And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-20-2007, 12:39 AM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


You know if that JFK quote - the paragraph you highlighted - had never been uttered and Bush actually said it today, the first reaction from most would be "Wow. The White House finally hired a competent speech writer" and then they'd think "So he's going to bomb Iran then."
You had me rolling with this quote! LOL

Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


You're right though, the Democrats need to grow a set, and, in a sense, take back ownership of a quote like that and make US foreign policy inspiring again. They are too focused on being the anti. They do need to, to quote a rather popular rock and/or roll band, dream it all up again.
Agreed. A JFK/FDR style Democrat Party is essential to American survival.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:48 AM   #122
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


As for "antiwar democrats" the vast majority of Democrats in both the US Senate and US House opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in January 1991, including Senator Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry.
Do you ever actually just answer the question asked?

How many opposed Afghanistan?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 04:19 AM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

How many opposed Afghanistan?
The authorization for military force on 9/14/01 was 98-0.
The two who didn't vote were Larry Craig and Jesse Helms, both Republicans.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...e/1/votes/281/
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 10:09 AM   #124
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
i find it funny when people look at the words of politicians -- which haven't changed all that much, everyone loves some red meat "freedom" language -- instead of their actions. being willing to stare down the Soviet Union, as opposed to walking around the Middle East and instigating fights and embarking on poorly planned (if planned at all) exercises in foolish ideology that are ultimately funded by the worst motivators of all (oil) and fabricating crises in order to accomplish these goals, are two very differen things.

i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 10:13 AM   #125
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 PM
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 10:41 AM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.
They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.

And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism."

Indeed, JFK and FDR would certainly be aghast - just not by what you think.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 10:47 AM   #127
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.
I'm pretty sure they would be standing up against Bush and Rove with everything they have, don't kid yourself. But to be honest we can't say with any certainty what these two men would think or feel, so why can't we just let them rest?


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism."
So you've got it all figured out, a few protestors are against capitalism so now everyone fits in the same box. Wow, I guess all Republicans are sexists bigots as well.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 10:52 AM   #128
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[B]They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.
they would be aghast at the manufacturing of a crisis and an unnecessary toppling of a government that has unleashed deep-rooted sectarian tensions in a country that has always been little more than a figment of Winston Churchill's imagination.



[q]And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism." [/q]


firstly, the act of protesting is every bit as patriotic as enrolling in the militalry. and, please, you're smarter than to let a fringe few speak for the hundreds of thousands -- myself included -- who have marched in DC, NYC, SF, and in every major city across the Western world.

shall i talk to you about the protest of the protest where they hung an effigy of Jane Fonda and had signs that called her "Hanoi Jane -- Traitor Bitch"? shall we talk about the shouting matches they instigated? shall we talk about the shameless manipulation of one soldier who had lost a foot in Iraq who instigated shouting matches so that he could then go on O'Reilly and talk about how much the protestors hate the troops?

i've been to these marches, and participated. and there are unwashed idiots there. and you know what? they are entitled to express their opinions as well. but the vast, vast majority of people are mainstream and suburban.

and i've never, ever seen a flag burning.

though i did see one in Glasgow, Scotland. but that's another story.

and AEON, why don't you focus on the real enemy of success in Iraq. you're sadly mistaken if you think getting mad at protestors is somehow going to make people feel better.

this is a sad strategy that was used in Vietnam. blame the activists. blame the left. blame the Democrats. STING has already started doing this, because it's too humiliating, apparently, to focus internally and realize that you supported the wrong policies, voted for the wrong people, and allowed yourself to be manipulated by the worst possible people. you voted for incompetency and cronyism, and you've got a civl war in Iraq (and a disaster in New Orleans).

blame Bush. blame Cheney. blame the Republicans. blame the supplicant Democrats.

do NOT blame those who are simply exercising their rights. they are not the enemy of success.

how did you vote in 2000 and 2004? therein you'll find the enemy of success.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 11:02 AM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.

I don't blame the protesters for the problems in Iraq. I simply stated that I think they would make men like FDR and JFK aghast. However, I will state that I think that overall, they are doing more harm than good. Most soldiers I know simply think these people are opportunists and dismiss them.

But I do agree we might have the wrong leadership to fight this war the way it should be fought.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 11:14 AM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.



then we'll have to agree to disagree. if anything, i find a "my country, right or wrong" a totalitarian attitude, not a democratic one. i'd much rather have people speaking out against bad policies than going along with them out of blind patriotism.


[q]However, I will state that I think that overall, they are doing more harm than good. Most soldiers I know simply think these people are opportunists and dismiss them.[/q]

if they are dismissed, how are they doing harm?

this is democracy in action. this is precisely the type of free speech and independent thought that terrify religious theocracies. nothing pisses of the terrorists more, and rightly so. protests are indictive of the health of debate and thought in our society.


Quote:
But I do agree we might have the wrong leadership to fight this war the way it should be fought.
do you agree that the central reasoning, however, was correct? it's merely the implementation of the policy that has been shameful, not that the policy itself was flawed?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 11:31 AM   #131
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier.

Tell that to MLK.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2007, 11:44 AM   #132
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.
What a load of crock, honestly.

Somebody's more patriotic because they hold a gun overseas in a country that isn't theirs fighting a losing battle? Whatever, it's a ridiculous idea.

As soon as you take on this view, of course nobody will be able to negotiate a compromise with you given that you've already prioritized patriotism as you see it fit.

Then again, the entire notion of measuring one's patriotism kind of escapes me.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:12 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:10 AM
blind patriotism and valueing of such can lead to a disaster know country wants to face.

No one is un-patriotic by stating publically that he wants his son or daughter back home safe.

Sure, in every march there are some idiots, even some "enemies of the state". But they really are a minority.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:32 PM   #134
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


What a load of crock, honestly.

Somebody's more patriotic because they hold a gun overseas in a country that isn't theirs fighting a losing battle? Whatever, it's a ridiculous idea.

No. They are more patriotic because they are putting their lives on the line for their country. What does the protester risk?

I am not saying that protesting should be illegal. I'm just saying that doing so in a time of war seems to serve the enemy more than it does the United States. The soldiers may dismiss them, but the general population does not.

Irvine, to answer your question about the actual policy - I do think that if we really thought there was WMD in Iraq - then the invasion was justified. Since everyone from Chirac to Hillary to Bush all came to the same conclusion based on intelligence from independent, multinational organizations - it was the right call. Since it appears this was a bluff by Saddam - it was too late to simply leave and say "our bad." We were then committed to rebuild the country. That is why the blame game at this point is a waste of time. The mission now is a stable, independent democracy. I see no other choice. And the best way to achieve it is for the public to stand united and give the military all the resources and time it needs to complete the mission.

The enemy believes the West is weak. The images of protesters reinforce that attitude. They know that if they can stay on the front page – they will defeat us because we will allow ourselves to be defeated. How will this be good for the United States? Iraq? The world?

I believe the United States is the greatest experiment in history and is mankind’s last, greatest hope.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:01 PM   #135
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[B]
No. They are more patriotic because they are putting their lives on the line for their country. What does the protester risk?

getting wiretapped?

i would argue that doctors, nurses, firemen, police officers, etc., put their lives on the line, and protect the lives of, their fellow citizens. to me, that's an act of patriotism that's more profound because it doesn't involve bombs and flags. and many of them are protestors.

this is not to disrespect miliary service; i just don't think it's the highest patriotic calling. i can be a wonderful thing, and i am grateful to the military. i just dont' think they are better than others.



[q]I am not saying that protesting should be illegal. I'm just saying that doing so in a time of war seems to serve the enemy more than it does the United States. The soldiers may dismiss them, but the general population does not.[/q]

why do you have so little faith in our country and our citizens? besides, what good is free speach, or any principles, really, if you abandon them at difficult moments? this is why, for example, i support the right of someone to burn a flag. sure, it's offensive. i would never burn a flag. but because i retain the right to burn a flag, for me, guarantees that i would never exercise that paricular right.

and, again, i don't think it serves the enemy. they don't rub their hands with glee when they see protests. they get excited when people re-elected the greatest recruitment tool Al-Qaeda could have ever hoped for -- George W. Bush.

and, ultimately, who cares? both are strong expressions of democracy and central values of the West. this is what we are fighting to preserve, isn't it?


[q]Irvine, to answer your question about the actual policy - I do think that if we really thought there was WMD in Iraq - then the invasion was justified. Since everyone from Chirac to Hillary to Bush all came to the same conclusion based on intelligence from independent, multinational organizations - it was the right call. Since it appears this was a bluff by Saddam - it was too late to simply leave and say "our bad." We were then committed to rebuild the country.[/q]

but you'll recall: only ONE country really thought this was worth going to war over. yes, there was consensus that Saddam probably had some WMD capacities. there was no consensus as to what to do about it.

a reckoning with Saddam was coming, i agree with that. but when that happened, and how that happened, and more importantly WHO decided when and how that reckoning occurred, have all led to the disaster we have right now.

never forget: the invasion of Iraq was timed to coincide to kick-off Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.


[q]That is why the blame game at this point is a waste of time. The mission now is a stable, independent democracy. I see no other choice. And the best way to achieve it is for the public to stand united and give the military all the resources and time it needs to complete the mission.[/q]

it's the present administration that has NEVER give the military the resources and time it needs. if you wanted to effectively occupy Iraq, you'd need a good 500,000 troops. where are you going to get those?

much of this comes down to Rumsfeld. the reason why the post-war plan was such a mess was because there was no post-war plan. they thought they could walk in, topple the government, hand Ahmed Chalabi a copy of The Federalist Papers, and have the troops coming home over the summer of 2004 as Bush barnstormed his way to a Reagan-esque relection.

not so.



[q]The enemy believes the West is weak. The images of protesters reinforce that attitude. They know that if they can stay on the front page – they will defeat us because we will allow ourselves to be defeated. How will this be good for the United States? Iraq? The world?[/q]

again, who cares? the enemy misreads. the strength of the West is that we have space for dissent. that we allow ideas to be contested.

you really are blaming the protestors.



[q]I believe the United States is the greatest experiment in history and is mankind’s last, greatest hope. [/q]

that's a lovely thought, and it brings to mind the georgeousness of the last page of The Great Gatsby, but please understand that there are many, many people who are going to find such a statement offensive, at the least.

and no one has done more to extinguish this "hope" you speak of than George W. Bush.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com