Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Moderate Centrist

Pre-emption

Recommended Posts

3. Slander - nothing stimulates the appetite like good old fashioned name calling and emotional bed wetting for Lie-berals. Devoid of facts, common sense or historical understanding they resort to libel.

Let's compare:

Basically Liberals are anti-intellectual, anti-reality, cheap suited car salesmen, who want to live off the fat of others.

Thus, #3 is both a right-wing and left-wing fact. :)

Syria and Iran?

Syria doesn't make that much sense. It has been one of the few Middle Eastern countries that has thrown its full weight behind the "war on terrorism." It has opened its doors to the West, shutdown offices and means to transfering funds of known terroristic operations, arrested supposed terrorists, and backs the US. So, once again, we'll go after our ally :)?

Iran makes far more sense then Iraq ever did. The Russians have termiated their pact with Iran dictating that all nuclear waste be returned to Russia. We KNOW they have stockpiles of RGP and RGU. Their centriguge projects are probably more advance then Iraq's during the 1999-2003. Also, they run one of the most, if not thee, draconian government the world has ever seen. The "leaders" of Iran have preached death to America since the overthrow of the Shah. However, unlike Iraq, the youth of Iran WANT America to remove the Mullahs. They are protesting and being violently beaten by military and paramilitary forces. Many of their student leaders are taken away and never seen again. The University of Tehran has seen multiple military/police invasions. The people have spoken, and are being slaughtered.

If the US wants to show that it really means to free people from tyrannical dictators, Iran is the perfect example. Iraq is not. However, Iran has less oil. *ponder*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Granted it isn' exactly a peacemaker, but a country has the right to defend itself.

Noa, you need to come out from under the rock you're hiding under if you think we're in Iraq for oil. If that were the case, why are we still there? hmm, ponder.

Once we establish a stable base of operations in Iraq, that'll put us....wow, in the MIDDLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Convenient for looking at any nation who many give us a hard time.

Let's play "Who wants to get their butts whipped in three weeks!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nova, if you think Syria is cooperating in the War on Terrorism, I have some ocean front land in Kansas I'd like to sell you!

Iraq was D-Day - a battle in our war, intended to establish a beachhead in the midst of our enemies.

It ain't over 'til the Fast Lady sings and she hasn't even put on her makeup yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...if you think we're in Iraq for oil. If that were the case, why are we still there? hmm, ponder.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you read a newspaper or turned on the TV lately? The place is a war zone. Makes it awful hard for Halliburton, Betchel and Exxon-Mobil to do their thing in those conditions, dontchewknow. But don't you worry: y'all will stick around till the oil (and profits) start pumping again.

Once we establish a stable base of operations in Iraq, that'll put us....wow, in the MIDDLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Convenient for looking at any nation who many give us a hard time.

Let's play "Who wants to get their butts whipped in three weeks!"

Seriously, I'd love to see the U.S. go into Iran. Shit, why not Syria too? Throw in North Korea and make it a party. Stretch yourselves thin, plunder your economy, make yourselves an even bigger target for the nutcases of the world with an ax to grind. Gut whatever social programs you have left to keep Lockheed Martin in the black and Dick Cheney's portfolio nice and healthy. Put your country into the grip of a debt from which it'll never recover. Kill thousands more civilians and conscripts so your president can strut around looking all manly and heroic for the TV cameras. We know what happens when an Empire's reach exceeds its grasp. Thus has it ever been, so shall it be with America. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Anything to bring you neocons back to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neal, if you study your World War 2 history carefully, you'll realize that the Allies simply could not have nipped Hitler in the butt in the 1930's.

Following the first World War, nearly all the countries of Europe, but especially Britain and France drastically downsized their armed forces. Trench warfare was so unbelievably horrifying, that the people of Europe never wanted to fight again.

