Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wow, Merc, you should run for office.
Bob
Bob,
Love to, but I inhaled.
Also very few people would ever really want to hear truth. What it comes down to is that everyone has an agenda. If the truth is anti their agenda the truth becomes a pariah.
For example. The US is last in the world in using nuclear power. Every other developed country and some we would consider third world use nuclear power for electricity. If you want to reduce the dependence on oil or natural gas, it seems a good alternative. What odds would you give of EVER seeing a new nuclear power plant built anywhere in the US? On a similar note the last refinery was built a couple of decades ago. NIMBY along with a paranoia fueled by the environmental advocates and a activist court system have eliminated the possibility of any relief coming from the construction of modern nuclear power plant.
beth & I were discussing the sad state of this country. It seems my worst fear about the re-election of Bush is being realized, he's stacking the court ultra right wing conservative. Yes I voted for him, because the alternative was reprehensible; but I was fearful and predicted that the long term problem of his re-election wouldn't be the war, it would be the fact that the Supreme Court would have enough vacancies to create a conservative and ultra right wing majority. Remember, the new chief justice will more than likely be there for 30+ years! He'll be there long after Bush is gone and officially goes down in history as the worst president since Carter.
The CM forums have a skewered representation of the US. What is often forgotten here is that all of us, all 182,930 registered users at last count, represent a VERY tiny minority of the voting public. And within this minority we are very much polarized. Our vitriol is evident in any hot button debate, slave v. sub, third party speech, grammar. Within our minority we are just as fractured as what now passes as the democratic party. Their attempt at creating a majority by placating minority special interests is doomed to fail nationally because on every issue it polarizes the opposition, creating a national majority of people who just CAN'T support some specific plank in their platform.
beth made an interesting point this morning. her brother one of the most liberal people I've ever met, who lives as a "free spirit" in remote upstate New York, always votes republican. His reason is that he feels it will hasten the revolution. There's merit to his position. When people point specifically to Bush as the cause of everything from the tsunami in India, the earthquake in Pakistan, the hurricanes in the gulf, the price of gas, the war, employment, the Yankees losing in the first round, etcetera; they not only are giving him to much "credit" but they are opening themselves up to something far worse. If they feel the one man truly has that power they are willing to consider that one person can impact their lives. Politically that person is called a dictator.
Interestingly I think al-Qaeda could hasten the process should they be successful in detonating a nuclear device in this country. Giving them credit for intelligence, it may be the reason why they haven't because it would also hasten their demise. Because if they do so, the gloves will be off for retaliation. Israel would immediate use one of the nukes they don't have on Iran's suspected nuclear development facility. I'm sure the US would no longer hold back using one of those "battlefield" nukes that the generals are just dying to use somewhere in Pakistan where they suspect bin Laden is hiding. Oh yeah, I can imagine they'll be "pretty sunsets" in many parts of the world. Can we assign the same morality that we did with the Russians and assume the al-Qaeda leaders understand the concept of "MAD"? I doubt it, considering the atheist Russians didn't assume 70+ virgins would be waiting for them on the other side.
Jeez - what a rambling post!! I'm even worse in person! Can you believe beth & I actually have debates and discussions like this regularly? As I get older and the periods of "recovery" get extending beyond my youthful 10-20 minutes; I'm happy that beth has more in her head than just roots for her red hair.
One last comment to my friend L&M...quote:
Deciding that you officially "support" the war instead of officially "not supporting" the war isn't going to affect whether it's resolved by 2008--and that is, by your own analysis, the only crucial question. We're not getting clobbered over there because people don't support the war. We're getting clobbered because the planning for this war was atrocious. (highlighted for emphasis)
I don't believe we "are getting clobbered" but I would agree that the planning and ongoing occupation is atrocious.
I also agree with your position that the war will not be over or "won" (unless we use the Nixonian definition) prior to 2008. Although one of the reasons I believe this is that al-Qaeda takes solace in the wanning support of the war in the US and is counting upon our Vietnam history of ultimate capitulation. The logic of the position in the article you site is irrefutable. My question is, once we do leave and once again our "resolve" is found weak will the problem go away? Without the focus of Iraq will al-Qaeda no longer seek a worldwide fundamental Muslim presence, or will they celebrate their victory with a wild weekend in Vegas? You read as much as I, I'm sure. Have you ever read anything that would make you think that even "unconditional surrender" by the US and total recall of 100% of US troops assigned throughout the world would put a stop to their agenda? It may be a humorous image to imagine, but the goal of al-Qaeda is to see the woman of the US walk, because women aren't allowed to drive cars in a Muslim state, the streets in burqas. Should that occur I'd suggest not only would we all learn what "real" slavery is like, but we'd long for the days when a liberal like George II was in charge.
But don't turn around what I said about supporting the war. Even if I agreed with starting the war in the first place was incorrect it's academic and wouldn't effect the point of the post, which was support of the troops. I know I don't need to rehash my position. The "rationalists" use the "don't support the war - support the troops". I see that as invalid, because war doesn't die. I support the troops, so I must support their activity, the war, without reservation. Does my position also reflect a rationalization? Maybe. Does it make a difference beyond the semantic? The military and ex-military that I talk with seem to think so. They appreciate support of what they are doing. They know that non-support of what they are doing strengthens the enemy. (Confirmed by your sited article.) Like people seeking people here, they would prefer honesty; just say - "I don't support the war" and leave it at that. Who is served, other than your self, by the caveat of adding the clause "but I support the troops"? One Marine Sergeant preparing for his next tour in Iraq said to me he'd prefer the honesty of the anti-Vietnam war people who spit on soldiers coming back. To him, at least they weren't afraid to be honest in hating everything associated with the war and not interested in taking a PC debate position.
|
RE: One or Two Iraq Questions - 
Profile
- 
. Those guys offer no solution for any problem, but they do make problems for solutions. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread