Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 7:44:16 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		 
I have an idea.  Lets send in the staff of Time magazine with the aid stuff.  If they get in deep shit, we can deny involvement and use the article to say that they were radicals.  If they end up being heroes, we take the credit for sending them in.  Problem solved.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 8:41:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm missing the whole invade, kill a bunch of people, displace a bunch more and then steal the most valuable natural resource in the country while doing absolutely nothing to stabilise the situation or get our troops out of harms way which is the defining element of the GWB doctrine.

Looks more to me like people calling for the international community to ignore the toothless tiger that is the Burmese leadership while sending aid to those in desperate need but its possible I missed something.


I've seen estimates of the possibility of hundreds of thousands of Burmese dying due to their government's indifference and paranoia.

Would you consider it a "crime against humanity" if that many, or even perhaps a million people died, because their government did nothing, when aid was available?

Would you consider this possibly to be genocide?

Firm


So that's what you're down to now? Trying to put words in people's mouths so you can twist them into supporting Bush. There was a time I thought you were one of the better people on here and I liked you and respected your opinions even when we disagreed. Unfortunately for reasons not clear to me you have sunk to quite amazing depths in your, desperate?, desire to vindiicate GWB.

To be quite abundantly clear I no more support regime change in Burma than I did in Iraq. It would be great if the US could step in and put things right in these places but as has been made abundantly clear by Iraq and Vietnam we cannot do that by occupation of formerly sovereign nations. I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 10:05:43 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.

You sure about that?

Once you open that Pandora's box and overrule the choices of a soveriegn nation, where do you stop?  Can you stop?





_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 10:43:41 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight


I have an idea.  Lets send in the staff of Time magazine with the aid stuff.  If they get in deep shit, we can deny involvement and use the article to say that they were radicals.  If they end up being heroes, we take the credit for sending them in.  Problem solved.


Irish, we can't even get U.S. State Dept employees to "man their posts" in Iraq! lol
A bunch of them were going to quit over it a few months back, remember?
I wonder if Stef needs a "source" for that one?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 10:52:22 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.

You sure about that?

Once you open that Pandora's box and overrule the choices of a soveriegn nation, where do you stop?  Can you stop?

How does a few helos unloading relief supplies or some cargo parachute drops ever escalate to regime change?

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 11:13:33 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline 		Hey guys, how about Mars?

Why don't you Americans go off and invade Mars?

I mean, think of it.. Not another boring regime or weak nation, but an ENTIRE PLANET.

Admittedly the distance is a bit of a problem, but you guys can handle that. You can pour billions of dollars into your Invasion of Mars, but you know, there is a good side. It's actually quite safe. And it'll keep you out of the way and busy for a while.

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/3/2008 11:30:01 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		The idea is just hand wringing because everyone is impotent when it comes to helping Burma's needy. The idea of dropping supplies has been widely discussed on this side of the pond and dismissed as impractical as it is so inefficient in delivery most would be lost and much of what could get through would end up in the hands of the regime. The real need is to get China on board in regard to the humanitarian problems in Burma and N Korea but that isn't going to help the Burmese that are in dire need right now.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 6:46:18 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm missing the whole invade, kill a bunch of people, displace a bunch more and then steal the most valuable natural resource in the country while doing absolutely nothing to stabilise the situation or get our troops out of harms way which is the defining element of the GWB doctrine.

Looks more to me like people calling for the international community to ignore the toothless tiger that is the Burmese leadership while sending aid to those in desperate need but its possible I missed something.


I've seen estimates of the possibility of hundreds of thousands of Burmese dying due to their government's indifference and paranoia.

Would you consider it a "crime against humanity" if that many, or even perhaps a million people died, because their government did nothing, when aid was available?

Would you consider this possibly to be genocide?

Firm


So that's what you're down to now? Trying to put words in people's mouths so you can twist them into supporting Bush. There was a time I thought you were one of the better people on here and I liked you and respected your opinions even when we disagreed. Unfortunately for reasons not clear to me you have sunk to quite amazing depths in your, desperate?, desire to vindiicate GWB.

To be quite abundantly clear I no more support regime change in Burma than I did in Iraq. It would be great if the US could step in and put things right in these places but as has been made abundantly clear by Iraq and Vietnam we cannot do that by occupation of formerly sovereign nations. I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.


I think perhaps you are being over-sensitive.

I'm not putting any words into your mouth.  I simply asked you a couple of straight-forward questions, which you ducked:

If the Burmese government does not allow available humanitarian aid into their country, and 100,000s or millions of people die:

1.  Would you consider this act a "crime against humanity"?

2.  Would you consider the possibility that that might be genocide?

My point to this thread was the double-standard of many on the left, especially the media. 

They oppose the Iraq war "on principle", yet quickly violate those same principles to support intervention - up to war - when it serves their interest.

The fact that they don't even notice the hypocrisy makes it all the more interesting.

