RobTheDrummer wrote:You can't put all of this on Bush. The laws and rules had to be passed by both sides of the fence. Here's what I say, let the Democrats have a chance. We'll see what happens.
NOPE You are Wrong ! Bush was breaking these laws first ! Then when he go caught, HIS Republican majority changed the laws to suit Bush's crimes. And that's a fact !
I didn't realize that there was a magic number that, upon reaching, meant we had to give up and go home.
Here's the deal as I see it: going in to Iraq was a mistake, easily seen in hindsight. There were serious intelligence errors, resistance was badly underestimated, and tactically, the thing was bungled. But those things are no excuse for leaving the job unfinished. We screwed it up, we made the place more of a terrorist state. We have to deal with it. We can deal with it now, or later, and it will be ten times worse to deal with later, and there will be far, far more human suffering over there between now and then. We need to change tactics, deal with the problem, and go home when it's done, and not before.
RobTheDrummer wrote:You can't put all of this on Bush. The laws and rules had to be passed by both sides of the fence. Here's what I say, let the Democrats have a chance. We'll see what happens.
NOPE You are Wrong ! Bush was breaking these laws first ! Then when he go caught, HIS Republican majority changed the laws to suit Bush's crimes. And that's a fact !
And Rob, you didn't answer my questions.
Ok, so what should we do? We have been getting useful information out of these guys. They are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants. There are times when you gotta do what you do in order to survive. If that means holding radical Muslims and keeping them from hurting Americans, that's fine by me.
Thier torture is turning up loud music and sleep deprivation. That's not torture. Anyways, if it is gonna save lives of Americans, then what's the big deal? Humanitarianism will get us killed if we get sympathetic towards terrorism.
We never used torture in any previous war. Why now ?
Ask any German or Japanese or Itilian POW and they will tell you how much respect they have for the US because of the respectful treatment they got.
Here's a Scenario for you Rob.
Lets say this guy is in Iraq on business and his name is Robthedrummer. Two American soldiers say they saw him shoot an American Soldier. Robthedrummer is now a terrorist, He has no say to plead his innocence, He has no trial. He has no rights at all. Now the fact is, he is innocent, but under the new laws, too bad ! And you will be tortured legally. Are You OK with this new law now ?
You are naive to think the torture is only loud music and sleep deprivation.
Bush has had other countries do some torturing for us, did you know that ? Because they didn't have laws against it. If you believe they just listened to music, then I'm glad you didn't sign up for the military, you would have had a rude awakening ?
I"m all for harsh punishment for the GUILTY. But first prove they are guilty. In case you didn't know it , that is the AMERICAN WAY. Jail with NO trial, that's UnAmerican.
Can't you see, there is no end, these radicals will NEVER quit. That has been their way of life for thousands of years. Afganistan bleed the Russian economy dry by doing to Russia what Iraq is now doing to the USA. The only end would be to completely wipe them out.
No that's not the answer (for any idiot who suggests we nuke'em). That would be real Hitler like.
So Americans will continue to be killed until we leave . I'd rather less than more !
I think the ironic thing is that we need to hire a guy like Saddam to get control of that country. I personally think we are smack dab in the middle of World War III.
Can't you see, there is no end, these radicals will NEVER quit. That has been their way of life for thousands of years. Afganistan bleed the Russian economy dry by doing to Russia what Iraq is now doing to the USA. The only end would be to completely wipe them out.
No that's not the answer (for any idiot who suggests we nuke'em). That would be real Hitler like.
So Americans will continue to be killed until we leave . I'd rather less than more !
Yes, the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan for twenty years. How long did it take us?
Can YOU see, that we need to deal with this. Running away from it won't make it go away. It will still be there, and it will be a powder keg. When it explodes, what do we do then? We're in a better position now than we're ever going to be to deal with this. Do you really think that if a democrat were to take office tomorrow, he or she would actually pull out of Iraq? It wouldn't happen.
You don't get it and won't get it. I can see from your posts that you can't get your head out of your politics. You are so caught up in the democratic underground and moveon.org conspiracy theories that no amount of logic or reason will sway you.
What is your proposal ? knowing they will never quit ? I'm not stuck in Democratic policies at all, I disagree with most of their social policies. Why did Bush have Schwarzenegger speak at the Republican Convention. He is for abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. Oh, and reducing taxes to the rich.
And I don't know what moveon.org is. Enlighten me please.
The only conspiracy I know of is the rich corporations brought together on K street with the right wing religious conservatives. That's a fact if you have been following the Abranoff thing. And that alliance is falling apart as we speak.
Bush's idea is to stay the course. Is that good enough for you ?
