RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization

RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:40:22 AM)
quote: Please flesh out the "empire" reference as it relates to the issue it was given in response - support of the troops. I am in rather a hurry as I have to go to work, but I will answer this and other aspects of your post when I return

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 11:40:25 AM)
quote: Goodbye democracy, hello empire. Nah, Bush even screwed up Empire. If he was going the Empire route, ( OR, perhaps if he was educated ) he would have either a) Used a client army to do the iraq occupation, reserving our Imperial Troops for the invasion, and then keeping our client army in line. or b) NOT fired the Iraqi Army, but reformed them under our command/discipline. THEN we could use THEM as a client army, to do things such as... Occupy Venezuela. The Sunni/Shi'ia thing gets in the way, maybe the Kurds could have been brought into play. Maybe not. The Turkey/Kurdistan thing is still very much in play, and could heat up at any time. Bush can't spell History, much less have learned any of it's lessons.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:11:50 PM)
quote: Nah, Bush even screwed up Empire. If he was going the Empire route, ( OR, perhaps if he was educated ) he would have either a) Used a client army to do the Iraq occupation, reserving our Imperial Troops for the invasion, and then keeping our client army in line. or b) NOT fired the Iraqi Army, but reformed them under our command/discipline. THEN we could use THEM as a client army, to do things such as... Occupy Venezuela. The Sunni/Shi'ia thing gets in the way, maybe the Kurds could have been brought into play. Maybe not. The Turkey/Kurdistan thing is still very much in play, and could heat up at any time. fargle, Still don't know or appreciate the "Empire" reference, but you know what? Had President Bush followed your 'Plan B'; the chance of success would have been much greater. I don't know about using them in Venezuela but for Iraq they may have worked fine. It appeared their support of Saddam was more out of fear than loyalty. Given the freedom to set their agenda under a US blanket of security for the sovereignty of their country and the mandate of inclusion for minority factions it may have provided a working solution. Even if the solution was splitting Iraq, it would have been an Iraqi decision. There is historical precedent. Since the Nazis have already been broached in this thread, General Patton put many of them in charge of civilian security and administration while he was in charge of the occupation of Germany. I think General MacArthur used the same tactic with the Japanese. It worked quite well in those situations that both could have easily evolved into civil war, as has occurred in Iraq. You raise an interesting point, unfortunately too late to implement. Most of the guard is now out and just waiting for the US to leave. I've often wondered why the US didn't exercise its position of power in the world to become an Empire. Although some would say that world wide, USA based "Corporate Empires" are the true powers dictating world events, it is amazing that at some point, post WWII or post 'cold war' that a 'Pax Americanus' wasn't forced upon the world. Currently the US is considered a pariah anyway, what difference would it have made to play up that position of power to the max? There is a good argument which supports that a form of "Pax Americanus" existed. Our 'allies' had to subscribe to our definition of "good guys" and "bad guys" or risk loss of aid; until recently. Wonder if it was our roots that came into play. George Washington is the only historical figure that I know of, short of Jesus Christ, who was offered a "kingdom" and refused it. Somehow in some way his principles have made it for 230 years. quote: Bush can't spell History, much less have learned any of it's lessons. Don't take this as support of President Bush but if my spelling were left without the crutch of spell-checking programs, it would show deeply ingrained stupidity regarding that ability. But as I said to my kids; "If god had wanted us to spell he wouldn't have invented spell-check."

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Goodbye democracy, hello empire. Nah, Bush even screwed up Empire. If he was going the Empire route, ( OR, perhaps if he was educated ) he would have either a) Used a client army to do the iraq occupation, reserving our Imperial Troops for the invasion, and then keeping our client army in line. or b) NOT fired the Iraqi Army, but reformed them under our command/discipline. THEN we could use THEM as a client army, to do things such as... Occupy Venezuela. The Sunni/Shi'ia thing gets in the way, maybe the Kurds could have been brought into play. Maybe not. The Turkey/Kurdistan thing is still very much in play, and could heat up at any time. Bush can't spell History, much less have learned any of it's lessons. Interesting article in Rolling Stone this issue. It is a panel interview containing experts including two ex-CIA experts on the middle east, professor of modern middle east studies at someplace like Harvard, Carter's secretary of state, and a former 4 star general who was involved in the top levels of Desert Storm. Indicated that the invasion of Iraq is unwinnable, unsolvable, and unworkable. Said that the best case scenario is for the United States to leave (which will happen, according to their analysis) and a moderate Shiite government take over power. This will entail a widespread slaughter of Sunni in Iraq, which, of course, is already happening. Worst case scenario is that this causes an uprising of muslim strife which spills over into Europe. Turkey invading Kurdistan. Various other aspects of World War 3. Pointed out that Jordan will probably fall. Isreal will be threatened and overcome. Also pointed out that the US invading Iraq has now made a hostile Arab part of the world extending over 1000 miles. Likely scenario is Iraq will end up like Palestine. Did indicate that unlike Iraq/Iran war, insurgents blow up oil pipelines because they dont care if their country falls into financial chaos and anarchy. This would result in 12% of the available oil on the planet under control of hostile Shiite muslims who hate the United States. Of course, Clinton and Gore did a study which came up with this as the likeliest outcome of invading, so they didnt. Monkeyboy and Shotgun simply assumed they were wrong without reading the study. An interesting comment from another article (about Shotgun's bad week) stated that we in the United States have almost completed our experiment about what happens when you elect an emotion prone, immature, intellectually challenged and uneducated person to the Presidency. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:14:34 PM)
On a related note... January 20, 2009. I am planning the party now. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:17:08 PM)
quote: I've often wondered why the US didn't exercise its position of power in the world to become an Empire. Bush and his cronies are shortsighted fools?

