lesson.
“Prove me wrong.”
It might be a good idea to pick your opponents a little more carefully. If the most leftist liberals call someone (me) ignorant, you can bet the house that you are about to get smacked around.
JeffR
Yeah, he’s a genuine Internet tough guy to boot!
The fun never stops…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
irish:
“Lol. I am really begining to think that the Republican party knows how many people look around this site everyday, and they put you in here as a mouthpiece.”
Personally, I think the Republicans are PAYING YOU!!! Every post drives the nail further into the coffin of the dems.
“So if you are going to address FahD with such an intelligent nickname, then I am simply going to call you “Rush”.”
What nickname did I address him with again?
I just complimented him on HIS OWN AVATAR. He changed it (I noticed).
“Now, Rush, address the issues with something other than “Maybe’s” and “NO!””
Rush?
“So this is a dead horse, I understand. But yes, between Halliburton, all the oil, Bush being an oilman, and all the other fun shit that stinks around the White House, you have no right to belittle someone who looks at this war as more of the US trying to get a strong prescence in the Middle East rather than yourn happy little “spreading of Democracy”.”
I’m going to ask you to expand your mind a bit. What if (gasp) we could do MORE THAN ONE THING AT THE SAME TIME?
The HORROR!!!
We could remove a direct threat/put a strong presence in the Middle East/protect our oil supplying allies/AND SPREAD DEMOCRACY!!!
“So Rush, you in fact are the sheep- you never even bother to remotely critiscize your government or your King, as I have seen many others do. Which is why you are on the lowest level of political thinking.”
Really? That’s a nice little sound-bite.
Ladies and Gentleman, would anyone else like to make the statement that I never criticise George W. Bush?
Good luck. I can, of course look back to very recent history and repost my criticism, if you would like.
“The Revolution was about getting our own government and making our own kind.”
What kind of Government would that be, pray tell?
What were we inventing and trying to spread?
“World War I was about saving democracy? Prove it.”
I’ll make it nice and succinct.
Here is President Wilson calling for the declaration of War:
“The world must be made safe for democracy.”
“Prove that that war 1) had anything remotely to do with the US”
See unrestricted submarine warfare.
“and 2) rich men didn’t get richer by selling weapons to BOTH SIDES at the same time.”
See every single war, ever.
“Prove that we had any stake in that war.”
Oh, freedom from domination, ability to conduct commerce, german agents in Mexico.
“As far as I recollect, all the ruling classes were related to each other in some fashion- the Csar’s family to the English and German rulers.”
I don’t think Wilson was related. I could be wrong.
“Hmmm…Rush sure sounds like…well, defending monarchies to me. Where was that Democracy again?”
Rush?
Oh, see above. It’s really not ok to torpedo our citizens on the high seas. Wars start that way.
“World War II was a defense against psychotic fascism, as was the Korean War- both involved the attempts to overthrow free nations by totalitarian regimes.”
Really? Please ask some Germans who lived during the period whether they think they don’t live in a Democracy now. Or France, Belgium, Holland, Norway etc… You do know, of course, that circa 1940 these countries were under a FACIST GOVERNMENT. I would, of course, say that spreading Democracy TO GERMANY AT THE LEAST was on their mind.
“In neiter did we “spread democracy” by attacking and overthrowing a soverign nation.”
Germany? Italy? Japan?
You could, of course, make the statement that there were plenty of people (aka MacArthuer) who advocated spreading freedom through North Korea and into China.
“Vietnam…do you really want to go into Vietnam? That was not spreading democracy- it was crushing it.”
Really? Any Vietnam Veterans here think they were fighting to “crush democracy?”
Hint: I think they were trying to spread Democracy/protect Democracy against Communism. It’s just a guess.
“The people decided who they wanted to run their country- we set up Diem and the ARVN because we didn’t want Vietnam to rule themselves.”
Um?
"Were you aware that, “On Sept. 2, 1945, in the square in Hanoi where his body now rests, Ho Chi Minh faced a crowd of a half million people, and, having checked his translation with an American OSS officer, proclaimed Vietnam’s independence in the words of the American declaration of national soverignity. “All men are created equal. THe creator has given us certain invioble rights: the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness”.”
