1
   

Dispatches From DC?

 
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 09:47 pm
For all to peruse, please do:
US Embassy stats on the coalition of the willing.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 09:49 pm
litlek,

we are a democracy and the majority wants this action. as for your second pont, we are a sovereign nation and it would make no sense to cede that sovereignty to france or anyone else. we can and do do what is right for the united states. and anyway, we arent disregarding the majority, in fact we are supporting UN resolution 1441, passed unanimously. saddam has disregarded 1441, treaties and other UN resolutions
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 09:52 pm
I really dislike hypocricy. I believe in walking the walk and all that. If we are the premier example of a democracy, we should act that way in our foreign affairs as well.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 09:55 pm
blatham,

who is lying about anything, please , if you are to make specific statements, explain them. the UN -, in passing resolution 1441 unanimoulsy made it clear that iraq had one last chance to disarm, they didnt disarm, in fact they have used scud missiles yesterday and today, in violation of the un resolution

in any event, let me make clear the vital point, even if we were the only ones who wanted to do this, we could, our national security is at stake and the president must protect american security
as for the over 40 nations, there are reports all over, reuters, and other news organizations - and it doewnt matter if some are only offereing oral support, they are allies - so whats your point

just clearly tell us why u dont want america and the world protected ?
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 09:57 pm
litlek,

you obviously dont understand some basic history, we are a democracy, yes, but that doesnt mean we let others decide our policies, that would be giving the iraqis a say in our foreign policy! there is nothing hypocritical about it at all...im sorry if you dont understand the idea of nation, perhaps soem reading will help you
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 10:18 pm
jim

Oh, goodness, I do want the world protected, yes. I want the US to be able to attack any country anywhere even when the great majority of the rest of the world thinks it would be a bad thing.

I do confess to some small unease that America's sights will turn north. There are homosexuals and socialists in Saskatchewan, after all. I worry, I know I shouldn't but I do, that significant campaign contributions to the Republican Party from General Mills Corp might end with Saskatchewan becoming a million acres of Hamburger Helper.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2003 10:35 pm
LMAO, blatham. Blame it on Canada that has to be the answer!
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 07:03 am
jimnass wrote:
Neo,

as for your quote, its also true that people can be brought to oppose their own government's interest and people by propaganda and support of the enemy of its government!


Obviously you've bought wholesale into the whole "Anti-War Protestors as dupes argument".

The corporate media has done it's job in your case

Quote:

why is this the new cold war and if so , what are the two sides?


This is just my opinion, but I mean it more in the sense of something that is not going to end quickly, and much like the "Cold War" was to conservatives before, this could be an on-going issue.

As for sides, basically Bush sees this as "Free World" vs. "Terror".

A good idea as terrorists know no country and in many cases spring up and return.

If this be so, then we in the "Anti-War" movement need to be careful that we don't simply disperse and disband after Iraq. This means building into a long-haul movement, al la the nuclear freeze movement (whose members I feel also make up a good part of this current movement).
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 07:45 am
Neo,

my comments regarding your quote are to make the point that it works both ways..you cannot deny that during the cold war, the soviets were funding nuclear freeze and other such movements! also, iraqi and palestinian money is behind some of todays so called anti-war rallies...not to say all protesters support the terrorists, but surely some do. as for anti war protesters as dupes, let's not forget it was the Soviets themselves, during the cold war, who called the protesters "useful idiots"

as for your cold war analogy, yes the war against terror will last a long time -, would you rather we do nothing and have more World Center type attacks? Terrorists are in many countries and many nations have found them and have arrested them. other times, their dirty deeds are not stopped - bali, the 9-11 attacks, etc. would you rather we do nothing and just sit still as attack after attack comes and kills innocent civilians? i am happy to say i am on the free world side of the war - are you saying you are on the terrorist side? if not exactly what side are you on?

i am glad you admit the nuclear freeze people are a large part of today's movement, now go back and study the freeze movement, its soviet backing and how if it was succesful, the soviet union may still be in power!! If we fail to learn from history, we are destined to relive it!

Also, we should all be happy that the freedom of the Iraqi people is so near!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 08:37 am
jim

I'd like you to read the Politics Forum Guidelines carefully. We are demanding a higher level of discourse here than you may be familiar with on abuzz. Mannerly conduct forms one part of this set of guidelines, but careful reasoning is easily as important.

For example, you need to get clear on the logical notion of irrelevancy, particularly the ad hominem case. You suggest that the protests over this war are invalid because a Russian described protestors as 'useful idiots'. That's an ad hominem, avoiding the arguments advanced through seeking to discredit the speaker. You commit this elsewhere too.

Along with our demand that you debate within such discourse constraints, is your right to demand it of others.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 08:51 am
blatham,

yes i did read guidelines carefully! it's interesting that with many individuals, in this and other posts, name calling, etc, and not explaining why people are jerks, traitors, etc, that you write to me about this issue. You mention my error, in your eyes, and say there are others, please point them out!

perhaps you can explain that to us all - why not go over each post, in this and the byrd posting and explain the various comments made and why you write to me only. tell me where i have failed to live up to the guidelines while others have. or whether it is the fact that different opinions to you isn't proper discourse?

your comment as to my "useful idiots" comment, makes clear you didnt carefully read my post, didnt understnd it or do not want to...why not reread it and the conversation it is a part of, and then come back and see if you have a better understanding, or can better explain to me all of this!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 08:56 am
Jimnass, no one else here is suggesting that you or anyone else 'go read' some books on history. To me it seems a direct insult to our intelligence and completely unproductive commentary.