Last edited by Hawk on Thursday Oct 05, 2006, edited 1 time in total.
lonewolf wrote:
Yep. I heard they were makin' them listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers really loud!
If thats not torture, I don't know what is!
What could be next? U2?
A friend of ours, Julie Hearn, was the communications specialist who decided what music to blast 24 hours a day back when Manuel Noriega holed himself up in Panama... it was the first major instance of the whole loud-music-torture thing. What did she play? Punk, European Metal, and a cassette tape of Thin Ice and Blytz! Woo-Hoo, we contributed to the mental illness of a world leader!
P.S.--- Julie is one of the coolest humans on the planet, was just smokin' hot in her Army uniform, and has excellent taste in torture music.---->JMS
ya your right listening to u2 for mor than 2 songs is torture to us let alone to his entire album. Bono is a dick head. his chic chica chica rythum is torture. stay where you are and worry about your own problems. chica chica chica chica what the fuck!
Sapo wrote: I personally think we are smack dab in the middle of World War III.
That's what scares the hell out of me. And I think Bush, with his cowboy attitude, is leading us in that direction.
And he is alienating many other countries !
And our military is so stretched out, we couldn't handle an attack ! Don't you think The idiot in North Korea knows this ? He does.
Actually, what is leading to WW3 are the radical muslims that want to kill all who are not musilims.
There isn't just ONE thing leading us to World War III.. this isn't like the first two world wars, where Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, or hitler marched into Poland.. this is going to be a culmination of things..
Remember.. to make it a war, more than just 2 entities have to be involved.. yes, I do believe we're in the beginning stages of a very long war. And yes, I believe it will take place in the middle east to begin.. but dont for one second think it's going to stay there..
Here is where I will sound Conservative, brace yourselves..
The real threat, is not Iran.. despite their ties w/ Hezbollah.. which by the way, is not a terrorist organization, they are an official army in Iran, and Lebanon. Iran may have nuclear weapons, but if you honestly believe they'll do any harm to Israel.. you're pissing in your cheerios. You honestly think Israel will allow this? Iran launches so much as a ticker-tape filled bomb, in the direction of Tel-Aviv, and we'll all be going to the Glass Blowing University of Tehran.
The real threat, is not Iraq .. despite an obvious civil war that the United States started. Before Saddam Hussein was taken out in a swath of vendetta.. there were no terrorists, there was no opposition to the Hussein rule.. it may have been a sick, disgusting, cruel order.. but god damnit, when Hussein was in control - there was order in Iraq. Team America comes in, and we got a civil war there.. Do I say pull out? No, but you honestly think Bush will keep troops there once he feels the time to invade Iran is ready? I digress, Iraq is not the real threat because terrorism cannot spark a major worldwide conflict such as a World War. They can spark attacks, invasions, and operations.. but should another 9/11 occur.. whether it be shadow attack or not, the world will unite again because the world outside of the US is a generous place.
The real threat is not North Korea.. simply because, Kim Jong Il is insane, and probably doesnt have half the shit he says he does.
The real threat is China, and their influence on the rest of the world. Whether you like to admit it or not.. China, is just as much the super power that the United States WAS. Industrializationally speaking.. they are booming at an alarming rate. Militarily.. they may not have the tactics, or the technology that we do, yet - but there are more members of the Chinese regular Army, than the population of the United States and Canada, COMBINED. China, will be able to easily sway such countries as Russia, North Korea, and Iran onto their side, should a conflict ever take place.. and I honestly feel, that if beseeched by said nations, China would get involved..
China is the real threat, because even if they DONT start the war.. because like I said, I feel it will start in the Middle East.. but they're the real threat because once they get involved.. things could get very ugly..
The US, Great Britain, Poland, Australia, the Czech Republic, and Israel would be staring at China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the people (not the princes) of Saudi Arabia, the people of Egypt and many others.. it will be brutal, it will be deadly, and it wont be mistaken for Operation: Iraqi Freedom
"okay we got da right and fruffy panacakes. ooooooh ver goood you get da rittre bruberries, too!"
AtoMikEnRtiA wrote:The real threat, is not Iran.. despite their ties w/ Hezbollah.. which by the way, is not a terrorist organization, they are an official army in Iran, and Lebanon. Iran may have nuclear weapons, but if you honestly believe they'll do any harm to Israel.. you're pissing in your cheerios. You honestly think Israel will allow this? Iran launches so much as a ticker-tape filled bomb, in the direction of Tel-Aviv, and we'll all be going to the Glass Blowing University of Tehran.
Hezbollah is considered a POLITICAL PARTY in these countries, not an ARMY. Hezbollah translated means "Party Of God".
AtoMikEnRtiA wrote:
The real threat is China, and their influence on the rest of the world. Whether you like to admit it or not.. China, is just as much the super power that the United States WAS. Industrializationally speaking.. they are booming at an alarming rate. Militarily.. they may not have the tactics, or the technology that we do, yet - but there are more members of the Chinese regular Army, than the population of the United States and Canada, COMBINED. China, will be able to easily sway such countries as Russia, North Korea, and Iran onto their side, should a conflict ever take place.. and I honestly feel, that if beseeched by said nations, China would get involved..
China is the real threat, because even if they DONT start the war.. because like I said, I feel it will start in the Middle East.. but they're the real threat because once they get involved.. things could get very ugly..
The US, Great Britain, Poland, Australia, the Czech Republic, and Israel would be staring at China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the people (not the princes) of Saudi Arabia, the people of Egypt and many others.. it will be brutal, it will be deadly, and it wont be mistaken for Operation: Iraqi Freedom
China's standing military is 2.4 million, or about the size of Philadelphia. Add to that about 1.5 million each of military reserves and government police. Here are the realfacts (versus the goodfacts):
China's GDP is a little over $2 Trillion for 2006 versus the US's near $14 Trillion. China is growing, but they have less than 1/6 the economy of the US. Once again, the realfacts (versus the goodfacts)
After over 2 years of asking everyone I know politically, I still have no answer to a good question: What strategic value does Israel have to the US? They have little in the way of natural resources, almost no manufacturing capability, no heavy industry to speak of. The only plus I've heard is their military, which the US sponsors. They are apparently better trained and equipped than our own (they beat us soundly in the Millenium War Games a few years ago, using strategy and technology... in a realtime war with Israel, they could successfully repel any invasion we could mount).
So why are they so important on the world stage? Is it their supposedly God-given right to occupy the space they occupy (and invade other spaces at will, like 1967, but that's another thread)? So does it come down to involving their version of God, which is directly linked to the Christian version by the Old Testament? If that's the case, then it really is The New Crusades, like the terrorists claim... Christianity and Judaism against Islam. I'd be okay with that, hell, one giant man in the sky's the same as the other to me, but now you have people making massive, obscene amounts of money on the deal while demonizing anyone who disagrees.
On Iraq directly, the current administration could get a lot of "political capital" out of a few minutes of video of people not blowing up in Baghdad. If everything's hunky-dory as they claim,... well, show me. They can't do that. First, if everything really was cool, we wouldn't need to be there, would we? Second, it's not cool! Rush, Sean, and Rove, and the other GOP lapdogs won't go to Baghdad and walk through an open air market, because THEY WOULD BE KILLED. Good American kids are killed every day, it can't be all rainbows and sunshine. I contend the whole scene is neither hunky, nor dory. Discuss.----->JMS
AtoMic, Lonewolf, Songsmith. Some well thought out posts. Whether you agree with me or not, I like the fact that you are thinking.
I once heard that NO country allied with Israel (or the Jewish community before Israel) ever lost a war. Good Fact. Only lonewolf knows if it's a real fact.
One of my friends swears that our whole reason for being in the middle east is to stop China from getting there. They need the oil badly and are a true power now, as has been stated.
I'm curious as to anyone's thoughts about his statement.
Okay, I read through all of the previous posts because this discussion was really interesting (I usually avoid posting on forums because it seems threads usually just turn into arguments). So here is what I think about some of the various ideas that were discussed.
The first part dealt with all the religious discussion that occured.
1.) The pledge of alliance didn't originally have the "under God part," but I don't find that to be a big deal even as an atheist. It's just not a major issue for me as long as I am allowed to leave out that part or say the pledge with the original words - free of being perscued or judged by other people of religious faiths. I'm fine with their religious world-view as long as they can understand and respect my world-view. The reason is because I see religion like this.
a.) Criticism of religion (1):
Basically, if you are looking at forming a political stance over religious ideology you have to decide what the word "true" means. For a person of a religious backing this usually means what the Bible or Quran or the Bhagavad-Gita (or whatever holy text is representaive of that religion) says. Now, what these texts say might not be wrong. I think most reasonably minded humans would be able to determine that killing and stealing are wrong for various reasons. However, what I will say that religion is completely unjustifable. The justifiable position of the religious is "the bible says so," which in an arguement that attempts to explain or alter the social becomes fallacious - it is "begging the question" because it is improvable to accurately determined that any of these texts are the correct one.
B) Criticism of religion (2): Okay, my second problem with people who attempt to use their religious ideology to form political worldview is that people have a tendency, no matter what, to form interpretations from what they read. While the old testament seems fairly clear that it is anti-homosexuality, those same people who are reading that line seem to be ignoring the extremely long passages of completely irrelvant information in the old testament. For example, in the King James version there are pages of irrelvant information about what to do in a case where a man steals an oxen, if an oxen wounds someone (in which it i guess will be stoned to death in a pit [maybe it was the man? I should probably look this up, but I can do that if someone wants]) Or other lines that say it is a sin to eat shellfish or that children should be stoned to death for arguing with their parents. That's the problem with metaphors, which the bible is filled with, you can interprete them in a variety of ways, which might change has a people's culture changes over time and by the influence of location. I think it might be funny how historians looking backward might interprete the lines "It's raining cats and dogs," which literally doesn't equate to the meaning assigned to the words. Or the place of religious television within our lives, and why everyone has T.V.'s. Anyway, my point for these issues is that people usually can't except the social
If we study religion we can see a trend that people are limited by their intellect, knowledge, how they interprete, how they formulate their ideas. It's just something that comes with being human, but it also means that our religious in some way are social transcribed upon the sacred. Why woud a Christian culture be anti-homosexuality and abortion? In my opinion, again in my opinion, it makes sense in the social context for those people - they were a minority that was pursceuded by Roman. Just a few possible social reasons for those issues could be
1. The christians in this time and culture wanted to distance themselves and define themselves against the romans. It's interesting to me that Christianity developed one God, which is radically different from the polythesitic Hellenistic relligion. It is equally interesting to me that they were anti-homosexuality, when homosexuality was the favored orientation in Roman culture.
2. They were a minority; thus, if you are a minority you want to become the majority. What does this mean? First, it means that this culture had to increase their population, which is something that can't be done with a gay orientation nor can it be done if people are having aboritions.
Now, whether or not there are also religious implications for all of these points, we can't deny that they were also done for social reasons as well. This paradigm equally works as well as today as it did back than (I'll post more on this later)
C. Criticism of Science: Okay, as an athesist I have a tendency to look towards science for answers of life. The great thing about science in my opinion - is it works. This is a lot different from the possible benefits that I see within spirituality. Spirituality provides an emotional and imaginative way for humans to look at the world. Art and literature are filled with great examples of this occuring. Where would literature be without writer's like Blake? How about Einstein's science- his scientific motivation arose from his pantheistic spiritual views. At the same time, however, the idealism/romanticism that usually occurs from religious beliefs have a dark side. While it was Einstein's belief in natural spirituality that motivated him to some of his most brillant scientfic discoveries -it also limited him. While he could have been formulating more brilliant ideas, the later half of his life he spent in a bed trying to undermine the theories of quantom physics that arose from his views. Why? The newer theories based from his own ideas countered his own sense of spirituality. Where would we be today if it didn't?
However, science, is also subjective. I think most atheists have a tendency to believe that science is an objective answer. Science is not an objective answer - it is a practical answer. We have to remember that creationism a hundred or so years ago was considered as a legit scientfic world-view. The definition of science means that it must be falsifable, which means that it will change. There will be new scientific paradigms and better scientific models. We can see this even within our own current understanding of science - we found out in quantum physics that it is impossible to calculate the position and speed of the smallest atomic particles. If we can't accurately determine the foundation of everything, what does this say?
2. Christ in Christmas? Sure, that's great for you - you can have your religious world belief in Christmas. I'm an atheist, and I love Christmas. So do my Jewish friends. However, I say that if you are so anti every other religious worldview, I reccomend that you give back all the pagan aspects of Christanity back to the pagans (basically all the fun parts, like having and decorating the Christmas tree). And let's not forget Easter as well, which most of which based from a pagan fertility rite. Give those back as well (again, all the fun parts). Christmas from Christian cultures, such as medieval England, were solemn and somber occoassions focusing on guilt, not happiness, not gift giving. These occasions were much more formal, were strict, were much much different from the blending that has occured to form the tradition that we celebrate here in America.
3.) Christians, please please please do not tell atheists that you are going to pray for us. Really, I get it, I appreciate the gesture. I'm glad that you are worried about me or feel that I am going to Hell or whatever. However, you have to understand that your world view just simply isn't an aspect of my worldview. Likewise, I promise that I won't think your religion is completely childrenish, unprovable, and nonsensical. This is America, and one reason that America is a superpower that it is today is because we have been open to diverse ideas - we have been able to take the best ideas from a variety of cultures to come up with great answers. This is something we can take pride again. Again, Einstein who was perscuted by Hitler for being Jewish, came to America. One can see how Hitler's extremist views really cost him. However, just because I'm an atheist doesnt mean I cannot formulate my own views about your religion. I will say this, which if you really believe in your religion, you might consider as a kind sugustion. When youever you state to an atheist, agnostic, ignostic, buddhistic, etc. that you will pray from them what you are establishing is a very interesting diachodomy.