I’m sorry, are you saying that the main ho was trully interested in Democracy?
You do know, of course, that he was a DEDICATED COMMUNIST!!! Please read just how he studied jlesk’s pal, marx. Oh, how much fun he had with Chinese/Soviet Arms. Oh, a Communist Building we will go. Wait, he wouldn’t have hummed a vaguely religious theme.
I’m all ears.
“And that was the last help he got from the US- even after Britain rearmed French POW’s and participated in a coup against the Viet Minh Executive Committee. Ho Chi Minh then sent letters to President Truman attempting to have the US assert Vietnam’s Independence against the Chinese, and later, the French, when they landed at Haiphong Harbor on March 8, 1946, to reimpose colonial rule over Vietnam. The US never answered his letters, and the war followed, ending with DienBienPhu in 1954. (The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990 , Marilyn Young, 1991).”
Maybe we weren’t interested in establishing a KNOWN COMMUNIST SO ALLIED WITH CHINA/SOVIETS. You do know (with the exception of jlesk’s parents) we considered communism to be a bad idea?
I’m having fun!!!
“Sure sounds like spreading democracy, huh Rush? Turning your back on a country that helped you in WWII, only to have them turned back over to a colonial empire, even when WE promised them independence?”
Um, what? You are a riot.
“What about Chile, with Allende in 1973? Were we supporting democracy then? Pol Pot? Nicaragua? Where?”
First of all, I didn’t mention those countries. Maybe tomorrow, I’ll continue the lesson.
“Prove me wrong.”
It might be a good idea to pick your opponents a little more carefully. If the most leftist liberals call someone (me) ignorant, you can bet the house that you are about to get smacked around.
JeffR
[/quote]
Jesus Christ way to go. I wish I could answer posts with little more than, “Um” and “No?”
Gimme a break. You buy into every little bit of cheerleading bullshit propganda the government hands out to you.
Calling you Rush is after the moutpiece that you no doubt idolize, the mighty Rush Limbaugh.
The issues of WWI is the same bullshit rhetoric that has been giving. It was a war between European imperialist countries (that were led by relatives) that we had no business being in. Blatant imperialism on the part of the ruling classes to whip up some nationalism during socialism’s rise. Little more. Woodrow Wilson spewed the same bullshit rhetoric that Bush spews today. Little has changed.
We conducted business with both sides, there was no threat of “domination” as you claim. Germany was drawn into that war, even though they did not start it. Read some histories books, Christ. There was no threat to the US.
We only attacked the Axis in WWII after they had invaded several nations and attacked Hawaii. There was no “pre-emptive invasion” against these nations-even let them take half of the world before we decided to do something. That was the only war where we protected the world from destruction, and even then we did not rush in like George II has.
Now you seriously neeed to read up on Vietnam. The Vietnamese loved Ho Chi Minh- they knew if they ran free elections, that he would win. And we didn’t want that.
And if you knew some fucking history, you would know that the Vietnamese communists put nationalism temporarily over class in order to try to get their own country, and wrest it away from colonial domination.
Not too mention of course, that China has been a historic enemy of Vietnam, and so the Vietnamese Communist movement directly coincided with resistance to the Chinese communism, because of their history. So, in fact, it would have been better to support the North if we really wanted to oppose Communist China, as they were vehemently anti-China. Ho Chi Minh was interested in the welfare of Vietnam overall. And that is why they idolized him, and fought the greatest superpower in the world, and won their freedom.
But then I’m sure you knew that, because you answered with, "I’m having fun!!!, “Um, what? You are a riot”, and “Um”…and then you scream but "Ho was a Communist! He ate puppies and killed Santa and murdered babies …Why? CAUSE HE’S A COMMUNIST!
Gimme a fucking break. Yea, you didn’t mention Pol Pot, Nicaragua, or Chile. How fucking coincidental.
"It might be a good idea to pick your opponents a little more carefully. If the most leftist liberals call someone (me) ignorant, you can bet the house that you are about to get smacked around. "
Yea really I’m in terrible fear of classic bullshit propaganda and a fleet of ‘Um’s’. Your argument skills go unmatched, let me tell you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It might be a good idea to pick your opponents a little more carefully. If the most leftist liberals call someone (me) ignorant, you can bet the house that you are about to get smacked around.