NorthernGent -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth No you didn't call the troops ignorant, you called and/or support their commanders and the top commander specifically a simian. Did you ever see the Monster.com commercial about how stupid it is to work for monkeys? Is if your belief that there is no implication of stupidity if you volunteer for such a position? You view that this is a straw man argument in contrary to the pragmatic analysis of your words. This is such a weak attempt to put words in someone's mouth (which Julia is blatantly not saying).

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth No you didn't call the troops ignorant, you called and/or support their commanders and the top commander specifically a simian. Did you ever see the Monster.com commercial about how stupid it is to work for monkeys? Is if your belief that there is no implication of stupidity if you volunteer for such a position? You view that this is a straw man argument in contrary to the pragmatic analysis of your words. This is such a weak attempt to put words in someone's mouth (which Julia is blatantly not saying). Actually, I am the one who refers to Monkeyboy as the Simian In Chief, the Special Education Reject, Braindead Man Walking, etc. Julia is much too polite to denigrate the moron elected by Dumbfuckistan by calling him names. I have nothing but respect for our people in uniform. They signed a contract in good faith that the US government has broken repeatedly for it's own purposes. Despite this, they continue to do the job they signed on to do. I just want them home safe. Monkeyboy, Shotgun, and all the other playground bullies either never wore a uniform, or went AWOL wihle wearing one. Sinergy

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:28:23 PM)
quote: This is such a weak attempt to put words in someone's mouth (which Julia is blatantly not saying). How can you quote someone and be accused at the same time of putting words into their mouth? She said later quote: But if I were to believe in your false paradigm of not supporting the kids we sent to Iraq, well I guess I do not support them. Whether the paradigm is false or she's backing off the position, the words are hers. As this weak attempt are yours, without purpose or contribution to the subject. Something to be said for consistency. Then again, as it's been pointed out, even the definition of "is" is subjective.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth No you didn't call the troops ignorant, you called and/or support their commanders and the top commander specifically a simian. Did you ever see the Monster.com commercial about how stupid it is to work for monkeys? Is if your belief that there is no implication of stupidity if you volunteer for such a position? You view that this is a straw man argument in contrary to the pragmatic analysis of your words. This is such a weak attempt to put words in someone's mouth (which Julia is blatantly not saying). Actually, I am the one who refers to Monkeyboy as the Simian In Chief, the Special Education Reject, Braindead Man Walking, etc. Julia is much too polite to denigrate the moron elected by Dumbfuckistan by calling him names. I have nothing but respect for our people in uniform. They signed a contract in good faith that the US government has broken repeatedly for it's own purposes. Despite this, they continue to do the job they signed on to do. I just want them home safe. Monkeyboy, Shotgun, and all the other playground bullies either never wore a uniform, or went AWOL wihle wearing one. Sinergy Sinergy, The reference to her was support. She came to your rescue and support a few pages back. I'm not trying to dissuade you from your position only to respond to it. I think it is disingenuous of you and is in conflict with the rest of what you state, for reasons now given at minimum 20 times. That horse may be beaten to dust. However, I'll continue to respond for as long as responses are made. As I said to her "clarity versus agreement" (Wish I remember who said that!). I only question the statements seemingly in conflict with previous positions and offer my perspective as to why I see them that way. "I want them home safe" is the bottom line. How does polarizing supporters of that position who, for whatever reason close their ears upon hearing insults and name calling, progressing you toward that common goal? Go back to my argument from the perspective of a grunt solder or that of a general for that manner. If I said your "boss" was a fascist, bigoted, ignorant, fool or use your words exactly "Monkeyboy as the Simian In Chief, the Special Education Reject, Braindead Man Walking, etc"; and you were required to follow his orders would you feel respected?

meatcleaver -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 12:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I've often wondered why the US didn't exercise its position of power in the world to become an Empire. Although some would say that world wide, USA based "Corporate Empires" are the true powers dictating world events, it is amazing that at some point, post WWII or post 'cold war' that a 'Pax Americanus' wasn't forced upon the world. Currently the US is considered a pariah anyway, what difference would it have made to play up that position of power to the max? There is a good argument which supports that a form of "Pax Americanus" existed. Our 'allies' had to subscribe to our definition of "good guys" and "bad guys" or risk loss of aid; until recently. Wonder if it was our roots that came into play. George Washington is the only historical figure that I know of, short of Jesus Christ, who was offered a "kingdom" and refused it. Somehow in some way his principles have made it for 230 years. Post WWII, American aid in western Europe was to keep western Europe out of the Russian sphere. Many Europeans saw the two WWs as a failure of capitalism and remembered how bad life was before the war (which was why Churchill was kicked out of office), meanwhile the Red Army had beaten the Germans and nothing was known about what was happening in Russia. The USSR looked very attractive to many Europeans. With the Marshall plan, America did buy an Empire that has lasted to this day. It is only with the advent of a maturing EU is Europe fidning the confidence to rebut US leadership and hegemony. Even so, countries like Britain (for some reason), lack the confidence to cast off US policy in favour of Europe developing its own policies for its own interests and not the US's. Oliver Cromwell gave up a crown but he was more than a century too early to have the philisophical foundation to create a successful modern republic.

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 5:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth "I want them home safe" is the bottom line. How does polarizing supporters of that position who, for whatever reason close their ears upon hearing insults and name calling, progressing you toward that common goal? Go back to my argument from the perspective of a grunt solder or that of a general for that manner. If I said your "boss" was a fascist, bigoted, ignorant, fool or use your words exactly "Monkeyboy as the Simian In Chief, the Special Education Reject, Braindead Man Walking, etc"; and you were required to follow his orders would you feel respected? Interesting idea. I am not one who uses the anonymity of internet message boards to try to bring about political change. From another perspective, I suppose if people are so put off by my referring to the idiot elected by Dumbfuckistan that they decide to ignore any and all empirical evidence suggesting he has committed high crimes, treason, violated his oath of office, fraud, etc., then I suppose you are correct and I should refer to him as (he insists) Commander In Chief, (his actions suggest) Der Fuhrer, (he once told a reporter that a dictatorship would be a great form of government provided he was the Dictator) Dictator, or whatever term is appropriate. On the other hand, people who rise to the defense of that nitwit because some faceless poster to a message board uses insulting names to refer to him, I find myself, again, amazed that life can exist in a mind that small and oblivious to reality. In any event, I am sure there are professional organizations which can help them overcome their emotional issues with my words. I read a lot from all sorts of perspectives. I state my opinions. I expect other people to open a book, open their minds, engage their intellect, and arrive at their own conclusions. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 5:50:21 PM)
quote: Please flesh out the "empire" reference as it relates to the issue it was given in response - support of the troops. Now I could spend pages on this, but I consider parking our troops in 138 countries to be empire building.. There are quite a few well regarded people who see it that way... try www.google.com to get many educated opinions on the subject. quote: (We don't live in a democracy.) Someone better tell Bush and all those troops in Iraq this, because they are under some delusion we are giving democracy to Iraq, and you are right, we do not possess it ourselves. I wonder how we can give away what we do not have[;)] quote: Even the so called "peace movement" is misnamed. Would there be "peace" after withdraw? Was there peace in the region before the attack? It would be better named for what it is, a "USA soldier withdraw movement". The pragmatic fact that the many religious factions in the area will resume killing each other should be obvious whether you base it upon historical or current reference. There is about as little chance of "peace" as there is for success as currently orchestrated. A "Withdraw Movement" would get my full support. What action taken by me or anyone else who supports such a movement serves to support the troops? I support bringing them home. Until they get here, my position is in support of their adversaries. How about "not bombing and killing innocent people that never did shit to us" movement? I like that better.. you are right! quote: Damn - the Nazi reference rears its ugly head... The reality regarding Germany was that the German people were taken to task and held responsible for the actions of their elected leader. Until recently their country was divided by the victors as punishment for that activity. Could there be a bigger consequence short of dissolving the country in its entirety? However, it is a disservice to all concerned to compare the suffering of those in concentration camps and those serving as soldiers or civilian support of concentration camps to the soldiers and their support staff of civilians serving in Iraq. Are there death squads in Iraq? Yes Are we torturing people in "prisons"? Yes Did we invade Iraq under false pretenses under the guise that we had to protect ourselves? Yes

Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 6:53:22 PM)
quote: On the other hand, people who rise to the defense of that nitwit because some faceless poster to a message board uses insulting names to refer to him, I find myself, again, amazed that life can exist in a mind that small and oblivious to reality. In any event, I am sure there are professional organizations which can help them overcome their emotional issues with my words Missing the point entirely. But I guess you had no choice. There is no emotion involved on this side only yours. Well, keep reading head bobbing positions. Failure to recognize that prosecution of personal involved in any "torture" or involved with "death squads" is a bit different than Nazi Germany points to the blinders you wear. The countries we have bases are either by treaty or request of the county, another missed distinction. You need to read more about a Republic and how it differs from a Democracy. Your reply indicates you didn't understand the political concept. "Bombing and killing innocents people"? Its called "war" view the definition. Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime?

