If you don't support Bush you are morally and intellectually confused - Page 4 - 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 08-30-2006, 08:17 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


the Republicans are betting the Democrats will take the house
I mean betting odds like they have for the Super Bowl and other things. Where are people who do this type of thing putting their money, if there is such a thing for a mid-term election?
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-30-2006, 11:09 PM   #47
JCR
The Fly
 
JCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Higley, Arizona (it's a chunk of land in Gilbert AZ)
Posts: 79
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Well, "Islamofascism," as a term, is curious because it is more palatable to the Religious Right here in America. The alternative would be "Muslim fundamentalists" or "theocrats," but since we have many Christian fundamentalists who want a theocracy here in America, they would not tolerate even the implication of having something in common with Muslim terrorists.

"Fascism," by implication, is atheist, so it satisfies the Religious Right by adding in another dig against "non-believers."

Melonj
I get your first point but...
I'm having difficulty finding any definitions of fascism in which atheism is implied...fascism is described as a "rigid one-party dictatorship" that is belligerent in its nationalism, racism and militarism, ETC. (No mention of disbelief in a god(s).)
Could religious fanaticism be included as one of the etc. in the definition? If so, isn't it redundant to call the "terrorists" Islamofascists? Isn't fascist enough? (I'm just thinking out loud--feel free to show any flaws in my logic.)
Hiltler, the little Christian used scripture to justify his views on jews, so his brand of fascism came from a christian-taint whereas the extreme fundamentalist islamic fascism is tainted by their ideology. Don't they both smack of fascism, with their own religious cherry on top?

Also, can we label "the terrorists" as a one-party anything? If so, do we say they are led by a bunch o' mini-dictators? or do we give that crown to Binny boy? Maybe we just need to call them what they are: irrational religious fanatics. IRFs. yeah, i like it, you?

Was Mussolini (the first fascist leader) an atheist? (If so, I guess I can see the implication...dhoop de doo.)--but i'm posting this anyway!
__________________

__________________
JCR is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:10 AM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Well, maybe what you construe as an attack is not one. Any serious discussion must involve a discussion of the options and why this or that option is bad for the country as opposed to the option they think will work best.
You've got to be kidding? You honestly think his comments were to spark serious discussion? Your credibility is leaking fast...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:22 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You've got to be kidding? You honestly think his comments were to spark serious discussion? Your credibility is leaking fast...
"Credibility leaking fast"?

Anyway, I do think he is attempting to get people to focus on what should be done rather than attacking what has happened for the Billionth time.

What is the Democratic strategy for Iraq? Do they want to abandon the country as fast as possible, within 6 months like the Murtha Policy? Or are they like Leiberman who believes that staying the course is necessary for US and regional security and will eventually produce a stable and democratic Iraq? Or perhaps its something in the middle of those two extremes?

Right now, the Democratic base is deeply opposed to the war, but the elected officials seem completely divided on the best course of action. But what the United States should do in the coming years in Iraq should be the focus rather than attempting to rehash the 2004 election in which the Democrats were defeated , from the White House, to the Senate, to the House Of Representitives.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:29 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 10:13 PM
What is the Republican strategy exactly?

Stay there, plug our ears, close our eyes, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and talk about how fabulous it is that more Iraqis now own cell phones?

Seriously, what is their strategy. I don't see one.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:31 PM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Right now, the Democratic base is deeply opposed to the war, but the elected officials seem completely divided on the best course of action. But what the United States should do in the coming years in Iraq should be the focus rather than attempting to rehash the 2004 election in which the Democrats were defeated , from the White House, to the Senate, to the House Of Representitives.
I don't think you quite have a grasp on the Democratic base. Yes I agree the party as awhole isn't as united as the Reps on this issue, but being opposed to this war and wanting to completely back out are two different things.

I opposed the war, but don't believe backing out now is going to do us any good. Bush dug the hole, now unfortunately we have to deal with it. Hopefully someone who knows what they are doing can come in and help us. Many feel the same way I do. Hell many Republicans feel the same way I do. They may have supported the war at first but they now realize it's a disaster but there's nothing to do except stay in. But stay in, doesn't mean stay the course and this is what the White House doesn't understand.

Regardless Rummy's comments will do nothing to aid us in coming up with a solution. They were nothing but attacks, I'm sorry you can't see that.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:37 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Seriously, what is their strategy. I don't see one.


the strategy is to say that the Democrats have no strategy other than "cut and run."

the dirty little secret is that there has never been a postwar strategy. remember how the Iraqis were going to throw roses and it was going to be like the Netherlands in 1944 and the oil would pay for it all?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 02:52 PM   #53
War Child
 
Iskra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 752
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Olberman tore Rummy a new one last night.
I applauded my tlevision.
I don't think I've ever stood up and clapped at my TV before.

__________________
Iskra is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:03 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Iskra
Olberman tore Rummy a new one last night.
I applauded my tlevision.
I don't think I've ever stood up and clapped at my TV before.

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:08 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Iskra
Olberman tore Rummy a new one last night.
I applauded my tlevision.
I don't think I've ever stood up and clapped at my TV before.