[/quote]
JeffR, you always make me laugh when you don’t mean to. Try not to do that next time, you internet tough guy.
irish,
I look forward to your next little rant!!!
However, I must warn you, your ignorance is being noted by europeans.
I’m sure you are aware that they accuse us of being “dumb Americans.”
Can’t you see the ammo you are giving them?
Anyway, let the games begin!!!
“Jesus Christ way to go. I wish I could answer posts with little more than, “Um” and “No?””
Sorry, some of your comments are so nonsensical that they don’t deserve anything more.
“Gimme a break. You buy into every little bit of cheerleading bullshit propganda the government hands out to you.”
Really? As opposed to being ignorant of the supposed “facts” you type?
I’d rather be a cheerleader than some dink championing ho’s.
“Calling you Rush is after the moutpiece that you no doubt idolize, the mighty Rush Limbaugh.”
He swings, he misses!!!
“The issues of WWI is the same bullshit rhetoric that has been giving.”
A sentence should have a subject.
“It was a war between European imperialist countries (that were led by relatives) that we had no business being in.”
Ok, edgar. I’ll try again. THE GERMANS WERE TORPEDOING AMERICANS ON THE OPEN SEA. UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE!!!
There are two possibilities: Either you cannot read, or you think killing innocent Americans is ok. Which is it?
“Blatant imperialism on the part of the ruling classes to whip up some nationalism during socialism’s rise.”
I feel an “um” coming on. Since that makes you foam at the mouth, I’ll ask you whether the Kaiser was a communist? How about George V? I do recall a little waif-like poster making commentary recently about the war being “fought to protect the monarchy.”
There is a kind of stroke where people speak in nonsensical sentences. I believe doctors call that speech “word salad.”
Do you remember phrases like, “World War One was fought to protect the monarchies” followed directly by: the War was fought to “whip up some nationalism during socalism’s rise” and throw them out at random times?
Have you had a stroke?
“Little more. Woodrow Wilson spewed the same bullshit rhetoric that Bush spews today. Little has changed.”
You know what, the speeches and the stakes ARE eerily familar!!!
Here is Woodrow declaring War in 1917 (who would have guessed that I would be agreeing with a democrat!!!)
“I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of non-combatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be. The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.”
Here is W after 9/11:
“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars – but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war – but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks – but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day – and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.”
I must ask you this: isn’t attacks on our citizens enough justification for war?
“We conducted business with both sides, there was no threat of “domination” as you claim. Germany was drawn into that war, even though they did not start it. Read some histories books, Christ. There was no threat to the US.”
S L O W and E A S Y: S U B M A R I N E!
“We only attacked the Axis in WWII after they had invaded several nations and attacked Hawaii. There was no “pre-emptive invasion” against these nations-even let them take half of the world before we decided to do something.”
So wrong!!! Please look up Lend-Lease. You will also find Roosevelt splitting up the zones of influence in the Atlantic with Churchill.
Oh, see torpedoed American destroyer BEFORE WAR WAS DECLARED.
Many people far more intellingent that you (aka…most people) have postulated that Roosevelt put Americans in harm’s way to push Americans into a war that had to be fought. He was right (Damn!!! There I go defending a democrat again!!!)
“That was the only war where we protected the world from destruction, and even then we did not rush in like George II has.”
Ok, little fella. I need you to clarify that. I assume you mean “rush in” as in Iraq. If so, there are quite a few Coalition pilots who had their asses singed by Iraqi missles over the No-Fly zone who would contend that the first Gulf War never ended. Oh, check the number of years that entailed.
Oh, also, how many years between Case White (September 1st, 1939) and Pearl?
Does two sound about right?
Slow and E A S Y. Twelve versus two.
Which one was a “rush to war?”
“Now you seriously neeed to read up on Vietnam. The Vietnamese loved Ho Chi Minh- they knew if they ran free elections, that he would win. And we didn’t want that.”
Really? Do you contend that the South Vietnamese loved your pal ho?
Enlighten me.
“And if you knew some fucking history,”
Can’t help it: “um?”
