19
   

IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 09:48 pm
@JTT,
DAVID wrote:
Surviving nazis must have gotten a good chuckle out of THAT !
JTT wrote:
They got an even bigger chuckle out of being brought
into the employ of the US government.

The US sure didn't want to waste all that talent, Dave.
Think of all the US learned from those Nazis.
Yes; Werner von Braun did a good job.
That was good realism.
We had different enemies in the Third World War
than we had in the Second. Captured German scientists
were used by both the freedom-lovers and by the communist slavers in the 3rd World War.
I was thrilled on July 2Oth, 1969

Anyway, we won. The slavers lost. That 's what counts.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 10:25 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?
Thomas wrote:
No, not the odds of it.
I meant the unusual events of that day.


Thomas wrote:
But paranoid fantasies definitely fed into Americans' perception of how great an atrocity 9/11 was.
My thawts were of vengeance, at the time,
not of the need of future defense from a nemisis.





Thomas wrote:
To be sure, those 3,000 murders were terrible, but they were a fraction of the murders that Americans
committed on each other in 2001. They were a fraction of how many Americans were killed in accidents that year.
Yes; my fellow New Yorkers did get a little upset.





Thomas wrote:
Accordingly, preventing future Al-Quaeda killings deserves a fraction of the priority that's appropriate for crime prevention, traffic safety, and safety regulations for swimming pools and firearms.
There is no jurisdiction to regulate firearms, as there is none to edit the Bible.
It is the duty of government to competently attend to national defense.






Thomas wrote:
A similar picture emerges from an international perspective. The 9/11 atacks killed a fraction of the number of foreigners America routinely kills in the pursuit of its wars abroad. So a once-off atrocity killing 3,000 Americans is no more than what the US government bargained for by choosing its interventionist foreign policy over George Washington's avoidance of foreign entanglements. If America doesn't want such atrocities, it should withdraw from its interventionist foreign policy.
To some limited extent, I agree.


Thomas wrote:
I am not a Republican, but I have to hand it to Ron Paul: He is the only US politician who's setting the right priorities on terror prevention. Everybody else, including his Republican competitors and the Democratic incumbent, have promised more of the same. I expect more of the same results from them.
We need to disable the enemy prospectively,
not to rely upon his good judgment n hope for the best.




OmSigDavid wrote:
U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????
Thomas wrote:
Yes. "THE" Muslims dislike terror as much as "THE" Christians and "THE" Jews do.
That is to say, they generally dislike it, but some of them dislike some people even less,
and accordingly approve of terror against them.
Forgive my skepticism of that.
On 9/11/1, the Moslems were dancing in the streets,
even in Kuwait, which we had rescued.





Thomas wrote:
Because of this mindset, some Americans---including you I suspect---happily supported
various death squads in Central America.
Yes; killing commies was a very fine idea, much to be admired!





Thomas wrote:
Similarly, some Muslims are currently supporting terrorist attacks against oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia's, and against the chief supporter of the Saudi oppressors, the United States of America. If you were a freed0m-loving citizen of Saudi Arabia, you'd probably support Al-Quaida against the United States.
Tom, lemme get this straight:
r u alleging that the Moslems in Arabia desire personal freedom,
like Barry Goldwater, Hugh Hefner and ME?????





OmSigDavid wrote:
I thawt we were only discussing the Moslems getting fission boms.
Thomas wrote:
Pakistan already has fission bombs, and Pakistan is a Muslim country. This horse is out of the barn.
Let 's escort him back in.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 08:16 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

American interests r purely defensive.
We just don 't wanna get nuked by fanatical Moslems
who detest the great satan and who only regret
that 9/11/1 lacked a nuclear component.


That's a paranoid fantasy in America without a basis in the economics of terrorism. The 9/11 attacks proved that low-tech weapons such as box cutters are incredibly effective at achieving the terrorists' goals. (Al Quaida's Madrid train bombings of 3/11/2004 proved the same thing again.) Why would they trade that for thermonuclear weapons?


Because they like the idea of spectacular explosions killing millions of civilians.



Thomas wrote:
OmSigDavid wrote:
(Witness the fact that we have no problem with
the English, possessing nukes.)


The English aren't a good counterpoint because they were America's allies. There's no obligation on the nuclear powers of the world to be allies of America. A better statistical control would be the Soviets. They were homicidal bastards but not suicidal bastards, just as Iran's leadership is today. America didn't attack them. It was the right decision.


The Soviets had the legal right to have nuclear weapons.

It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 08:19 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There is no moral equivalence between the US and a rogue nation like Iran.


Yes there is.


No. A free democracy is NOTHING like a brutal dictatorship. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever.



