Bush supporters' aftermath thread

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still, I'm not sure how Bin Laden is any less of a threat now than he was 5 years ago. He did just promise another attack... We know he's capable... and he and his top aides must be hiding somewhere... :wink:

"Being a threat" in itself is not "initiating hostilities". So if you attack someone (a country, etc) for being a threat, when he has not actually initiated hostilities yet ("pre-emptively", so to say), you are in the business of aggression rather than defence.

Of course, with Osama, thats complicated. He did attack your country already - initiate hostilities - after all: four and something years ago. I think the argument of self-defense lapses over time though (how long?) - which is where the ambiguity slips in, since as soon as it does, the remaining rationale becomes that he is a threat - but then striking out at it is no longer defensive.

(I dont consider attacks in the name of Al-Qaeda against US soldiers in Iraq an initiation of hostilities against the US, for obvious reasons.)

Tricky tricky.

0 Replies

Bin Ladin has been at war with us for over a decade. We with him for almost 5 years. Our lack of knowledge of real targets is the only thing that's held our aggression in check these last few years. Since he's repeatedly reminded us that conditions haven't changed and is still promising more destruction; I don't think it reasonable to suggest that attacking him would be pre-emptive or put us in the business of aggression rather than defense (not in that theatre anyway).

Tricky tricky is right. My point is; there is no slide rule, nor could there be. If genocide-mass-murder constitutes justification for A-hole removal; who's riper than Kim Jong Il? Only when you factor in the potential collateral damage does that prick get to breath... probably even by your left of the American Left standards, no? If the Taliban weren't such a despicable bunch of louts, with virtually no ability to strike anyone in reaction, would that invasion still be justified? I think not. What if Bin Laden was famously a guest of France at the time of the attack? Eh, no. There simply is no way to map out every response in advance. Too many variables. Statements like Pre-emptive or "unprovoked" attacks are evil are simply too overbroad to be 100% true or false, and so essentially serve no purpose whatsoever... At least that's my take on it.

Nimh wrote:

(I dont consider attacks in the name of Al-Qaeda against US soldiers in Iraq an initiation of hostilities against the US, for obvious reasons.)

(Nor do I. I consider them a continuation of them. :wink: But we know we'll not find common ground there.)

It's late and I'm in a weekend business so even though I've missed this type of exchange I risk leaving you hanging if we continue. It seems we've covered this pretty well anyway.

In other news: What do you think of Hillary portraying herself as the Warlord of Foreign Policy. Is anyone buying into it?

0 Replies

Evan Bayh has joined Hil in trying to outhawk Bush. According to the NYTimes yesterday:

Quote:

"We have wasted valuable time, diverted resources and ignored this problem at our peril," Mr. Bayh said, noting that he supports a ban on gasoline sales to Iran and other economic punishments. "No one wants to forestall the need to use military force more than I do, but if we are to do so, we must act now."

I think they both have one eye on the calendar. We know what Moveon.org thinks of Hillary....will be interesting to see how they react to Bayh.

0 Replies

FWIW,
I am a conservative,and I have said it before and I will say it again...

If Evan Bayh runs he will get my vote.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Evil is the intent to do harm to another for selfish purposes or, in the first definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary, "morally reprehensible". I do not consider our invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq to be morally reprehensible. If you do, that is your prerogative. But we obviously do not define evil with the same definition.

I posted a dictionary definition, maybe we could let that be the standard. Here it is again:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Quote:
Any military action that is a first strike is definitely military aggression. There is no way to define our invasion of North Africa to go after Rommel or the bombing of Berlin or the march on Berlin or the landing at Normandy as anything but aggression. The enemy wasn't taking it to us at that point. We were definitely taking it to them. Even the bombing of Japan would have to be considered aggressive warfare rather than defensive warfare even though the purpose of it was to end a long, expensive, bloody war.

That's certainly your interpretation and you're entitled to it. I don't share it.

Quote:
Reread Walter's post in support of yours and your defensiveness re my opinion(s) on this subject. I was not objecting to your right to your definition nor even your definition itself though I do not share it. I was objecting to your (and Walter) determining what my definition was when your determination was entirely wrong.

Apparently a lot of people have a different idea of what you meant than you yourself have and I think it a bit dishonest to expect folks to ask you for definitions before responding to your comments. Here's your definition.

Foxfyre wrote:
Military aggression is a military attacking, threatening, or forcing demands on something or somebody. It is shooting first, not just shooting back when shot at. It can be something that bad guys do. And it can be something that good guys do.

Foxfyre wrote:
And I'm going with MM's and my definition of military aggression which can be attack or threat of attack.

Quote:
As far as 'irrelevent questions' you are certainly within your rights to ignore them.

Right, and listen to you over and over tell me how my not answering your nonsensical question somehow proves something.

Quote:
As I consider them to be entirely relevent within this discussion, however, I still think it is interesting that the questions were criticized and nobody on the Left could answer them.

Case in point.