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:15 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 10:13 PM
The transcript (I got it from MSNBC):

Quote:
The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. We end the COUNTDOWN where we began, our No. 1 story with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld‘s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday. It demands the deep analysis and the sober contemplation of every American, for it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence, indeed the loyalty of the majority of Americans who impose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land.

Worst still, it credits those same transient occupants, our employees, with a total omniscience, a total omniscience which neither commonsense nor this administration‘s track record, at home or abroad, suggest they deserve it. Dissent and disagreement with government is the life‘s blood of human freedom and not merely because it the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of his troops still fight this very evening in Iraq. It is also essential, because just every once in a while, it is right and the power to which it speaks is wrong.

In a small irony however, Mr. Rumsfeld speech writer was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis for in their time, there was another government faced with true peril with a growing evil, powerful, and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld‘s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It too had the secret information, it alone had the true picture of the threat. It too, dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld‘s. Questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England‘s in the 1930. It knew Hitler posed in true threat to Europe, let alone to England. It knew Germany was not re-arming in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions, its own omniscient, needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain (ph) already knew the truth. Most relevant of all, it knew that its staunchest critics need to be marginalized and isolated, in fact it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty warmonger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused. That critics name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly we have no Winston Churchill‘s evidence among this evening, we have only Donald Rumsfeld‘s demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill. History and 163 million pounds of (INAUDIBLE) bombs over England have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty and his own confusion, a confusion that suggested that the office cannot only make the man, but that the office can make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rums make an apt historical analogy accepting the fact he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government absolute and exclusive in his knowledge is not the version of please one that stood up to the Nazis it is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today‘s omniscient ones, that about what Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this, this is a democracy, still, sometimes just barely and as such, all voices count, not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience, about Osama bin Laden‘s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein‘s weapons four year, ago, about Hurricane Katrina‘s impact one year ago, we all might be able to swallow hard and except their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe of fact plus ego.

But to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages to the entire fog of fear which continues to envelopes our nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their cronies have inadvertently or intentionally profited and benefited, both personally and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just the receipt for the emperor new clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child at whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion, we as its citizens must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis Lemay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag.

Note, with hope in your heart, that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light and we can too. The confusion is about whether this secretary of defense and this administration are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek, the destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld‘s other main assertion of that this country faces a new type of fascism as he was correct to remind us that a government that knew everything could get everything wrong. So too was he right when he said that. Though probably not in the way he thought he meant. This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.

Although I presumption use his sign off each night in feeble tribute, I have no utterly no claims to the words of the exemplary journalist, Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of 1,000 years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other polarities thought they and they alone knew everything and branded those who disagreed confused or immoral.

Thus for give me for reading Murrow in full.

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty” he said in 1954, “We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not disended from fearful men, not from men who fear to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. And so, goodnight and good luck.”
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:43 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:13 PM
slam. dunk.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:48 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 10:13 PM
And now, from the front page of The Washington Post:

Quote:
Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history’s lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 04:58 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
What is the Republican strategy exactly?

Stay there, plug our ears, close our eyes, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and talk about how fabulous it is that more Iraqis now own cell phones?

Seriously, what is their strategy. I don't see one.
Well, its to set up a new democratic government to replace the Saddam regime. Provide economic assistance to the country to help it get on its feet. Provide training, organization, equipment and weapons to the Iraqi military. The goal is to rebuild the entire country and they would say much progress has already been made on all three major goals. An elected government is in place, but much of the economic aid has not been distributed throughout the country due to the violence. General Casey, said yesterday the Iraqi military will be able to take over 100% of all ground military operations in the country in 12 to 18 months. Progress has indeed been made on the military front, but obviously not enough.

If the country can keep the government together and continue to build up its military and police strength, then this should eventually lead to greater stability within the country and allow for a reduction in the coalition military. If the environment becomes more stable, then the economy can grow and more economic assistence from the coalition can actually be spent which will have a large impact on the final goal of a free and stable Iraq. I think its rather obvious what the plan of "stay the course" is.

Perhaps the reason the Democrats don't have a united strategy of their own is because they can't think of a better one, and from a political standpoint, embracing the strategy of the party in power does not benefit them. So, they continue to attack what is being done, without ever suggesting what they would do if they were put in charge of the White House and Congress again.

The Democrats who support immediate withdrawal never explain how this would impact the region as well as the United States.

As much as people hate "stay the course" it is at least a strategy with stated goals and means to achieve them. Besides a short term cut in US military spending and US lives lost, what would be achieved by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? How would this insure or make it unlikely that the US and others would not have to return to the region in 5, 10, or 20 years?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-31-2006, 05:05 PM   #60
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht



As much as people hate "stay the course" it is at least a strategy with stated goals and means to achieve them.
Really?

How much training will the Iraqi army need to take care of an enemy that we can't hardly contain?

This isn't a plan it's a disaster. Poorly planned, prematurely executed fuck up, is what this war is...It's not a plan.

I wish there was a plan. I wish someone would come up with a plan, but honestly this adminstration is shooting down anyone that comes up with something other than stay the shit course, that nothing will ever get done.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

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 10:13 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