As far as "vindicating GWB", I find this a humorous statement as well.  How is pointing out other's hypocrisy "vindicating" him?

hmm, perhaps it's part of the subtext of your (and many of your fellow travelers) thoughts, because things seem to be turning around quite nicely in Iraq these days?  And a free and strong Iraq government might - in some eyes, eventually - justify the Iraq invasion, even if for all the wrong reasons?

When you start saying it's ok to intervene "just a little, just to drop food and medical aid", then you have broached the principle of national sovereignty. 

Then, well, you know .... you'll need a few doctors, nurses and dental assistants to make sure that the medical aid is not wasted .. and think of all the lives a few doctors could save !

Then, well ... maybe a few UN distribution specialist, to make sure the food gets distributed correct, and not hoarded by a few.

Oh, wait ... they'll need a little security, just in case ... how about a company or two of infantry, or Marines to help make sure that the desperate don't overrun any of the medical/distribution centers in panic?

Well .. you know the junta (terrible guys, really) might not take too good to having foreign armed fighting men in their country without permission ... better take a company of Apaches and Blackhawks (the Blackhawks can be used for medical evacuations as well!)

And ... well, all those forces need a good command and coordination center ....

As I said before .... you can't just be "a little bit pregnant".  You break the principle a little, for whatever reason, and you are using the same rationale that Bush used to invade Iraq.

Even if you don't wish to admit to it.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 7:21:23 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		You can spin all you want but there remains a huge gap between not respecting a nations supposed right to allow its people to suffer and occupying a nation for the benefit of big business.

You claim hypocrisy but you clearly don't understand the word or the situation being discussed. GWB lied to get the Congress and the people to go along with the occupation of Iraq. No one is spreading lies about Burma to try and get Congress or the american people to go along with occupying the nation. Some people have speculated that rather than letting thousands die from hunger and disease it might be better to simply ignore the Burmese government.

Now on to your trotting out the slippery slope fallacy, you have made no attempt to show that dropping aid leads to any of the rest of your suppositions which is of course fallacious.

As to Iraq I actually pay attention to the actual news from the region and that includes the fact that the government remains completely impotent and no troops or police of any quality are being trained. Bombings continue and the intersect conflict has been allowed to effectively cleanse every community in the nation which naturally has cut down on the level of day to day violence. I further note that the US has stopped taking so many casualties by simply not attempting to control areas they used to routinely patrol, remember when McCain lied about how safe it was for him to walk in a market near the green zone in Baghdad? Maybe you caught the part about how he couldn't go back there on a recent trip since US forces no longer go into that part of Baghdad having left it to the tender mercies of the Mahdi army.

I think its long past time for you to take a hard look at what you're doing and why.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 8:29:20 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You can spin all you want but there remains a huge gap between not respecting a nations supposed right to allow its people to suffer and occupying a nation for the benefit of big business.

No, there's not. Sovereignty is an either/or proposition. There is no basket of rights for a nation, there is only one: the right to be sovereign in its internal decisions.

If disrespecting sovereignty in Burma is acceptable, then it is acceptable in Iraq. If it is unacceptable in Iraq, it is unacceptable in Burma.

And before you snark back, yes, I consider the disrespecting of Iraqi sovereignty to be unacceptable. GWB royally fucked up there.

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:01:18 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You can spin all you want but there remains a huge gap between not respecting a nations supposed right to allow its people to suffer and occupying a nation for the benefit of big business.

You claim hypocrisy but you clearly don't understand the word or the situation being discussed. GWB lied to get the Congress and the people to go along with the occupation of Iraq. No one is spreading lies about Burma to try and get Congress or the american people to go along with occupying the nation. Some people have speculated that rather than letting thousands die from hunger and disease it might be better to simply ignore the Burmese government.

Now on to your trotting out the slippery slope fallacy, you have made no attempt to show that dropping aid leads to any of the rest of your suppositions which is of course fallacious.

As to Iraq I actually pay attention to the actual news from the region and that includes the fact that the government remains completely impotent and no troops or police of any quality are being trained. Bombings continue and the intersect conflict has been allowed to effectively cleanse every community in the nation which naturally has cut down on the level of day to day violence. I further note that the US has stopped taking so many casualties by simply not attempting to control areas they used to routinely patrol, remember when McCain lied about how safe it was for him to walk in a market near the green zone in Baghdad? Maybe you caught the part about how he couldn't go back there on a recent trip since US forces no longer go into that part of Baghdad having left it to the tender mercies of the Mahdi army.

I think its long past time for you to take a hard look at what you're doing and why.


For the second time, you've duck the plain and simple questions I asked you:
If the Burmese government does not allow available humanitarian aid into their country, and 100,000s or millions of people die:

1.  Would you consider this act a "crime against humanity"?

2.  Would you consider the possibility that that might be genocide?
I have comments about other parts of your last post, but they are off-topic to this particular thread, so I'll save them for another time.