Who is on the left and why are they all obliged to answer your assinine questions? Here, I have one for you. Can you tell me who on this earth enjoys living in a war zone?

I used the Merriam Webster definition for aggression and prefer it to yours. Nobody enjoys living in a war zone. Nobody enjoys living anywhere that their life and health is in perpetual danger. These two things are not necessarily the same thing. And neither has but marginal relevance to a discussion of whether aggression is evil or not.

I was not addressing you in particular when I made my comments and I made them from my own perspective. If you consider my questions nonsensical, then there really is no point in continuing the discussion is there? "Who is on the left" is not relevant to the discussion to anyone other than those who consider themselves on the left, and I in no place suggested that anyone was obligated to answer anything. I have the perfect right to think it curious that nobody would answer the question I posed however, and even more curious that you are in such a state of apolexy about it.

Since you insist on making this personal and about me, why do you suppose this makes you so angry and why do you assume that my original remarks that you took exception to were directed at you? If you do not think my remarks were directed at you, whom are you presuming to defend in this discussion?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FWIW,
I am a conservative,and I have said it before and I will say it again...

If Evan Bayh runs he will get my vote.

Well, I'm not so sure I want Evan Bayh as my congressman or my president, but he is right. If we are going to do it, we are going to have to do it now. But a third front right now is not too practical I think.

I just think it is curious that the same people who were caterwauling about the extreme danger presented by Saddam Hussein before we invaded, and who condemn us now for taking him out, are beginning the drum beat that Iran presents an unacceptable danger and it's all Bush's fault that we haven't done anything about it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I used the Merriam Webster definition for aggression and prefer it to yours.

Just to repied it, copied/pasted as in original:

Quote:

[...]
1 a : an offensive action or procedure; especially : a culpable unprovoked overt hostile attack <we have borne with their aggressions -- Thomas Jefferson> b : the practice of making attacks or encroachments : offensive tactics <a war of aggression>
2 : the action of a nation in violating the rights, especially the territorial rights, of another nation (as by unprovoked attack, invasion, or other unfriendly military action or sometimes by serious threat of or preparation for such action) <that country was said to be guilty of aggression>
3 : a form of psychobiologic energy, either innate or arising in response to or intensified by frustration, which may be manifested by (1) overt destruction, fighting, infliction of pain, sexual attack, or forcible seizure, (2) covert hostile attitudes, covetousness, or greed, (3) introjection into one's self (as self-hate or masochism), (4) sublimation into play or sports, or (5) healthy self-assertiveness or a drive to accomplishment or to mastery especially of skills

source: "aggression." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (21 Jan. 2006).

0 Replies

I used the edition that is featured on AOL Walter, and posted it verbatim. I still prefer it to any other posted here.

Those who know that military aggression is sometimes necessary and is not in itself evil have clearly identified what they mean by that. Those who continue to want to nitpick the words used instead of the obvious intent are just muddying the water I think.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I used the edition that is featured on AOL Walter, and posted it verbatim. I still prefer it to any other posted here.

Okay, thanks. (It's the shortened "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" version.)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Bin Ladin has been at war with us for over a decade. We with him for almost 5 years. Our lack of knowledge of real targets is the only thing that's held our aggression in check these last few years. Since he's repeatedly reminded us that conditions haven't changed and is still promising more destruction; I don't think it reasonable to suggest that attacking him would be pre-emptive or put us in the business of aggression rather than defense (not in that theatre anyway).

Strange.... I haven't even heard king george say that "Bin Laden has been at war with us"

And how could "we" be at war with one man?

We are not at war at all. It's nothing more than an illegal police action.

Instead of going after the people who committed a criminal act, bombing the WTC, etc., "we" allowed a moron to lie us into this illegal invasion of two small countries and have murdered thousands of innocent people in the process.

Of course it's going to be tricky going after the man or men responsible for 9-11 since they have done such a snow job on their little sheep that few dare to suggest that bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, etc., are responsible for 9-11.

0 Replies

There was a segment re negativity on an early morning news program this morning. It was said that it takes nine positives to wipe out a single negative in the public conciousness. For this reason some companies have put their employees on notice: chronic whining, carping, bitching, and complaining will be grounds for dismissal. The people who see everything as wrong, stupid, gloom and doom, etc. bring down everybody else. Negativity is infectious, demoralizing, and detrimental to efficiency and effectiveness. We all know that to be true.

Extrapolating that to the political culture of the USA, why is it that the Republicans have done so well for the last decade or so? Is it because they focus on the positive? They believe things can be better? They can see what is working okay or even better than just okay? They don't see setbacks or difficulties as failure but as problems to be solved?

I think Bush supporters appreciate attention brought to the positive things that are happening in government, in Iraq, in the economy, in the judiciary, etc. etc. etc. I think for the most part conservatives build up rather than try to tear down. I think the majority of people respond to that.

I think that's why conservatives have been winning.

