georgeob1 wrote:My point is that, with respect to your rather broad and undualified statements, the situations faced by Wilson and Roosevelt were entirrely analogous to those we face today, and that you have been levelling some sweeping criticisms that don't stand up to a little historical analysis, and which probably contradict other beliefs that you do hold. In short you are shooting from the hip and you missed.
Our war in Nam is analogous to our war with Iraq. WWII is certainly not, and was a just war. Bush lied us into the war with Iraq, which never threatened us, much less attacked us.
Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:My point is that, with respect to your rather broad and undualified statements, the situations faced by Wilson and Roosevelt were entirrely analogous to those we face today, and that you have been levelling some sweeping criticisms that don't stand up to a little historical analysis, and which probably contradict other beliefs that you do hold. In short you are shooting from the hip and you missed.
I've heard this line before, from Bush? Yup. And it wasn't any more accurate upon repetition. There was no 'world war' or true threat to America that necessitated our actions in Iraq - though Afghanistan got what was coming to them, for sure.
Cycloptichorn
I have heard your reality avoidance irrelevancies before. You are bound up in your reason-free argument with what declared, organized, and implemented mass murder of non-murderers is labeled and who or what implements it. Call it whatever suits your fancy, declared, organized, and implemented mass murder of non-murderers is a threat to all of us ... even you, regardless of whether or not you fear it. Merely watching such murder and declaring it no threat, instead of working hard to oppose and terminate it, is at best irresponsible and at worst evil.
Advocate wrote:georgeob1 wrote:My point is that, with respect to your rather broad and undualified statements, the situations faced by Wilson and Roosevelt were entirrely analogous to those we face today, and that you have been levelling some sweeping criticisms that don't stand up to a little historical analysis, and which probably contradict other beliefs that you do hold. In short you are shooting from the hip and you missed.
Our war in Nam is analogous to our war with Iraq. WWII is certainly not, and was a just war. Bush lied us into the war with Iraq, which never threatened us, much less attacked us.
You both forget Wilson and Roosevelt lied us into WWI and WWI respectively !!! Both campaigned on explicit promises to keep us out of the wars that history now reveals they were contemporaneously conspiring to involve us in.
The "justice" of WWII is based on the fact that Japan attacked us and that Germany declared war on us following our declaration on Japan. However history is clear that Roosevelt had been conspiring for several years to enter the war and that it was our hostile policy towards Japan (particularly the unilateral embargo on oil and steel) that forced her hand.
I agree that WWII (but not WWI) was in our strategic interests. However it is useless to pretend we didn't plan to get involved. The regimes of Japan and Germany in 1940 were merely as bad as those of Vietnam and Iraq (though they got worse as events progressed).
Your argument is empty.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:My point is that, with respect to your rather broad and undualified statements, the situations faced by Wilson and Roosevelt were entirrely analogous to those we face today, and that you have been levelling some sweeping criticisms that don't stand up to a little historical analysis, and which probably contradict other beliefs that you do hold. In short you are shooting from the hip and you missed.
I've heard this line before, from Bush? Yup. And it wasn't any more accurate upon repetition. There was no 'world war' or true threat to America that necessitated our actions in Iraq - though Afghanistan got what was coming to them, for sure.
Cycloptichorn
I have heard your reality avoidance irrelevancies before. You are bound up in your reason-free argument with what declared, organized, and implemented mass murder of non-murderers is labeled and who or what implements it. Call it whatever suits your fancy, declared, organized, and implemented mass murder of non-murderers is a threat to all of us ... even you, regardless of whether or not you fear it. Merely watching such murder and declaring it no threat, instead of working hard to oppose and terminate it, is at best irresponsible and at worst evil.
Irrelevant and nonscencial, typical of one of your posts.
Cycloptichorn
ican, Your description of "non-murderers" and "murderers" is nonsensical from the standpoint of how you identify them. Most suicide bombers come from the non-murderer group, and no matter how much you wish to use these terms in your posts, they remain nonsensical. Most have to be caught in the act, and often times it's too late.
Let us know when you find a 100% solution to this problem.
We can then prevent most of the murders in our country.
Advocate wrote:georgeob1 wrote:My point is that, with respect to your rather broad and undualified statements, the situations faced by Wilson and Roosevelt were entirrely analogous to those we face today, and that you have been levelling some sweeping criticisms that don't stand up to a little historical analysis, and which probably contradict other beliefs that you do hold. In short you are shooting from the hip and you missed.
Our war in Nam is analogous to our war with Iraq. WWII is certainly not, and was a just war. Bush lied us into the war with Iraq, which never threatened us, much less attacked us.
Whether Bush believed or did not believe all he said about the threat Iraq presented to us is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not what was subsequently proven true about Iraq justified our invading Iraq. Were these 12 proven valid reasons of 23 total reasons Congess gave, enough or not enough reason for invading Iraq? Why do you think so?