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: On the other hand, people who rise to the defense of that nitwit because some faceless poster to a message board uses insulting names to refer to him, I find myself, again, amazed that life can exist in a mind that small and oblivious to reality. In any event, I am sure there are professional organizations which can help them overcome their emotional issues with my words Missing the point entirely. But I guess you had no choice. There is no emotion involved on this side only yours. Well, keep reading head bobbing positions. Failure to recognize that prosecution of personal involved in any "torture" or involved with "death squads" is a bit different than Nazi Germany points to the blinders you wear. The countries we have bases are either by treaty or request of the county, another missed distinction. You need to read more about a Republic and how it differs from a Democracy. Your reply indicates you didn't understand the political concept. "Bombing and killing innocents people"? Its called "war" view the definition. Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime? According to the judgement that repealed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we are not technically at war and never have been, despite the Dictator's view that we are in a "War Against Terrorism." View the document in question. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution or my favorite http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 So your point about bombing and killing innocent people, while true if a state of war exists, is not relevant to the discussion since we are not actually at war. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 7:34:34 PM)
quote: Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime? Well it has been hard considering that I have been followed for my activism, and there have been people sent to GITMO without any due process, and yes that could happen to me under patriot act 2, but I manage pretty well. I refuse to live in fear.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:15:11 PM)
You know, nothing I read on this board generally troubles me 99% of the time, but something you said today does trouble me Merc, and that is that I am supporting terrorists by not supporting Bush and the military industrial complex. I am troubled by it because I do not think that I can have discourse with someone that thinks this way... it goes against the core of who I am, it disrespects my humanity, and frankly if that is the way you think I do not think we have anything left to say to each other. I refused to talk to two of my family members for a very long time over such utter bullshit. I just will not communicate with people who attempt to get personal like this because of what I consider a spiritual position. Take care.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime? Well it has been hard considering that I have been followed for my activism, and there have been people sent to GITMO without any due process, and yes that could happen to me under patriot act 2, but I manage pretty well. I refuse to live in fear. I'd throw the BS flag on this one.. Name one US citizen deported to GITMO... Show one line of the patriot act that says this is any way possible. The only people held at GITMO are classified as enemy combatants. Unless you've attended some type of training by Al Qaeda that your unwilling to share, deportation to GITMO is just another leftwing fantasy.

juliaoceania -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime? Well it has been hard considering that I have been followed for my activism, and there have been people sent to GITMO without any due process, and yes that could happen to me under patriot act 2, but I manage pretty well. I refuse to live in fear. I'd throw the BS flag on this one.. Name one US citizen deported to GITMO... Show one line of the patriot act that says this is any way possible. The only people held at GITMO are classified as enemy combatants. Unless you've attended some type of training by Al Qaeda that your unwilling to share, deportation to GITMO is just another leftwing fantasy. I know that GITMO has no American citizens in it, but the Bush admin certainly wanted the ability to declare Americans enemy combatants and to circumvent the bill of rights. I was using the GITMO reference for drama, but I suppose it could be lost on some people. It is interesting that you acknowledge that enemy combatants are there. Do you support giving the president the ability to declare americans enemy combatants and disappear us with no due process?

Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/13/2007 8:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Comparing the US to the Nazis is just amazing. How can you live under such an oppressive regime? Well it has been hard considering that I have been followed for my activism, and there have been people sent to GITMO without any due process, and yes that could happen to me under patriot act 2, but I manage pretty well. I refuse to live in fear. I'd throw the BS flag on this one.. Name one US citizen deported to GITMO... Show one line of the patriot act that says this is any way possible. The only people held at GITMO are classified as enemy combatants. Unless you've attended some type of training by Al Qaeda that your unwilling to share, deportation to GITMO is just another leftwing fantasy. Sorry, United States citizen Jose Padilla was held in limbo for four years, denied counsel, due process, etc., after being detained in Chicago, was not sent to Gitmo. He was illegally detained on a military base in (if memory serves) Florida. This sort of activity is specifically prohibited by the United States Constitution. I assume from your words that you are ok with this sort of behavior on the part of a sitting President and his administration. Regarding the enemy combatant fantasy, we are not technically at war. (see post regarding Tonkin Gulf Resolution) so how exactly do we have enemy combatants if we dont have any actual enemies? I look forward to your rational (hopefully not knee-jerk talking point jingoistic) analysis of these issues. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125