0 Replies

I agree.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Bin Ladin has been at war with us for over a decade. We with him for almost 5 years. Our lack of knowledge of real targets is the only thing that's held our aggression in check these last few years. Since he's repeatedly reminded us that conditions haven't changed and is still promising more destruction; I don't think it reasonable to suggest that attacking him would be pre-emptive or put us in the business of aggression rather than defense (not in that theatre anyway).

Strange.... I haven't even heard king george say that "Bin Laden has been at war with us"

And how could "we" be at war with one man?

We are not at war at all. It's nothing more than an illegal police action.

Instead of going after the people who committed a criminal act, bombing the WTC, etc., "we" allowed a moron to lie us into this illegal invasion of two small countries and have murdered thousands of innocent people in the process.

Of course it's going to be tricky going after the man or men responsible for 9-11 since they have done such a snow job on their little sheep that few dare to suggest that bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, etc., are responsible for 9-11.

You should share this insight with your pyschologist. He may be able to help you more than we can.

0 Replies

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/while.html

0 Replies

Magginkat writes:

Quote:

Of course it's going to be tricky going after the man or men responsible for 9-11 since they have done such a snow job on their little sheep that few dare to suggest that bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, etc., are responsible for 9-11

M-Kat should feel right at home at this site and would have enjoyed a screwball documentary I saw this week that flat out accused the administration of planting explosives in the Twin Towers and Building 7 prior to organizing the attacks:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

For everybody else, try this site including links provided at the bottom:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

0 Replies

McG... LOL!!!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There was a segment re negativity on an early morning news program this morning. It was said that it takes nine positives to wipe out a single negative in the public conciousness. For this reason some companies have put their employees on notice: chronic whining, carping, bitching, and complaining will be grounds for dismissal. The people who see everything as wrong, stupid, gloom and doom, etc. bring down everybody else. Negativity is infectious, demoralizing, and detrimental to efficiency and effectiveness. We all know that to be true.

Extrapolating that to the political culture of the USA, why is it that the Republicans have done so well for the last decade or so? Is it because they focus on the positive? They believe things can be better? They can see what is working okay or even better than just okay? They don't see setbacks or difficulties as failure but as problems to be solved?

I think Bush supporters appreciate attention brought to the positive things that are happening in government, in Iraq, in the economy, in the judiciary, etc. etc. etc. I think for the most part conservatives build up rather than try to tear down. I think the majority of people respond to that.

I think that's why conservatives have been winning.

I tend to agree, but we need to be careful.

How have conservatives behave when Liberals were running the country?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There was a segment re negativity on an early morning news program this morning. It was said that it takes nine positives to wipe out a single negative in the public conciousness. For this reason some companies have put their employees on notice: chronic whining, carping, bitching, and complaining will be grounds for dismissal. The people who see everything as wrong, stupid, gloom and doom, etc. bring down everybody else. Negativity is infectious, demoralizing, and detrimental to efficiency and effectiveness. We all know that to be true.

Extrapolating that to the political culture of the USA, why is it that the Republicans have done so well for the last decade or so? Is it because they focus on the positive? They believe things can be better? They can see what is working okay or even better than just okay? They don't see setbacks or difficulties as failure but as problems to be solved?

I think Bush supporters appreciate attention brought to the positive things that are happening in government, in Iraq, in the economy, in the judiciary, etc. etc. etc. I think for the most part conservatives build up rather than try to tear down. I think the majority of people respond to that.

I think that's why conservatives have been winning.

I tend to agree, but we need to be careful.

How have conservatives behave when Liberals were running the country?

Well there were certainly some true dedicated numbnuts on the Right side of the political spectrum that said things every bit as stupid as some of the stuff we hear from the Left.

And the Republicans can be pretty negative when they are in the minority, but they usually do have ideas on how to do it better to go along with their complaints and they usually have reasons for the positions that they hold that do not involve dissing the other side. Also, they usually seem to have more of a sense of humor and to be having more fun. Their positive outlook won them both houses of Congress in 1994 and they've pretty well kept them since.

I still think ideas and a positive outlook work a whole lot better than the politics of personal destruction. I've never seen anything as viscious from the GOP as what we see leveled against George Bush from the Left.

I remember, however, one long period of special orders going late into the night during Clinton's first term. Henry Gonzales, D-Tx, got up there night after night ranting about Reagan and George Bush the first, Major Owen would go into long rambling speeches about how the sharks still swim the slave ship routes, and they would be followed by Bob Dornan, R-CA, ranting about Clinton. There wouldn't be a soul in the chamber other than staff and the beleagured designated speaker listening to either of them. I thought all were pretty silly.

0 Replies

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (1897 - 1945), Hitler's Minister of Propaganda

.... Karl Rove, Dick Cheny, etc., Ministers of Propaganda & Lies for George bu$h January 2006

0 Replies

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium."

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an Atomic mass of 311. These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Bushcronium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Bushcronium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Bushcronium has a normal half-life of multiples of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Bushcronium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element which radiates orders of magnitude, more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know