[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I tend to agree with George. No, not that one…
George Stephanopoulos, in the December 1, 1997 Newsweek, explaining why Bill Clinton should have Saddam Hussein offed:[/quote]
That’s BS. Killing Saddam – assuming we could actually figure out which one of the guys with the furry moustache he was – wouldn’t have accomplished anything. The Baath party would still be in power and he would just be replaced with one of his sons. Or worse.
Killing a leader only accomplishes anything when it’s done from the inside – a la Caesar’s assassination thousands of years ago – because it represents a true intent of the people in power around him/her to change leadership style.
The entire MSM is run by 6 multinational corporations which are decidedly capitalistic which puts them squarely in the conservative camp.
Intellectual dishonesty will allow you to ignore this.[/quote]
I get your point - but the most liberal people I know are the richest people I know.
Perfect example: Senator and possible Governor Corzine of NJ. The fact that the MSM rakes in billions is not evidence of being ‘cosnervative’ any more than Theresa-Heinz Kerry’s mega-bajillions is evidence of her being a Republican.
I wouldn’t go there if I were you, considering your political inclination. May I remind you that it was the Republican party that did everything they could to prevent FDR – the president all right-wingers love to hate – from getting the US involved in WWII for the longest of time? In fact, if it weren’t if the republicans doing such a bang-up job of stopping FDR from doing the right thing, the US would have stepped in much sooner and millions of lives would have been saved.
[/quote]
I tend to side with FDR on this, but a few things.
First, the Democrats of that age were not pacifists, nor were the Republicans. The GOP was dominated by cranky isolationists - big difference.
Second, given your political inclinations, it seems odd that what you have labeled the ‘right thing’ - getting involved in WWII sooner if it weren’t for the isolationist GOP - would be nothing more than a naked pre-emptive strike.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
I get your point - but the most liberal people I know are the richest people I know.
Perfect example: Senator and possible Governor Corzine of NJ. The fact that the MSM rakes in billions is not evidence of being ‘cosnervative’ any more than Theresa-Heinz Kerry’s mega-bajillions is evidence of her being a Republican.[/quote]
Thereas Heinz-Ketchup was a Republican up until 2003.
If you heard her political views, they are not in line with the typical “liberal left”.
I wouldn’t go there if I were you, considering your political inclination. May I remind you that it was the Republican party that did everything they could to prevent FDR – the president all right-wingers love to hate – from getting the US involved in WWII for the longest of time? In fact, if it weren’t if the republicans doing such a bang-up job of stopping FDR from doing the right thing, the US would have stepped in much sooner and millions of lives would have been saved.
I tend to side with FDR on this, but a few things.
First, the Democrats of that age were not pacifists, nor were the Republicans. The GOP was dominated by cranky isolationists - big difference.
Second, given your political inclinations, it seems odd that what you have labeled the ‘right thing’ - getting involved in WWII sooner if it weren’t for the isolationist GOP - would be nothing more than a naked pre-emptive strike.
Are you ok with that?
[/quote]
Not a good comparison for the point you are trying to make. The Nazi’s were already invading neighboring countries much like Saddam did in the first conflict which was IMO a justified invasion.
If Germany hadn’t invaded anyone and we pre-emptively struck them and claimed they already had the A-bomb as an excuse would be a more accurate comparison.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Not a good comparison for the point you are trying to make. The Nazi’s were already invading neighboring countries much like Saddam did in the first conflict which was IMO a justified invasion.
If Germany hadn’t invaded anyone and we pre-emptively struck them and claimed they already had the A-bomb as an excuse would be a more accurate comparison. [/quote]
It’s a very good comparison. A very large part of why we invaded Iraq was because they were not abiding by the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.
Actually snipe, if you can find them, not just among private wacko citizens, but name brand wacko’s, then let’s see it. Really, it would be interesting.
–
Rainjack, are you trying to take Zeb’s title as the chief mischaracterizer away from him? Surely you don’t want to do that!
So, what, I can’t even talk about the realities of the situation when people are in leadership or authority positions anymore? Give me a break already.
Hint, I’m not the “ultra-liberal” that I’ve been claimed to be…
[quote]Floortom wrote:
It doesnt matter if he was “democratically elected”. WTF do we care about spreading democracy?? The point is he is anti-american.
It would make sense to assisinate him. We could then have elections and promote democracy in South America just like we’re doing in the Middle East.
This exact plan worked pretty well in Chile.[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Not a good comparison for the point you are trying to make. The Nazi’s were already invading neighboring countries much like Saddam did in the first conflict which was IMO a justified invasion.
If Germany hadn’t invaded anyone and we pre-emptively struck them and claimed they already had the A-bomb as an excuse would be a more accurate comparison.
It’s a very good comparison. A very large part of why we invaded Iraq was because they were not abiding by the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War. [/quote]
Yeah, uh, (mushroom cloud over American city) huh, yeah, (ties to al qaeda) hmmm, yeah, (launch attack on American soil forty five minutes) uhhh, okay, yeah, ( shadowy ties to al qaeda, WMD) uhhh, yeah, you are right. How could, I have ever doubted you!
Yeah, uh, (mushroom cloud over American city) huh, yeah, (ties to al qaeda) hmmm, yeah, (launch attack on American soil forty five minutes) uhhh, okay, yeah, ( shadowy ties to al qaeda, WMD) uhhh, yeah, you are right. How could, I have ever doubted you![/quote]
Oh, how soon we forget. From the U.S., U.K., Spain draft resolution on Iraq
Monday, February 24, 2003
Oh no, this discussion again… OK, I’ll bite this time. But just because I like FDR so much.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the Democrats of that age were not pacifists, nor were the Republicans. The GOP was dominated by cranky isolationists - big difference.