Are you going to duck answering these questions a third time?

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:14:40 AM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		So, here's a couple of thoughts.  We send these purely humanitarian folks into Burma.  The government in Burma takes offense and takes action.  They may not have a huge military but unarmed aid workers probably wouldn't be able to fend off any military for that long.  Now we have dead or captive aid workers.  So now we have to send in troops to rescue them.  Even if this is an entirely UN run situation, troops have just invaded a soveriegn nation and we took the first steps.  In the long run, the world won't see this as a UN blunder.  The blame will be shifted to the US as always.  We are the hate mongering war wanting bloodthirsty bastard who never help anyone.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:21:55 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Firm, I'm not playing your game. I saw through it when you trotted those questions out the first time.

You'll try and twist any statement made about the burmese leadership into an equivalence to preoccupation Iraq and start crying hypocrite. I told you the first time you that I was falling into your not so clever trap and I meant it.

Let me just remind you that you don't get to claim GWB did the right thing because he inadveertantly stopped mass killings. By any reasonable standard GWB is directly responsible for a far greater rate of death and displacement in Iraq than Saddam ever was. So by the standard you no doubt think will allow you to score some points with those who you disagree with GWB should be dragged in front of the War Crimes court and locked up forever.

I'm trying really hard to be nice to you but this is getting ridiculous and your continued assumptions that I'm so stupid as to fall for your little trick is insulting.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:30:03 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You'll try and twist any statement made about the burmese leadership into an equivalence to preoccupation Iraq and start crying hypocrite. I told you the first time you that I was falling into your not so clever trap and I meant it.

It's not hard to do make the analogy. Two soveriegn nations, oppressing their respective populations. Iraqi brutality killed at least as many civilians as the cyclone appears to have done in Burma.

Myself, I do not argue that Iraq was right--it wasn't. However, I do assert that one cannot have it both ways. Iraq cannot be wrong and intervention in Burma be right. Both are soveriegn nations. The same standard applies to both.

Because Iraq is wrong, any intervention in Burma must also be wrong. If intervention in Burma is right, one must consider the possibility that intervention in Iraq was also right.

Hypocrisy is wanting to have it both ways. Firm is not the one making that effort that I can see.

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:31:09 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		"Ducking questions a third time?"
That reminds me of someone else on this site who I've put on block.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:39:13 AM   
MstrVik


Posts: 122
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline 		Bringing up a matter for discussion in any media isn't automatically the same as condoning it - or not condoning it. Disinformation has also run rampant since the launch of the 'war on terror' - it's simply a tool. In this specific case, possibly meant to put more pressure on the Burmese government. Obviously, a lot of different measures has been and is being considered - like an air drop. In the case of a cholera epidemic, that situation would not only affect Burma but possibly also its' neighbouring countries, and it would need to be contained in some way. The situation in Burma is a far cry from what was the case with Iraq. Whatever happens in the case of Burma, its' neighbouring states will also be involved in that decision - and it does share a border with China....

_____________________________

~ sometimes a spanking is just a spanking...

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 9:56:10 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline 		From the article:
quote:

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma.


If invasion IS an option for Burma, why was it not an option for Iraq? If invasion should not have been an option for Iraq, how can it be an option for Burma?

The author is not condoning invading Burma per se, but the tenor of the article, as demonstrated by the above quote, is that invasions for "humanitarian" reasons are condonable.

If that is so.....then asking why the Iraq invasion was wrong is not only "fair game", but is the next logical question to ask.

_____________________________



(in reply to MstrVik)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 10:07:51 AM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrVik
- and it does share a border with China....

I highly doubt China would invade over humanitarian concerns.  Although, it might give them a reason that others would accept.

(in reply to MstrVik)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/4/2008 10:28:15 AM   
MstrVik


Posts: 122
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrVik
- and it does share a border with China....

I highly doubt China would invade over humanitarian concerns.  Although, it might give them a reason that others would accept.


It is definitely a very intricate situation, and whatever happens it will need to be some kind of international collaboration. I don't think any of the other neighbouring states will gladly invite China into it, they have their own trouble with marxist fractions already - well, at least I know India does. They sure don't want the Chinese any closer than they already are...

_____________________________

~ sometimes a spanking is just a spanking...

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 12:31:34 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		FR

.......there are any number of positions beyond merely anti-war or pro-war. Consistency would be nice. If invading Iraq was the right thing to do, then so is invading Burma and Zimbabwe. If it was wrong then so is invading Burma and Zimbabwe. If we say that our motives for invading Iraq were essentially humantiarian then it is clearly hypocritical to not invade other, equally repressive regimes. Invading Iraq, but not invading Burma and Zimbabwe begs the question why not........the easy answer is oil.....and thats the one thing that the Bush administration has consistently denied. Thus the perception that the republican administration is hypocritical is born.

(in reply to MstrVik)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109