Thomas wrote:
An American attack on Iran would be exactly as bad as an Iranian attack on the US.


That's like saying "a police officer shooting a bank robber" is just as bad as "a bank robber shooting a police officer".



Thomas wrote:
And if preventive war is a legitimate way act of prevention for the US, it also is for Iran.


The US has the legal right to have nuclear weapons.

It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 08:22 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Were the odd events of 9/11/1 a paranoid fantasy?


No, not the odds of it. But paranoid fantasies definitely fed into Americans' perception of how great an atrocity 9/11 was. To be sure, those 3,000 murders were terrible, but they were a fraction of the murders that Americans committed on each other in 2001. They were a fraction of how many Americans were killed in accidents that year. Accordingly, preventing future Al-Quaeda killings deserves a fraction of the priority that's appropriate for crime prevention, traffic safety, and safety regulations for swimming pools and firearms.


The fact that a single event killed so many people gives it a much higher priority over more-numerous smaller events.

It is the same reason why passenger jet crashes receive more attention than car crashes.



Thomas wrote:
A similar picture emerges from an international perspective. The 9/11 atacks killed a fraction of the number of foreigners America routinely kills in the pursuit of its wars abroad.


There is a huge difference between "accidentally killing civilians while engaging in legitimate combat" and "the intentional massacre of thousands of civilians".

When we accidentally kill a civilian, that is collateral damage. The WTC attack was a crime against humanity. It was no different than if thousands of civilians had been machinegunned into a mass grave.



Thomas wrote:
So a once-off atrocity killing 3,000 Americans is no more than what the US government bargained for by choosing its interventionist foreign policy over George Washington's avoidance of foreign entanglements.


That's like saying when a bank robber guns down a police officer, it is no more than the police officer bargained for when he decided to enforce the law.



Thomas wrote:
If America doesn't want such atrocities, it should withdraw from its interventionist foreign policy.


So instead of the bad guys lashing out at us for interfering with their plans for global domination, we'd just accept them taking over the world and stamping out all freedom and democracy?

No thanks.



Thomas wrote:
I am not a Republican, but I have to hand it to Ron Paul: He is the only US politician who's setting the right priorities on terror prevention. Everybody else, including his Republican competitors and the Democratic incumbent, have promised more of the same. I expect more of the same results from them.


Ron Paul wants to dismantle the US military, abandon all our allies, and let brutal dictators conquer the world.

No thanks.



Thomas wrote:
OmSigDavid wrote:
U think its a paranoid fantasy that the Moslems wanna do it AGAIN, with a bigger "BANG!"?????

Yes. "THE" Muslims dislike terror as much as "THE" Christians and "THE" Jews do. That is to say, they generally dislike it, but some of them dislike some people even less, and accordingly approve of terror against them. Because of this mindset, some Americans---including you I suspect---happily supported various death squads in Central America.


Can you imagine how terrible it would have been if Central America had fallen to the Communists?



Thomas wrote:
Similarly, some Muslims are currently supporting terrorist attacks against oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia's, and against the chief supporter of the Saudi oppressors, the United States of America. If you were a freed0m-loving citizen of Saudi Arabia, you'd probably support Al-Quaida against the United States.


I imagine bank robbers think police officers are oppressive too.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:45 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
I think one should focus on that the U.S. embassy hostages back in 1979 has not had closure yet.


You are such a stupid piece of ****, Foofie...


I might be a piece of ****, but I assure you I am not stupid. My opinions are not shared with everyone, but that is my right.

You also mentioned that as a Jew I should empathize more with other people's plight. Well, as a Jew, born a little after the end of WWII, I see that today, only sixty some odd years after the Holocaust (aka, big Jew hunt), much of the civilized world is foaming at the mouth against the one place that Jews were supposed to be left to live in peace. So, what I have learned as a Jew is that many Gentiles have short memories.

But, why should I be concerned about Native Americans? My grandparents never met a Native American in NYC? Why should anyone dump the lament of Native Americans on me, since so many people today "roll their eyes" when a Jew mentions the Holocaust or WWII. Get it? Let's not have a double standard. Get the world to accept your premise, and then come knocking on my A2K moniker. O.K., young man?

I am concerned though about the loss of power of white Protestant America, since it was that demographic, prior to 1850, that made the culture that allowed America to be a superpower.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 11:53 am
@Foofie,
Gentiles may have short memories, but Jews have none. What happened to Jews 70 years ago is justly forgotten, because most people alive today don't know that history. However, people of today see what injustices the Palestinians live every day in Israel; their land is taken at will for expanded settlements, and they can't travel freely in their "own" country where generations have lived.