[/quote]
You’re telling me that people that – like the majority of Republicans still today – publicly state that they couldn’t care less about what everybody else in the world thinks about the US and its actions are not isolationists?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Second, given your political inclinations, it seems odd that what you have labeled the ‘right thing’ - getting involved in WWII sooner if it weren’t for the isolationist GOP - would be nothing more than a naked pre-emptive strike.
Are you ok with that?[/quote]
Yes I am. I honestly am tired of seeing people compare Saddam to Hitler. What made Hitler so dangerous were his resources – the kind of human (especially human), technical and natural resources that Saddam could not even dream of. A dictator is only as dangerous as its ability to inflict actual widespread harm. And in that respect, Hitler and Saddam are/were in completely different universes.
[quote]chrisp23 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.
Lets not get carried away. The people of Venezuela have been trying to overthrow a military dictator, ie. Chavez, for quite some time. I have followed his antics for years, being in the oil industry. I am not condoning
assasination, but I do want to point out that the ‘elections’ in which Chavez was proclaimed the winner have been contested as fixed by many people. Chavez is a maniac. Robertson seems to be intent on catching up to him.
[/quote]
That is complete propaganda. The only people supporting a coup are the rich and powerful who want the old gaurd back. They have the backing of the U.S. gov. and business sectors - mainly oil corporations.
However the vast majority of Venezualeans support Chavez. It seems as though he actually produces on his campaign promises. So much so that he won 9 elections in the last 6 years.
Venezuala is a major oil producer and Chavez actually has the balls to defy Uncle Sam’s claim to special low-cost access to Latin America’s natural resources.
Chavez actually takes oil profits and invests them in programs to help eliminate poverty.
This type of activity is dangerous to the privleged as they don’t want someone to set an example for the world to see.
Not a good comparison for the point you are trying to make. The Nazi’s were already invading neighboring countries much like Saddam did in the first conflict which was IMO a justified invasion.
If Germany hadn’t invaded anyone and we pre-emptively struck them and claimed they already had the A-bomb as an excuse would be a more accurate comparison. [/quote]
I think someone already touched on this, but your point is off-the-mark - we didn’t have the UN or the UN Charter prior to WWII.
Going into Europe in WWII before we were attacked is nothing more than an example of pre-emptive or aggressive war, which the Left rabidly opposes.
Granted - the Axis powers were a huge international threat - is there an exception to the Left’s opposition to pre-emptive war if the threat is ‘big’ enough?
Yes I am. I honestly am tired of seeing people compare Saddam to Hitler. What made Hitler so dangerous were his resources – the kind of human (especially human), technical and natural resources that Saddam could not even dream of. A dictator is only as dangerous as its ability to inflict actual widespread harm. And in that respect, Hitler and Saddam are/were in completely different universes.[/quote]
What made Hitler so dangerous was his megalomania - I don’t care if he armed Nazis with spears and shields.
Hitler re-armed Germany in violation of his international agreements - had he complied, this war machine your are intriqued with wouldn’t have existed. It is not as though Hitler just inherited a ripe and ready army, navy and air force. The European view pre-WWII - with the exception of Churchill - was that Hitler was exactly as you describe Saddam: a bad guy, but isolated and containable. You see how that turned out.
Resources can give a maniac an advantage, but it doesn’t ‘make’ the threat - one arms deal can change the whole ballgame. And more besides, it is not as though one can have some slide-rule that can measure when a dictator crosses over some threshold that tips him from being only ‘bad’ to ‘internationally dangerous’.
As such, Saddam and Hitler spoke the same language, had the same agenda. The landscape of world politics is different from Saddam, but that doesn’t change the fact that all the same rules apply.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
chrisp23 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.
Lets not get carried away. The people of Venezuela have been trying to overthrow a military dictator, ie. Chavez, for quite some time. I have followed his antics for years, being in the oil industry. I am not condoning
assasination, but I do want to point out that the ‘elections’ in which Chavez was proclaimed the winner have been contested as fixed by many people. Chavez is a maniac. Robertson seems to be intent on catching up to him.
That is complete propaganda. The only people supporting a coup are the rich and powerful who want the old gaurd back. They have the backing of the U.S. gov. and business sectors - mainly oil corporations.
However the vast majority of Venezualeans support Chavez. It seems as though he actually produces on his campaign promises. So much so that he won 9 elections in the last 6 years.
Venezuala is a major oil producer and Chavez actually has the balls to defy Uncle Sam’s claim to special low-cost access to Latin America’s natural resources.
Chavez actually takes oil profits and invests them in programs to help eliminate poverty.
This type of activity is dangerous to the privleged as they don’t want someone to set an example for the world to see.
[/quote]
Zeppelin, I don’t know where you get your info, but Chavez is a bad guy.
One of my coworkers wife is Venezuelan.
He brother is still there. They are not rich or powerful.
She has told me stories about how opposition campaign workers are harrassed, beaten and even disappear.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. They should all be condeming his statement. He is a total baffoon! The PEOPLE of Venezuala elected Chavez but this fact escapes Robertson. Since this is so, what justification does Robertson have in calling for his assasination? Well,Chavez has been critical of the U.S. foriegn policy and is not friendly to U.S. business interests. Makes me wonder who’s got this goof in their back pockets! Despicable.[/quote]
Sorry that is a lie, you have obviously never been to Venezuela or talked to an actual Venezuelan. They had Soviet style elections down there in 2004, complete with death squads, ballot-box stuffing and the majority of the opposition party staying home. So if that is what you condsider being elected, then you are ready to be a commisar.
All you Pro-Chavez idiots know nothing, he is a terrorist, he supports FARC of Colombia with weapons and money. He had police fire on protestors in the streets of Caracas. So to me, this is like calling for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Know your facts before you mouth off.