Congress wrote:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);
Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, Your description of "non-murderers" and "murderers" is nonsensical from the standpoint of how you identify them. Most suicide bombers come from the non-murderer group, and no matter how much you wish to use these terms in your posts, they remain nonsensical. Most have to be caught in the act, and often times it's too late.
Let us know when you find a 100% solution to this problem.
We can then prevent most of the murders in our country.
Your flight from logic is incredible!
A non-murderer is a person who has not murdered. Suicide bombers are murderers and not non-murderers because they have murdered. Where murderers come from has zero to do with whether or not they are murderers.
ican, Your descriptives continue to be nonsensical no matter how you wish to describe your enemies and non-enimies. Useless terms with no value.
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, Your description of "non-murderers" and "murderers" is nonsensical from the standpoint of how you identify them. Most suicide bombers come from the non-murderer group, and no matter how much you wish to use these terms in your posts, they remain nonsensical. Most have to be caught in the act, and often times it's too late.
Let us know when you find a 100% solution to this problem.
We can then prevent most of the murders in our country.
Your flight from logic is incredible!
A non-murderer is a person who has not murdered. Suicide bombers are murderers and not non-murderers because they have murdered. Where murderers come from has zero to do with whether or not they are murderers.
Are you trying to educate us on something here? ROLFMAO
McCain is a scary guy. From past statements, it is clear that he finds it imperative that we attack Iran ASAP, even though there is no evidence that it has nukes.
Advocate wrote:McCain is a scary guy. From past statements, it is clear that he finds it imperative that we attack Iran ASAP, even though there is no evidence that it has nukes.
On my scary scale of 0 (least scary) to 100 (most scary):
Clinton = 80
Obama = 75
McCain = 65
Here's three statements on Iran by each candidate. How is McCain any more radical that Clinton or Obama?
Clinton on IranQuote:NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.
"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe.
Iran insists its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Ahmadinejad said Thursday his government is determined to continue with its nuclear program, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel to generate electricity or for the fissile core of an atomic bomb.
Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."
"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
Obama's position on IranQuote:Won't rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group
March 3, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter
Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."
Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel.
Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee took aim at Obama, issuing a research memo aimed at highlighting the Illinois freshman senator's lack of experience on foreign affairs. That the gloves-are-off memo was even generated at this time is a testament to Obama's growing strength in the Democratic primary field.
Obama campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the Republican memo as an "example of the type of politics Barack Obama is hoping to change." He said Obama has spoken out against the war for years.
Iranian leader 'reckless'While he was being attacked in Washington, Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders.
Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.
The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article
McCain's position on IranQuote:Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly said that an Iran with nuclear weapons poses an ""unacceptable risk"" to regional and global stability. His refrain: ""There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran."" McCain drew criticism for joking (AP) about bombing Iran at an April 2007 campaign stop. He has generally said that use of military force in Iran should be ""the last option (PDF) but cannot be taken off the table.""
http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/#15
McCain said: ""There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran."
This tells me that McC believes we must attack now. Hill and Barack merely say that they are not ruling out military action.
Perhaps you want an attack ASAP, and feel that waiting is scary.
Advocate wrote:McCain said: ""There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran."
This tells me that McC believes we must attack now. Hill and Barack merely say that they are not ruling out military action.
Perhaps you want an attack ASAP, and feel that waiting is scary.
Your McCain excerpt doesn't tell me that McCain believes we must attack now anymore than Clinton and Obama excerpts say we must attack now.
McCaine says two things:
1. There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran
2. Use of military force in Iran should be the last option but cannot be taken off the table.
Hillary says two things:
1. We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
2. We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,
Obama says two things:
1. Use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran.
2. Global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.
The only thing I can figure, Ican, is that he thinks Republicans mean what they say and Democrats don't?
Foxfyre, I think you're probably right!
Republicans generally say consistent things to different audiences. While Democrats generally say contradictory things to different audiences. So its easy to conclude that Republicans mean what they say, and Democrats don't.
On the other hand, maybe Democrats remember better what Republicans say than they remember what Democrats say.
When republicans talk it may be a lie:
WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ
(a) Will Withdraw if Asked
President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."
(b) Iraqi's Oppose Withdrawal Timetable
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq? And here in the Rose Garden a week ago, you said that Zarqawi's death is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle. After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: First part of the question? I'm sorry.
Q About the worry that you --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No question, there are concerns about whether or not the United States will stand with this government. And I can understand why. You know, ours is a society that encourages debate and people are free to express themselves. And they do so; they say, look, this is my view of how we ought to go forward, this is what I think. And the willingness of some to say that if we're in power we'll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq, because they understand our coalition forces provide a sense of stability, so they can address old wrongs and develop their strategy and plan to move forward. They need our help and they recognize that. And so they are concerned about that.
Rose Garden Press Conference (June 14, 2006)
The Bush administration has ignored repeated requests to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). "We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored," read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.
November 2005: Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish majority and Sunni minority call for the withdrawal of foreign troops "according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks
When the leader of the republican party can't be trusted, "consistency" is not the issue.
