It is easy to make an electoral ride over an unpopular war; it is less easy to make sure the free nations of the world keep their sway over the power of fanatics zealots. It is easy to say “let’s bring our soldiers home”, but that stance is way more egoistic than any fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party: what about the democrats (in the sense of pro-democracy), the women, the minority religious groups? It is quite naïve to believe they will be forgiven by the jihadists and will then live side-by-side peacefully…
Never has a Democratic candidate truly addressed the issue of the post-American presence Iraq. They always say things like “this is fear-mongering” or “this will be a strong message for the Iraqi government”… Yeah, has anybody ever heard of actual military concerns? The extremists of the whole Muslim world are assembled in Iraq; Iran is backing them. Is it fear-mongering to say that radical extremists WILL have the military strength to topple any human rights-respectful Iraqi government? It is indeed a heavy toil for the Western World to assume the consequences of this fact… One the Democrats are apparently eager to avoid.
It is frustrating not to have the right to vote for an election that has such serious consequences for the future of my civilization…
I appreciate the depth of your commentary, as it incarnates (though not exactly in every detail) my criticism of the type of populism the Democrats are actually using. There is no rationale behind an unconditional withdrawal; only political strategy and national fear. This has nothing to do with Viet-Nam, the enemy is very different and the battles are far from being as disastrous.
I agree that it is wrong and dangerous to see an enemy where there is none (McCarthyism) but you must agree that it is at least as wrong and as dangerous not to see an enemy where there is one (Hitler’s appeasement).
Most terrorists in Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia, which means most likely they're connected to Al Qaeda and that they're Sunni, thus they probably have very little relations with Iran. McCain's statements about Iran were total bullshit.
Second, no one cares about fucking democracy when they don't have running water or electricity. Political development is absolutely worthless without economic development, and we've blown the living conditions in Baghdad back 100 years.
The war is putting us into economic ruin and is making us less safe than ever before. Afghanistan is a troubled region again and by fucking with Iran, we're alienating our most powerful ally against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. No, muslims are not one big happy family. It's like the 30 Year War and if we worked with Iran, we would have a better shot of dealing with the terrorists who have actually attacked us.
Everyone paints "McCarthyism" as some kind of insane paranoia, but at the time, the Soviets were undertaking a major campaign of espionage and infiltration. The Communist Party in the USA was funded and directed by the Soviet Union, and its members were commonly recruited as direct agents of the Soviet Union.
(This is all verified by Soviet documents released after the collapse of the Soviet Union.)
Having just come out of WWII, they were justifiably expecting open warfare with the Soviet Union.
Soviet spies had successfully infiltrated the Manhattan Project. Propaganda aimed at enemy morale and loyalty were major WWII weapons, not to mention home-front propaganda. This was only a couple of years after Tokyo Rose.
It's impossible to tell how successful the McCarthy communist hunt was, or how many truly innocent people it hurt, but it wasn't pure paranoia, and things like the Hollywood blacklist weren't unreasonable by the standards by which WWII was fought.
Well, I feel it would be pointless to argue various intelligence sources with you since, in the end, we choose who we believe, and that’s fair. I just can’t conceive how Democrats can believe it will in some way not be humanly disastrous for Iraqis to find themselves without military support against these various insurgent and terrorist groups…
For the records, I believe it was very wrong to invade Iraq (I give all credit to Obama for his original stance on this issue). But, now that Bush has created this mess, it would be just as wrong for another President to leave without assuring a minimum and security and stability for Iraq. That would be an open breach for every violent faction of jihadists to strive on.
I might as well hope that Obama is just being a populist to get elected but that he will not enforce his timeline to withdrawal once he is in power. That would be great, since I prefer his economic platform to McCain’s by far…
I was not making the case of a new war, I was making the case of Al Qaeda (Sunni extremists) or Iran-supported insurgents (Shia extremists) or whatever other violent fanatical group winning the current war.
Maybe that it wasn’t so necessary to replace the bloody tyrant Saddam Hussein was (because there were many other graver threats to international security) but if a religious fanatical movement takes control of Iraq, things will be worst than they were before 2003. At this point, what is the logic of leaving Iraq in chaos and in danger of being overtaken by a creed way more dangerous than Saddam Hussein’s instead of staying until moderate Muslims (who are those who truly deserve everyone’s help and respect) control a secure and stable Iraq?
On April 20 2008 14:04 Jibba wrote: Second, no one cares about fucking democracy when they don't have running water or electricity.
I would rephrase that: No one who doesn't care about democracy when they don't have running water or electricity deserves it.
I think that would include most of the human population then. And I don't know about you, but I've never been in that situation and I don't think most of this board has either.
I never bought the idea of being in Iraq to bring “freedom and democracy”. Peoples have to get that for themselves, no foreign army can provide it.
We’re talking about international security, about fighting against a radical worldview that wants an absolute tyranny over the whole of humanity. Iran may be a rival to Al Qaeda, but it is part of that worldview. So, I would not qualify them as “our greatest ally” when they are just one of the several evils threatening the Muslim world at first and the whole humanity in the end.
Allying with Stalin against Hitler doesn’t mean it was a good thing to make Stalin the master of half the world…
On April 20 2008 14:04 Jibba wrote: Second, no one cares about fucking democracy when they don't have running water or electricity.
I would rephrase that: No one who doesn't care about democracy when they don't have running water or electricity deserves it.
I think that would include most of the human population then. And I don't know about you, but I've never been in that situation and I don't think most of this board has either.
On April 20 2008 14:04 Jibba wrote: if we worked with Iran, we would have a better shot of dealing with the terrorists who have actually attacked us.
Yes, because Iran has been making such friendly gestures toward the USA, and saying, "Let's work together." and not calling it "The Great Satan" and repeatedly chanting "Death to America!" every week in their state-led prayers. + Show Spoiler +
Yes, they actually do this. I'm not exaggerating.
Their top government leaders never say anything like, "Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."
They're totally reasonable people. We should leave them alone to their development of nuclear "Death to America!" peaceful technology.
rhetoric and ideology are mostly just for show. obviously iran is not so friendly toward the u.s., but this is not all too significant. juvenile interpretations aside, iran's situation does demand more acceptance of the fact of u.s. geopolitical and hegemonic weakening. hardheaded approaches are pretty stupid, for lack of a better word. to better make the u.s. accept this situation, portrayals of iran as irrational religionists are to be suppressed, even if they are irrational religionists, since the u.s. is populated by people who cannot react productively to this fact.
there is no danger of iran doing anything militarily against the u.s., the guys who trump up an iranian war basically do nto like the fact that the u.s. is confronted with iran the geopolitical obstacle, and the fact that u.s.'s hegemonic position in world politics is seriously challenged by another voice. that iran is not a good voice is not really the reason iran is disliked in right wing circles, but the position of iran as an obstacle to continued u.s. dominance. now, iran is pretty bad and whatnot, but that's not really the problem. the problem is the attitude certain groups take against this fact, especially in light of iran's total inability to do anything militarily against the u.s., hence the possibility of a cool approach.
the hitler and whatnot arguments are pretty 7th grade level. i feel bad for even bringing it up. we are not in middle skool ne more, so be srs.
you can't handle the truth the right way, and fortunately, the fact of the matter is, you are pretty distant from relevant and respectable policy discussions. so keeping your kind contained is the best we could do for now. but, you are welcome to develop a more sensitive approach to things and thereby inviting yourself back to relevancy.
i dont really care about the argument itself, just thought it would be fun to puncture the air of respectability around this circus.
On April 20 2008 14:04 Jibba wrote: if we worked with Iran, we would have a better shot of dealing with the terrorists who have actually attacked us.
Yes, because Iran has been making such friendly gestures toward the USA, and saying, "Let's work together." and not calling it "The Great Satan" and repeatedly chanting "Death to America!" every week in their state-led prayers. + Show Spoiler +
Yes, they actually do this. I'm not exaggerating.
Their top government leaders never say anything like, "Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."
They're totally reasonable people. We should leave them alone to their development of nuclear "Death to America!" peaceful technology.
The only groups they hate more than us are the Taliban and Al qaeda.
Don't forget guys that Obama favors a national ID system, and supported parts of the patriot act. I say he's just a politican getting too much coverage, and giving false hope to people.
someone hacked my.barackobama.com and had some links redirect to hillaryclinton.com
in addition this is by my count the third time Obama's field offices have been broken into:
by Josh Drobnyk
Barack Obama's Allentown office was burglarized this week, and multiple laptops and cell phones were stolen, an Obama campaign aide said today. A police spokesman confirmed the incident, but couldn't provide details today because reports are kept in the department's records depository, which is closed weekends.
An Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "a couple" field laptops were taken out of the office at 1233 Linden St. The computers have demographic information that the campaign uses to target voters. "A couple" cell phones were also taken, the aide said.
Police spokesman Capt. James Stephens confirmed the break-in, but could not confirm details of what was taken because the records office is closed on weekends. When and how the break-in occurred also remained unclear. Stephens would only say that it happened "a couple days ago." The Obama campaign declined to comment officially on the incident.
Both campaigns have had their share of incidents at field offices during the race. Obama field offices in California and Iowa have also been broken into. And late last year, a man took campaign workers hostage at a Hillary Clinton field office in Rochester, N.H.
EPT