Blatham asked that you speak up when you feel others are breaking the rules. Please do so, guides are here to keep peace, not hunt down off-social remarks.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:04 am
littlek,

well, im not sure what else to say to someone who doesnt understand that we dont let other nations, many led by dicatators to make our foreign policy! based on your view, china, with 1,260,000,000 people, led by a communist dictator, should have more say about OUR foreign policy than we should! in your view do we ask saddam whether we should free his people??

im trying to be nice by saying reading is a way to learn about nation states and politics

as for blatham, i am wating for him to respond to my questions to him, i cant wait!

we should all cheer - the liberation of the iraqi people is at hand!!!
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:07 am
Jimnass:

I think this is hopeless, too much AM Radio and Fox News.

You seem to be doing little more that regugitating what your told--as opposed to looking past what you hear from the government.

The Next War has a list of sources that go beyond what the government and CEO's wish you to know.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:15 am
Neo,

sorry, but i could say u have too much propaganda too...if you dont want to chat and discuss, its fine, if you dont want to answer questions and comment its fine

you say i regugitate what i have been told, no i look , read study and decide.

rather i can say the same aobut you, you dont open your mind and dont answer questions! why not cheer the liberation of iraq??
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:32 am
jim

Let's take the first sentence of a post above
Quote:
well, im not sure what else to say to someone who doesnt understand that we dont let other nations, many led by dicatators to make our foreign policy!
First, and quickly, let's just acknowledge the insult of 'someone who doesn't understand'. Of course, a more fair-minded phrase would be 'someone who understand this differently than do I'.

But more important, let's look at the idea you seem to have re sovereignty. You are suggesting, it appears, that the US government/people ought not to submerge their own sovereignty beneath some body of an international nature, like the UN.

Yet, it is evident from other posts you make here that other countries ought to so forgo sovereignty, such as Iraq. You argue that Iraq is legally and morally constrained by UN resolution 1441.

May I ask what rationale justifies exceptional status for the US?
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:49 am
blatham, is not acting in a consistent manner
in real english, which may hurt his feeling, he is a hypoctite and a phony but one mustnt speak like that

why do i say this?

lets look at a post by kuvasz

Quote:
gee frankie baby, i'm almost jealous that jimbo went after you instead of me.

almost. but then again, we both know that you suffer fools better than i.

however, and once again, it should be clear, but for some reason, it is not to jimbo, that byrd was critical of bush and his minions, not the military. again, jimbo is making it up as he goes along, simply to smear anti-bush people as disloyal americans, thus undermining the validity of their comments and observations about the incompetence of bush and his gang of gangsters.

yet, perhaps jimbo is one of those folks who can not see the puppet from the puppeteer, and believes in fairly tales, too.

as to smears, ad hominums, and down right calling a spade a spade, note jimbo used the aspersion of reminding us of byrd being a member of the kkk as a young man. true, an act which byrd has reputiated for over 4 decades now. yet his use of the information of byrd's association with the kkk over 50 years ago is not germane to the issue byrd was discussing. no, instead, good ole' jimbo used that ancient fact of byrd's young adulthood to cast byrd himself, 50 years later, as a bad person, which would obviously undermine anything the man would say.

cute, jimbo, but no soup for you. you failed to deal with the statements i made on this issue and instead complained about critical comments which were hardly ad hominum attacks upon your person, in fact, calling byrd a racist, now after 40 years of him reputiating such behavior was more of an ad hominum attack on byrd than even me agreeing that one half of your name was a correct assessment of your character.

what is more at point is that bush is a mediocrity, devoid of a world view based upon experience in dealing with hardship in his own life, and exibits a blatant and willful ignorance of the world at large. his world view is one which is based upon a fundamentalist christian view point of the world. bush, in case it is not widely known does not believe in evolution and considers that the world, as in Genesis, was built in 6 days and that alone places him, at least in my eyes, as a complete fukking moron.
that the man is a congenital liar and bully, has no manners or respect for others, was a coward in the military, and had his daddy bale him out of every fukk-up he orcestrated in his abysamal business career taints my opinion of him not at all.

it is his inability to lead this country to long-term safety in an unsafe world, that is my critical complaint about the man.

were george bush a paid agent of the enemies of america, he could not have screwed up this country more than he has.

i consider george bush a traitor to america and its people and who should be prosecuted as one.

and in america, we hang traitors, dont we?


blatham then responded:

Quote:
kuv

Lovely to see you! You really ought to learn to let yourself go in discussion though, and not hold back like you do, even given your sympathetic concern for the disadvantaged.



but blatham complains i am violating guidelines!! without explanation, of course

well bernie can you explain yourself, or will you just admit you are a hypocrite and a phony?????????
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 09:54 am
jimnass - china has one vote in world policy as does america..... Reading between the lines was one of the most valuable things I learned to do in college. History, I admit was not a focus in my education. I was just an anthropology major after all.
0 Replies
 
jimnass
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 10:01 am
littlek,

luckily, we dont make policy, for our own country , by asking other countries, who are interested in their national secuity and not ours, for what we should do....sometimes reading about different subjexts is helpful to learning
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2003 10:07 am
jim

You are correct. That was inconsistent. PM sent to Kuv as well. Now both of you advised, and myself as well. Personal matters now in hand.

Please address the last post to you. Do so carefully and thougtfully, please.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 08:33:07