In the treaty of Versailles, however, the Allies really gave Germany the shaft, which pissed off a lot of Germans, making it easy for the Nazis to rally support in the late twenties, early thirties. Britain and France decided to ignore Hitler's march into the Rhineland, not because they didn't have a preemptive doctrine, but rather because they were absolutely terrified of starting another war, and because they could not have sustained an attack against Germany at the time.

The difference between then and now is that we took Baghdad in 3 weeks, and we knew that we could. We planned on doing it that way. In 1934, Britain and France were not entirely sure they were even capable of taking Berlin, let alone on any sort of quick timetable.

Anyway, I'm really digressing here. Overall I think preemptive warfare is acceptable only in the most extreme of situations (like Kim Jong-Il goes on TV, points to the camera, and says, "Hey America, I'm going to bomb you."). Bush's reasoning for the war in Iraq is extremely questionable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and because they could not have sustained an attack against Germany at the time.

Your post is good apart from this. The simple fact was that Germany marched a brigade into the Rhineland, and across the river were a hundred French divisions. German commanders were given a sealed envelope to open in case of French resistance. Inside was a piece of paper telling them to retreat and fall back as fast as possible.

The British and French could have annihilated Germany in 1934, but the political will was just not there. They believed that concession was the road to peace, and as that road appeared to be open, why risk any level of armed confrontation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno how I missed this rib-tickler before....

They all hate America. They hate America not for anything we have done but for what we are.

:lol: Typical blind arrogance. Sadly I've become accustomed to this kind of simple-minded claptrap from you. By denying the role played by the West in general and America in particular in keeping the Arab world fragmented through selective support of repressive regimes, through the systematic exploitiation of local resources and through the unequivocable support of Israel (to name a few grievences), you deny the forces that drive anti-American/anti-Western sentiment in the mideast.

Islam has a choice - reform or die.

The struggle between Islamic reformationists and hardliners has been going on since the 19th century. Islam needs to sort itself out, but not under the threat of annihalation by crusading ninnies like you.

No-one speaks of the one street that can dictate the actions of its government: the American Street. We Americans have the one government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. This is why the European elite join the Arab governments and Islamic fanatics in hating us. We are the common man and we do not and will not bow or kneel to anyone. We select our leaders and choose who to follow. No "elite" rules us or dictates our actions. We are the culture of the common man and that is why our culture spreads throughout the World - and the "elite" rulers hate us for it. And all of this is why they should fear the American Street.

Whatta crock! You are so blinded by fanaticsm and the propaganda you greedily ingest that you don't even know what's happening under your very nose.

If you think America is not governed by an elite, you're dead wrong. Democracy in the U.S. is a meaningless exercise at best, allowing a disaffected, uninterested population to select which figurehead to vote for every four years. In the meantime, special interest lobbies use campaign contributions and pork barreling to exercise their will over the government (a government, I should add, that has as nothing in common with the average American). I don't know if it's naivete or ignorance that drives you, but it sure ain't the truth.

For the first time in our history, more than 80 % of the American people are ready to use nuclear weapons. That should have made the Arab Leaders, the Islamics and the Europeans sit up and take notice but they have such a blind spot where America is concerned that they continue to think of Americans as sheep like their own subjects. This is a fatal error. Fear an enraged American Street!

70 per cent of American also believe in UFOs and angels. 60 per cent believe Iraq was directly responsible for 9-11. Taking one's policy cues from a survey of a cowed and ill-informed populace is folly. The only thing I fear from the American street is their amazing capacity to eat whatever B.S. their government ladels out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Dog,

The following link is to an interview with Morgan Reed, regarding "questions about lobbying, undue industry influence on United States laws as they apply to the tech sector, the future of internet taxation, and more."

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?...3&tid=98&tid=99

Please read it. It will shed some light on American democracy for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me cynical, but I find pronouncements of the purity of the political lobbying process ring hollow when uttered by a political lobbyist. I don't think the authour is necessarily up to no good, but i think his assessment that

When a Congressman is lobbied either by corporation or his local Lion's Club, he is thinking in terms of how it benefits his constituents and his/her personal beliefs. Corporations know that, and tailor their legislative message to illustrate the benefits or perils to a Member's local or national constituency.