“you would know that the Vietnamese communists put nationalism temporarily over class in order to try to get their own country, and wrest it away from colonial domination.”
Jesus, that’s ridiculous. Does anyone else think that irish’s main ho wasn’t a communist through and through?
I had hoped you’d read before responding. I’m disappointed (but not surprised).
Nice and succint: your pal studied marx in France, became one of the founding members of the communist party in france, exiled to china, kicked out of china (30’s) for being communist, went to the soviet union (continued communist activities), returned to china to train communist troops, on and on and on and on and on.
communist=bad. ho=communist. ho=bad.
“Not too mention of course, that China has been a historic enemy of Vietnam, and so the Vietnamese Communist movement directly coincided with resistance to the Chinese communism, because of their history.”
Are you saying that communist china didn’t end up supporting ho chi minh?
Maybe you’d like to have a discussion about the support given to your ho from jlesk’s pal, mao?
“So, in fact, it would have been better to support the North if we really wanted to oppose Communist China, as they were vehemently anti-China.”
That is patently false.
Any Vietnam Vets here like to chime in on facing Chinese equipment?
You really ought to stop this.
Don’t believe me? Try googling “China support Vietnam War.”
“Ho Chi Minh was interested in the welfare of Vietnam overall.”
I’d probably say, your pal was more interested in COMMUNISM. However, you may have a better understanding of his mind. I’m guessing due to his lifetime of communist training in france, china, vietnam, and the soviet union that he was more interested in advancing communist dogma than in the everyday lives of the vietnamese.
It is a little sick how you are defending this guy.
“And that is why they idolized him, and fought the greatest superpower in the world, and won their freedom.”
That borders on more hero worship.
"But then I’m sure you knew that, because you answered with, "I’m having fun!!!, “Um, what? You are a riot”, and “Um”…and then you scream but “Ho was a Communist! He ate puppies and killed Santa and murdered babies …Why? CAUSE HE’S A COMMUNIST!”
Direct question: Do you know the number of people killed in the twentieth century under communist regimes?
If you do not, look it up. Get ready for one HELL OF A SHOCK.
“Gimme a fucking break. Yea, you didn’t mention Pol Pot, Nicaragua, or Chile. How fucking coincidental.”
I am still responding to the tenets of your first badly misinformed post. Honestly, I don’t have the time to educate you on all of these issues.
"It might be a good idea to pick your opponents a little more carefully. If the most leftist liberals call someone (me) ignorant, you can bet the house that you are about to get smacked around. "
“Yea really I’m in terrible fear of classic bullshit propaganda and a fleet of ‘Um’s’. Your argument skills go unmatched, let me tell you.”
I must tell you plainly, irish, it’s sad that you cannot look up some of these events.
I sincerely hope that the europeans skip over your posts.
JeffR
Instead of having national health care, new highways/infrastructure or perhaps a secure southern border and seaports we are pissing away 1 Billion dollars a week so the Iraqis can vote to have Iran part II.
Bankrupting our nation, destroying families of dead/wounded Servicemen and wearing out our jets/helicopters/tanks etc in the desert sand. Just farking brilliant.
[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Instead of having national health care, new highways/infrastructure or perhaps a secure southern border and seaports we are pissing away 1 Billion dollars a week so the Iraqis can vote to have Iran part II.[/quote]
Please tell me at what time since 1993 has there even been serious talk about national healthcare? That is utterly ridiculous. We have the best infrastructure and highway system in the world. I’ll concede the shabby border situation - but to think that the war is keeping us from addressing the border is not accurate.
If you want to be against the war - knock yourself out. I just think your propaganda is a little hard for anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last 15 years to swallow.
Is there a full moon out tonight?
[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Instead of having national health care, new highways/infrastructure or perhaps a secure southern border and seaports we are pissing away 1 Billion dollars a week so the Iraqis can vote to have Iran part II.
Bankrupting our nation, destroying families of dead/wounded Servicemen and wearing out our jets/helicopters/tanks etc in the desert sand. Just farking brilliant.
www.costofwar.com[/quote]
We would have none of these things even if we were not at war. Total lack of logic in your argument.
Perhaps you rethink your position.
