2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Tart, I think what Hillary was trying to accomplish was provide a good foundation from which to begin constructing a formal divorce case intended to separate The War On Terror from The War on Iraq. I expect she will continue to attempt to contrive such, and I expect she will achieve little success.

0 Replies

Timber, please explain how you can link the "war on terror" with the war in Iraq. As with many other recent comments of yours, I am surprised. I expected better from you.

0 Replies

hbob, I have never held any position other than that Iraq is but a component of the War on Terror, neither more nor less than one of many campaigns and fronts past and to come, some military, some diplomatic, and some undoubtedly which never will be known. That is the nature of war; its a series of battles and initiatives, all intertwined and interdependent. I understand others don't share that opinion, but it is an opinion I hold firmly. I find it dismaying that others seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the concept.

0 Replies

timber, There was no terror against Americans from Iraq until we invaded there. Least you forgot, Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Osama resides, and from which terror is grounded.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

hbob, I have never held any position other than that Iraq is but a component of the War on Terror,

But what reasons make you think this?

Quote:

neither more nor less than one of many campaigns and fronts past and to come, some military, some diplomatic, and some undoubtedly which never will be known.

But how is the invasion of another nation in order to establish US military might in a new location (planned since at least 1997) a response to "terror?"

Quote:

That is the nature of war; its a series of battles and initiatives, all intertwined and interdependent.

What "war?" Against whom? It seems to me the US has decided that the entire rest of the world is our "enemy!"

Quote:

I understand others don't share that opinion, but it is an opinion I hold firmly. I find it dismaying that others seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the concept.

Then please explain why you hold these opinions. Have you reasons, or is it just a matter of "America is doing it, so it must be right?"

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

But what reasons make you think this? ...
... But how is the invasion of another nation in order to establish US military might in a new location (planned since at least 1997) a response to "terror?" ...
... What "war?" Against whom? It seems to me the US has decided that the entire rest of the world is our "enemy!" ...
... Then please explain why you hold these opinions. Have you reasons, or is it just a matter of "America is doing it, so it must be right?"

The evolution of stateless yet organized and capable belligerent forces, particularly as relate to militant Islamicism (Note: I make clear distinction between Islam and Islamists), and emergent tactics and weaponry of heretofore unknown horiffic effect and unacceptable consequence, have brought about paradigm shift both in the nature of warfare and the principles of prudent self defense. "The Rest of The World" is not an enemy, but the enemy is at large throughout much of the world, without regard to border, flag, or other allegiance other than to itself and its own evil ends. There is no "Whom" with which we are at war, it is, as it usually is, a "What"; in this case the "What" is an ideology of hate, repression, and brutality, an ideology twisted from an honorable religion and fanned by ignorant prejudice. Afghanistan and Iraq were each logical battlefronts, carrying the fight, and the message, to the enemy on the enemy's own ground, not on the enemy's terms. It is my impression that after more than half a century of side-stepping and counterproductive half-measures, real, directed, long-term-goal-oriented action finally is being taken to face down a major challenge to the rule of law, the right of self determination, and civilization itself. Those opposing us cynically exploit the conventions Western Civilization holds sacred, attempting to turn them to their own advantage. They now are being signalled unambiguously that there is no profit to be had from that approach.

0 Replies

And what better way to ensure that "ideology of hate" continues, and has more converts, than to declare "pre-emptive war" and destroy and kill those who have done nothing to the US. On another thread you loftily proclaim "The US isn't killing Iraqis." Well what do you call the mechanism by which a rough estimate of 10 000 Iraqi civilians have died besides killing?
Hussein was an evil man, but the US is proving his equal. This war has nothing to do with "terrorism," and has everything to do with establishing an American military hegemony. "Self-defence" is not planned 6 years in advance. That is aggression.
The only way this can be considered a "war on terror" is if one considers a participant must manufacture his own enemies. If that is the case, then the US has been successful. The people who live in an American occupied Iraq are learning to loathe Americans, after exposure to the lowest of the lowest common denominators: The military!
How can one declare a serious war on an ideology? How can we eliminate "terror" when we spnsor the same in many of our client states, of which Israel and Saudi Arabia come to mind. If we say that only "bad guys (a simplistic label popular with the far right)" use terror, are we not being a bit naive?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

timber, There was no terror against Americans from Iraq until we invaded there. Least you forgot, Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Osama resides, and from which terror is grounded.

