The Lip-Stick Pitbull Goes to War

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ryanjm wrote:
^I did see the interview he gave w/O’Reilly and I didn’t notice anything bothersome with his speech patterns. He also gave pretty clear answers about most of the foreign policy stuff besides being guarded about Iran.

If you’ve got cites to lies I always like to read facts.[/quote]

There is a thread on his wishes to delay any troop drawn downs in Iraq until after the elections.

There are links in the thread.

I don’t know why you require links to his lies, but accept that there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” without holding that notion to the same standard.

42

^Because I can google bush doctrine and find encyclopedia entries and thousands of pages referring to it. But I can’t google “obama lies” and find much of anything except a snopes article actually refuting a laundry list of supposed “lies.”

43

[quote]ryanjm wrote:
^Because I can google bush doctrine and find encyclopedia entries and thousands of pages referring to it. But I can’t google “obama lies” and find much of anything except a snopes article actually refuting a laundry list of supposed “lies.”[/quote]

You sir, are one of those rare thinkers who comes along once in a generation. Every time I fall under the spell of my own self deluded brilliance I will reread this post to be reminded that there are those in this world by comparison to whom I am a rank simpleton.

I am truly grateful for having been exposed to a person of your exalted powers before I die.

44

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
The word doctrine can refer to anything unless it were commonly accepted nomenclature for something specific which it is not.

When she asked “in what respect Charlie?.. his world view?” that was a perfectly legitimate request for clarification in view of the fact that he could have been referring to almost any component of Bush foreign policy.

She would really have looked dumb had she proceeded with out being sure of the thrust of an intentionally murky question.

I have no doubts that she knew exactly what the interviewer was asking of her. But you see, she couldn’t start her answer with a “yes” or “no” because of what I explained above.

Watch it again and tell me that she wasn’t both surprised and evasive.

http://brokencontrollers.com/forums/sarah-palin-and-the-bush-doctrine-video-interview-included-t24567.php

And by any account, time isn’t on your side.

You continue to misrepresent our actions.

Actually, that’s more speculation on my part than anything else.

We do spread freedom though you are correct in so far as that is a side effect and not the primary motivation which is indeed our self interests and defense.

Sometimes. Other times, you spread dictatorships, overthrow democratically elected regimes, etc.

What are crimes to you are simply living in reality to me.

This is some sentence. I can’t quite make any sense out of it.

You are also right that if we do not quit putting these pacifistic dreaming peaceniks into the house and senate and especially if we entrust our security to “citizens of the world” like Obama, time is not on our side.

No, no. Time isn’t on your side, period. It’s got nothing to do with who’s in the White House or anywhere else. This is simply the fate of every other imperialistic power.

There’s only so much crap you can get past the population before they rise up and kick your butt. And with the advent of global communications, ubiquitous phones and cameras, you’re practically screwed from the get-go.

Let’s just hope that it goes down in a whimper rather than thousands of nukes.

I am actually genuinely curious. What form of government would you prefer it you had the power to spontaneously enact it globally?

I’m a libertarian socialist.

Power to the people, first and foremost. No hierarchies. No coercive or violent institutions. No borders. Everything else is democratically decided on a local level.

A libertarian socialist?? Go start that party and see how far it gets.

No borders? Just one big free for all. I assume no military either.

You really are clueless.

[/quote]

I guess I’m an up-downist, or maybe a left-rightist. And always turning, turning, turning!

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Would you please name for me another capable nation that you would have rather seen in this position?

Any other nation that is capable of taxing, enslaving and murdering to a larger extent than the US.[/quote]

Like the ummah? They’re 3 times the size of the US. Here’s their tax plan for the dhimmis they enslave:

46

[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
There is no common definition of the “Bush Doctrine” that somebody would be woefully deficient in not knowing. The “Bush Doctrine” is not even a commonly used term.

That’s quibbling over the details, really.

The Bush Doctrine is nothing particularly earth-shattering. It’s just an unapologetic continuation and stepping up of the unilateralism in American foreign policy that goes back to…well, a long time.

The Bush Doctrine, as directly derived from the president’s post-9/11 speech and PNAC-crazed entourage, is understood to mean that the US reserves the right to attack preemptively any country that has the potential (in strict terms, both the knowledge and infrastructure) to make WMDs. Whether it represents a real threat to the security of the US is not as important as whether it could potentially be in a position to threaten your security.

It was first laid out in 2002, and updated two years ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

I urge you to read it.[/quote]

I personally think the doctrine of preemptive action is perfectly fine, and the only rational, intelligent position to take in todays world.