That's not a democracy by any sense of that word.

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What happened to Jews 70 years ago is justly forgotten, because most people alive today don't know that history.


No one is going to forget the Holocaust. Nor would doing so be just.



cicerone imposter wrote:
However, people of today see what injustices the Palestinians live every day in Israel;


LOL!

Hardly an "injustice" to tell a Palestinian he isn't allowed to run around murdering people.



cicerone imposter wrote:
their land is taken at will for expanded settlements,


It isn't their land.



cicerone imposter wrote:
and they can't travel freely in their "own" country where generations have lived.


It isn't their country.



cicerone imposter wrote:
That's not a democracy by any sense of that word.


Sorry. Palestinians don't get the right to vote in other countries' elections.

If they want to vote, they are going to have to start being peaceful and create their own country.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:22 pm
@oralloy,
"No one?" What world do you live in? There are many people (probably far exceeding millions) who live in third world countries, do not have media exposure, nor outside news.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:24 pm
@oralloy,
You wrote,
Quote:
Hardly an "injustice" to tell a Palestinian he isn't allowed to run around murdering people.


Just proves you're a racist bigot who looks at Palestinians not as individuals, but as a group. That's what all bigots do!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:28 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Get it? Let's not have a double standard.[/quote

The only one with a double standard is you, Foofie. And you are dumb and ignorant, kinda equivalent to a sack of hoe handles.

[quote]I am concerned though about the loss of power of white Protestant America, since it was that demographic, prior to 1850, that made the culture that allowed America to be a superpower.


That's the demographic that allowed the US to become one of the greatest bands of war criminals/terrorists/thieves on the planet.

That's the demographic that didn't allow Jews in many places in their homeland.

That's the demographic that turned away a shipload of Jewish refugees.

That's the demographic that could easily turn on you again if you no longer suit their national interests.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yawn. Scroll, scroll, scroll.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:02 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Which law is that oralloy?

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran can withdraw by simply giving a 3 month notice. So, I am not really clear which law you are talking about oralloy.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:06 pm
@parados,
Neither is he.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:10 pm
@RABEL222,
While signing a treaty should obligate the signatory to abide by it, there certainly is no law enforcement that can ensure they do. I'm sure JTT could give us a lot of instances of the US failing to abide by treaties they signed.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 04:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It is against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons.


Which law is that oralloy?

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran can withdraw by simply giving a 3 month notice. So, I am not really clear which law you are talking about oralloy.


I am referring to the NPT.

You are mistaken on Iran's ability to withdraw. They are only allowed to withdraw for a good reason.

"I'm a rogue nation and I want nuclear weapons" does not count as a good reason.

That is why, when North Korea withdrew, the world did not welcome them into the nuclear weapons club, but instead bodyslammed them with devastating sanctions.

And it's why, if Iran tries to withdraw, no one will accept it as legitimate.


In addition, even if Iran were actually able to legitimately withdraw, their nuclear weapons program would only be legal if they started it after withdrawing.

But Iran has been illegally trying to develop nuclear weapons for decades now, and they cannot now legitimize an already-illegal program by withdrawing from the treaty.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 04:36 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
While signing a treaty should obligate the signatory to abide by it, there certainly is no law enforcement that can ensure they do.


Sure there is. It is called the US Air Force.

Bombs away!



parados wrote:
I'm sure JTT could give us a lot of instances of the US failing to abide by treaties they signed.


I'm sure all the alleged instances would be false accusations too.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 04:38 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I'm sure JTT could give us a lot of instances
of the US failing to abide by treaties they signed.
That is humorous!
Consider the source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 04:38 pm
@oralloy,
Is that similar to the signing by the US on UN international laws, and breaking them at will? The UN did not authorize the war against Iraq, but GW Bush went ahead anywhose.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2012 01:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Gentiles may have short memories, but Jews have none. What happened to Jews 70 years ago is justly forgotten, because most people alive today don't know that history. However, people of today see what injustices the Palestinians live every day in Israel; their land is taken at will for expanded settlements, and they can't travel freely in their "own" country where generations have lived.

That's not a democracy by any sense of that word.




So, if it is a theocracy, would you then accept their position? I do think that Israel was accepted as a place where Jews could have its own nation state, in context of the historical/religious belief that God gave it to the Israelites.

That might be the problem. Many non-Israelis want to believe that just because it professes to be a democracy, it cannot be that land that God supposedly gave only to the Israelites. But, I cannot argue with you; I know your position, and it is an opinion that I do not share. You are just wasting your breath in posting to me.

Would you accept that God gave Hollywood to the American Jews?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/06/2022 at 09:30:18