No, its founded in the madrassas, and the backchannel financing by Hawalah, and in official "looking conveniently the other way", and in the despair, poverty, disenfranchisement, and oppression which grips much of the former Ottoman Empire. Just putting the fire out does not deal with the cause of the fire, but putting out an existing fire has to be done before steps can be talken to alleviate the cause and prevent its recurrence. A stable, prosperous Iraq, together with stability and prosperity shared among Israelis and autonomous Palestinians will send a powerful message throughout the region. That is what is being fought for. The thugs fighting against that cannot be ceded the advantage of allowing borders and conventions, which they themselves cynically exploit, to shield their criminality.

0 Replies

Timber,

You, mean? Never. Pushy sometimes, but never mean. And terribly mistaken in your political loyalties........ such a shame.....and we could have been so close.

0 Replies

:wink:

You, too, Lola. Mostly, anyway. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

The Israelis will never give up their captured territory without coercion, and the US will never develop the cojones to impose that sort of coercion. A stable and prosperous Iraq is less likely to occur than a Green in the White House, due to the complete lack of planning exhibited by this administration when they started to un-provoked, illegal, and immoral invasion.
According to Macchiavelli it is better to be feared than loved, and thisseems to be the guiding principles of neo-con thought, but being feared means knowing that eventually you are going to die a violent and painful death! I strongly resent that my government has, in my name, made my country the object of fear and hatred. I resent that when I go to Rome this summer I will have to be extremely vigilant because, as an American, I am now a target because the sitting president thinks the key to life is beating up on weaker nations. I resent that folks I may have served with are participation in an aggressive, illegal military operation and making a group of people who would not have hated my country and everything it was associated with now loathe it and all of its denizens.
The far right says they fear militant Islam, yet everything they have done in the last three years has provided recruiting fodder. The far right says it has initiated a "war on terror: yet it still supports regimes like the ones in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Koream Chile, Argentina, Honduras, etc...
I have become ashamed to be an American, and that is something I never thought I would feel.

0 Replies

You must be a youngster, Hobit!

0 Replies

Compared to many on this board, I am.

0 Replies

That's OK, hbob ... we still like ya!

0 Replies

Of couorse you do. I'm stunningly handsome, frightfully erudite, and astoundingly modest! Very Happy

0 Replies

And I can't type to save my life!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I have previously mentioned a truly wonderful bit of dialogue from Sorkin in one West Wing episode. The context was an important election lost by the Democrats. One of the White House staff was bemoaning this unexpected negative turn of events, and another, the charcter who plays the head speechwriter, responded, "Democracy means that sometimes the bad guys win."

I do believe that there are people now within the power structure of the RNC who TRULY intend that democrats never again gain the White House. By 'truly', I mean this mindset is not merely that of, say, a baseball coach doing whatever he can to have his team win, but rather that the traditional 'liberalism' of the Democrats is deeply unAmerican and treasonous. For some, even Satanic. This isn't Buckley conservatism, this is something else.

george will say, "bernie, you and other leftists do the same thing...look at how you talk about Bush and the evangelicals!!".

But it is not that I wish the demise of the Republican party or the loss of its viewpoint...it is that I think this present variant is ahistorical and reflects a deep and dangerous pathology.

Well said blatham.

I would take it one step further.

I was astounded at the RAGE manifested by the right at Clinton's 1992 election and 1996 re-election, and the thuggish behavior of repub activists in Florida in 2000.

The rightists reaction to the '92 and '96 losses and the threat of loss in Florida was not merely a deep disappointment (which I could understand completely), but seemed instead more like the FURY of those who believe that what is 'rightfully' theirs has been taken away.

In short, I discern in the radical right a fanatical and scary sense of 'entitlement' to rule --almost as if it is their 'divine right' to do so.

For this reason I fear that if Dean or another dem nominee is threatening to defeat Bush in 2004, elements in the right would not shrink at attempting extra-legal means to hold onto what they believe is 'theirs'.