Let’s just say we live in a world where there are no police. Because that’s what we really have, no single unifying world government with enforcement capability (nor do we want one, if we have any sense at all). But for purposes of illustration we’ll scale this down to a neighborhood level, with each yard representing a country.

One day I look out my window to watch my children play, and I notice that my next door neighbor is 30 feet away screwing around with fireworks right next to the 500 gallon propane tank in his yard. It’s a perfectly reasonable response to go out there and tell him to stop being a dumbass. If I see him doing it again an hour later, it’s a perfectly reasonable response to go out there, punch him out, take his fireworks and drain his propane tank.

Never forget that the “unilateralism in American foreign policy” has always been predicated by extensive negotiations and warnings before action. The “unilateralism in American foreign policy” is always conducted in a way meant to bring about a better way of life for the residents of the country involved. The “unilateralism in American foreign policy” never results in the USA claiming any foreign soil, other than what is necessary to bury the American Soldiers who gave their lives there.

The “unilateralism in American foreign policy” has resulted in:

  1. The end of British tyranny
  2. The end of Barbary domination and enslavement of the middle east in 1812
  3. The end of German aggression in WWI
  4. The end of Nazism, the jewish genocide, German agression, Japanese aggression and Italian aggression in WWII
  5. The halting of the spread of communism in the Korean Peninsula
  6. The restoration of Europe to democratic rule and individual national sovereignty.
  7. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union (which killed 110,000,000 of it’s own countrymen and tens of millions in other countries) without firing a single shot.
  8. The prevention of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslim ethic Serbs in the Balkins.
  9. The liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.
  10. The deposition of Saddam Hussein who killed hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. – NOTE: Please don’t even start with the crap about us having killed more civilians. All of those statements have been proven to be utter crap. Since the inception of the Iraq war more civilians have been killed there by terrorists than by all military actions combined.

And that’s just the short list I can come up with off the top of my head.

So if Sarah thinks it’s OK to take out someone who is threatening us, and his neighbors, whether by intention or stupidity - she’s OK in my book.

– edited for this comment –

I personally have always thought that Bush should have rescinded the “No assassinations of foreign leaders” Executive Order given by JFK. We could have saved a lot of money and ordinance and probably accomplished the same goals.

47

[quote]MightyMaus wrote:
I personally have always thought that Bush should have rescinded the “No assassinations of foreign leaders” Executive Order given by JFK. We could have saved a lot of money and ordinance and probably accomplished the same goals.[/quote]

You cannot compare the actions of a single individual (or her family) to those of a country. Furthermore, the truth of your claim rests on the assumption that the actions taken by government actually benefit the invaded country in the long run and are not just short term.

You neglect to point out the negative results of the above actions; for example, Hitler coming to power because the US entered WWI in the first place. That is just one example, there are many others that I could have used.

48

[quote]MightyMaus wrote:
<<< I personally think the doctrine of preemptive action is perfectly fine, and the only rational, intelligent position to take in todays world. >>>

<<<>>>

I personally have always thought that Bush should have rescinded the “No assassinations of foreign leaders” Executive Order given by JFK. We could have saved a lot of money and ordinance and probably accomplished the same goals.[/quote]

I personally agree wholeheartedly with these 2 points and would go so far as to say that any other positions in either case is insane.

The rest of this post is great as well.

@LIFTICVSMAXIMVS

There you go again.

What are you going to say now? That the Treaty of Versailles unduly burdened and demoralized Germany causing a backlash that paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power?

49

I thought Ford gave the executive order banning assassinations.

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm

50

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You sir, are one of those rare thinkers who comes along once in a generation. Every time I fall under the spell of my own self deluded brilliance I will reread this post to be reminded that there are those in this world by comparison to whom I am a rank simpleton.

I am truly grateful for having been exposed to a person of your exalted powers before I die.[/quote]

Thank you, you’re welcome.

51

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What are you going to say now? That the Treaty of Versailles unduly burdened and demoralized Germany causing a backlash that paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power? [/quote]

Yes, but remember also, the Treaty of Versailles was signed in a French Railroad car…not an American one.

He’s not only saying the treaty burdened Germany, he’s saying it’s all America’s fault.

52

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
What are you going to say now? That the Treaty of Versailles unduly burdened and demoralized Germany causing a backlash that paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power?

Yes, but remember also, the Treaty of Versailles was signed in a French Railroad car…not an American one.

He’s not only saying the treaty burdened Germany, he’s saying it’s all America’s fault. [/quote]

He hasn’t said that yet, but if he does that would be interesting because in this case Wilson was pushing for more leniency than the other signers.