So, I suspect this is cause for concern, though elections and widespread turnout are certainly a good sign…
[i]
Partial results from the election suggested the government tasked with taming the violence will be dominated again by Iraq’s main Shi’ite Islamist coalition, at odds with Washington over human rights and ties to Iran.
The coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, may hold on to a slim parliamentary majority despite a big turnout by minority Sunni Arabs who boycotted the last election in January.
The alliance has been criticized by U.S. officials for its record in government this year and by Sunni Arab rebels who accuse it of backing sectarian militias.
The partial results showed the alliance had won 58 percent of the vote in Baghdad against just 14 percent for former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who had been expected to mount a stronger challenge in the capital.
In its southern heartland, site of some of Shi’ite Islam’s holiest shrines, the UIA appeared to have swept the board, and in one province, Maysan, it took over 20 times more votes than its nearest rival.
[/i]
Taken from… http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/pl_nm/iraq_dc
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps you rethink your position.[/quote]
Total lack? We aren’t bankrupting our nation in this war? Have you seen the national debt lately? We are borrowing hand over foot to fund this and we cannot continue this forever.
You are saying we are not wearing out our Military’s equipment in the Desert sand? I suppose Abrams Tank and Apache turbine engines love the sand. It is good for them right? 
I was not against this conflict,(we have not declared war since 1941). I am against the mismanagement and lack of responsibility and forsight that has been shown by the people running it.
[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Total lack? We aren’t bankrupting our nation in this war? Have you seen the national debt lately? We are borrowing hand over foot to fund this and we cannot continue this forever.[/quote]
Yes - total lack of logic. You use non-existent issues to support your position that the U.S. is going broke. We are not going broke. In fact the Treasury brought in more revenue this year than it ever has before in the history of our country.
Spending is out of control, but it is not exclusively the fault of the War.
If you look at the budget - we spend more on entitlements than we do defense spending. 1.33 trillion dollars for entitlements. Defense spending? less than 500 billion. Cost of the war to date? The reference I found placed it at less than 300 billion.
Yes - you logic is very poor. You need to do more than listen to and believe the peacenik talking points.
You are saying we are not wearing out our Military’s equipment in the Desert sand? I suppose Abrams Tank and Apache turbine engines love the sand. It is good for them right?
I was not against this conflict,(we have not declared war since 1941). I am against the mismanagement and lack of responsibility and forsight that has been shown by the people running it. [/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
In fact the Treasury brought in more revenue this year than it ever has before in the history of our country.[/quote]
That is nice but who is buying most of our debt? Communist China. We are borrowing and spending money like a drunk frat boy with his first Mastercard. Intitlements included. Will the real conservatives in our Goverment please stand up?
So has it been worth it so far? Almost near $300 billion and the amount keeps growing everyday. Do you realize how much money that is?
[Quote]You need to do more than listen to and believe the peacenik talking points.
[/quote]
Peacenik talking points? More like common sense. Nice quoting in that last post by the way! It says alot about your “logic” there haha.
[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
That is nice but who is buying most of our debt? Communist China. We are borrowing and spending money like a drunk frat boy with his first Mastercard. Intitlements included. Will the real conservatives in our Goverment please stand up? [/quote]
I’m not talking about revenue from debt. I am referring to tax revenue. People that are willing to buy our bonds only menas that we are not in danger of going broke as you say. We have had debt since the Revolution. It is not a new thing. Nor is it something that should keep people up at night.
I agree 100% that we should reduce spending, but when well over half of our budget is dedicated to entitlement spending (notice the correct spellng), I find it hard to believe that our supposed financial woes are due to the War.
A common sense look at the numbers should make it painfully obvious what is causing the problem. And weren’t you the one crying about how the government is ignoring national healthcare? And you accuse me of faulty logic?
Do you realize how much money 1.33 trillion dollars is? it’s about 4 times more than the entire cost of War since 2001. We spend that on Soc Sec and Welfare, and other entitlements every year. I think there is greater value in paying for war than there is paying for Welfare recipients.
Buddy - you have yet to display any comnmon sense whatsoever. My logic isbacked by facts. Yours is nothing but propaganda. But you are so blinded by what your teacher has told you that you refuse to look at real numbers, and real programs that are doing little more than redistributing wealth.