0 Replies

jjorge*197982* wrote:

I was astounded at the RAGE manifested by the right at Clinton's 1992 election and 1996 re-election, and the thuggish behavior of repub activists in Florida in 2000.

The rightists reaction to the '92 and '96 losses and the threat of loss in Florida was not merely a deep disappointment (which I could understand completely), but seemed instead more like the FURY of those who believe that what is 'rightfully' theirs has been taken away.

In short, I discern in the radical right a fanatical and scary sense of 'entitlement' to rule --almost as if it is their 'divine right' to do so.

For this reason I fear that if Dean or another dem nominee is threatening to defeat Bush in 2004, elements in the right would not shrink at attempting extra-legal means to hold onto what they believe is 'theirs'.

This of course contrasts with the serenity of Democrats after the results of the last election became known.

What a lot of fantasy and pompous, self-righteous posturing! Remarkable that a serious person could hold such views. But then I don't know JJorge.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

2) I would still argue that 43 percent of world spending is adequate for self defense. Pushing America around is not an option for any single country in the world. Nor is it an option for any remotely probable alliance of countries. This is clearly a good thing.

3) What the 43 percent may not be adequate for is the kind of imperial overstretch that neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and Perle want to get into. I would argue that this, too, is a good thing. I prefer decentralized equilibrium to centralized coercion in societies for well known reasons; I also prefer it between societies for the same reasons. To put it less pompously, I don't like the idea of any nation pushing America around, but I don't the idea of America pushing any other nation around either. Military power ought to be distributed over the globe in a way that makes either evil impractical.

With all this in mind, I continue to think that the size America's military is just about right, and that the current explosion in defense spending is a waste of money, brains and time.

I generally agree with Thomas' sentiments expressed here. However a few comments;
1) Life and the world situation can change fairly quickly. What may not be "remotely probable" today could become a fact within a very few years. We fight today's wars with weapons and delivery systems ordered ten years earlier - a fairly long time to see ahead to the "remotely probable".
2) One man's "imperial overstretch" could be another's prudent necessity. Much here depends on one's views of other, mostly political, matters.
3) The decentralized equilibrium Thomas desires may be as difficult to sustain as it is to estimate. While others may not wish to see the U.S. with the ability to 'push other nations around', some may wish the U.S. to retain some capability precisely in that area with respect to (say) North Korea or even to Iraq.
4) From a selfish perspective the problem of the United States is to remain strong enough to discourage challenge from any quarter, while avoiding costs high enough to drain our economic potential. We cannot control the actions of potential rivals, and history strongly suggests that some will emerge. This problem of riding the tiger is real.
5) I don't think there is a "current explosion in defense spending" as Thomas states. We are paying the bill for completed and continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and replenishing our stocks of weapons expended in them. Beyond that there is little or no growth.

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

This of course contrasts with the serenity of Democrats after the results of the last election became known.

george,
You use a certain tactic in your responses. It's, "oh yeah, but what about you?"

But then, I did the same a few pages back or on another thread, I forget which. My disagreement with your argument is that you are often comparing unlike circumstances. For instance, in order to demonstrate the ubiquity and therefore unavoidability of hypocracy, you were comparing somewhere, the situation in which a woman is groped without her express permission and another in which the woman was fully, eagerly and aggressively complicit. I know I said women shouldn't be teasing a bunch of drunk men and therefore did share the responsibility, however the implied permission to get fresh and the direct kind of participation Lewinsky and Clinton shared are not the same. They are unlike.

So for you to say the equivalent of, "well, look what they did to my friends at Tailhook, so you can't say anything bad about the kind of relentless, unharnessed, and vindicative harassment and disrespect to the voter that took place with Clinton."

You must be able to see, george, that these are not comparable incidents.

So when you make the argument, "oh yeah, we haven't done anything so bad, look what you do," and the argument is dependent on the comparison of unlike circumstances, your argument does not hold up. It may be a legitimate argument to say, "we all do this, it's just politics and that's the way the world is", or, "but to compare unlike situations is not. It's simply fallacious argument.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know