You must demonstrate to members of Congress and other government officials how your position will benefit their constituents and demonstrate that many of their constituents feel the same way. This is the key to effectively lobbying government even without deep pockets.

reads like something out of a high school civics text. It's a trifle naive and sounds like he is softening the message for his audience (Spin 101).

Simple fact is, it doesn't take a genius to follow the trail between money and power. Lobby groups, PACs and so forth will naturally try to portray themselves as representing the interests of a particular constituency, but the fact is, they only represent the folks who sign their checks. That these people are the main players in Washington speaks volumes about chequebook democracy in the States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Dog, there is an interesting article in the latest issue of Foreign Policy perhaps it could add to your knowledge of reality.

The Falseness of anti-Americanism

"Pollsters report rising anti-Americanism worldwide. The United States, they imply, squandered global sympathy after the September 11 terrorist attacks through its arrogant unilateralism. In truth, there was never any sympathy to squander. Anti-Americanism was already entrenched in the world's psyche—a backlash against a nation that comes bearing modernism to those who want it but who also fear and despise it."

There are dozens of other quotes and cites which could be listed but the one simple fact is this: You project a leftist litany of so-called causes as your opinion of the justification for the attacks upon us. Plain and simple - you are projecting your views onto other who do not hold them. But it doesn't matter.

Islam may have been involved in a struggle over modernisation since the 19 Century and could well have been so occupied until the 25th Century. Their business, I agree - excepting one small fact - these fanatics made the fatal error of involving America in their controversy, made the fatal error of coming into our home and killing our women and children. Islam no longer has the luxury of several centuries to bicker over their religious doctrine. They have elected to involve and kill Americans as part of their religious dispute. We have reserved judgment on the ultimate fate of Islam and have concentrated upon the fanatics, the only question being if it is only a fringe element which has perverted the teachings of Islam. Should we be forced by events to conclude the religion has been perverted beyond redemption, those few who survive will have their Seventh Century life - amidst the ruins and slag that once was their homes. Yes, in response to the choice presented to us we are forced to think the unthinkable! Did they (or you) believe we would lift our throats for halal?

You grow weary of my message but the stakes are so high, so gigantic it must be repeated again and again until it is understood what is at stake. If they continue to cast this as a question of the survival of Islam or America, we will take them at their word, we could do no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lobby groups, PACs and so forth will naturally try to portray themselves as representing the interests of a particular constituency, but the fact is, they only represent the folks who sign their checks.

But the Congressmen and Senators they have to lobby represent their constituents. They have to, or they can kiss their chances of re-election goodbye. Reed actually gave an example of this, where a majority of Congressmen actually squashed a bill despite the fact that the corporations who would have benefitted from it had contributed generously to their campaign funds. Money does not always equal power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Money does not always equal power.

Not always, certainly. But one would have to be blind to ignore the role money (especially in the form of campaign contributions) plays in the erosion of democracy and the tiumph of special interests over collective rights. Sadly, I think example such as the one Reed cites are the exception rather than the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and because they could not have sustained an attack against Germany at the time.

Your post is good apart from this. The simple fact was that Germany marched a brigade into the Rhineland, and across the river were a hundred French divisions. German commanders were given a sealed envelope to open in case of French resistance. Inside was a piece of paper telling them to retreat and fall back as fast as possible.

The British and French could have annihilated Germany in 1934, but the political will was just not there. They believed that concession was the road to peace, and as that road appeared to be open, why risk any level of armed confrontation?

That reminds me off the UN not willing to commit to war in Iraq....do whatever it takes for peace....if my historical memory is correct, German then walked across France within a decade of that! The US and England and our allies learn from history, but the UN doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...