One side:
1. Christian
2. Good
3. Superior
4. Happy
Other side
1. Atheist
2. Bad
3. Inferior
4. Sad
If you believe in the New Testament, wouldn't you think that just a condescending remark to someone is judgemental...and playing God. Can you really tell us matters of the soul? Interprete the absolute message of the Gods? Let the judgement of souls and individuals be in the hands of your God. I think this is something you should think about. I really don't think that Jesus would condemn a group of people who understand that human understanding is limited, who celebrate logic and rationality as a means to understand and help their world as evil and being condemned to hell. Did not God great the human brain as well? I'm sure that some people would argue with me, and I'm quite sure Paul's writings could be interpreted against this, but other aspects of the Bible I think would agree with my previous statments.
Comentary on the political ideas discussed.
New World Powers?
a. I don't think that China is really what we have to worry about yet. While China has a lot of people, it lacks in technology. The United States military technology is much much more advanced than what the Chinese have. Still, China is a likely contender for power.
a. Russia. Yeah, their poor now, but they still have enough nuclear arms to blow up the world 200 times over compared to what the Americans have - about 100 times over.
b. The European Union. This seems to be to me the most likely contender for world power, if would turn out that they would ever want to. I don't seem them coming together any time soon because Germany and France both want to lead the army and they don't get along that well because of the World War. If they decided to do this, it would completely undermine the United Nations and how America dominants the world by the amount of military power that we have.
U.S. and Iraq:
1. I've been wondering about how people see the issue between the left and the right. I don't really think these categories really exist becuase it seems like no one really understands him. The liberatarians are on the same side with the communist, though they are fundmentally opposed groups. Most people seem to think that communism is opposed to facsim because that's how it seems learning about WWII in high school. Facism isn't politically opposed to communism, it's opposed to anarchy. So, why left and right when groups that get dumped on the left are ideologically opposed towards each other? This never made sense to me. Other examples would be people like Arlen Specter who don't really vote with their party dispute the fact that they align themselves with them.
2. I keep hearing the people on the so-called "right" calling the so-called "left" side, particularly, democrates, idealists for their desire for dipolmancy. I would like these people to explain their view of "idealism" because it is a realistic assessment that people can choose to be greedy or altrustic - humans can do both. This is a realistic assessment. Furthermore, I would argue, that it is actually the right side that are idealists. I see more people on the right with ideas that America is the best, is number one, is superior in every way to any other country or any other ideal. These people believe that they are never wrong and that those that oppose them are evil and corrupt instead of people who are offering interesting and intelligent positions. So why are the right idealists? I see no other word for people who have romanticized America into a Utopian society. The war than becomes against people who are against and threaten our Utopia. I personally can see many reasons why our current society isn't a Utopia such as health care and even proverty issues; however, this information doesn't even matter to them. It doesn't matter if we have these problems in the homeland or not, for them America will still be superior. I highly doubt that a utopian society can exist, and I think people who agree with this assessment are realists. Thus, I think the democrates have a more realistic view of our current situtation here in America, and the fact that treating the issues is better than treating the symptoms.
3. I'm going to vote democrate until the current one party domiance in Washington is over. The right side so far have only been treating the symtoms and not the issues within all of these countries. We do not exist in a vaccum; the current issues have arosed for various reasons, not because we are the hardest working people who ever existed. I would like to see the people who claim this trade their job with all its stress with the 12 year old in Iraqi who is barely able to surive by defusing and digging up mines to sell to warring groups. The reason America is a superpower was because we did not become involved in the second world war until much later than the other countries. The reason all these countries in the world hate us is because of our highly anti-governmental push against socialism. The fact that all of these nations were divided over the issue of capitalism verses socialism: North Korea (socialist) verses South Korea, the division of East and West Germany, the division of North and South Vietnam. Why is China currently against us? They remember this, they think the U.S. is opposed to socialism, and a majority of these country is. These issues of hostility have to be addressed - we can torture and kill as many terrorists as we want, however, if we fail to overcome these issues there will be an endless supply of terrorists. IF we fail to address the proverty of the third world that has arisen because of the ignorance of the western powers there will be an endless supply of terrorists.
It's the issues that are important, its the issues which are harder to overcome. And these republicians in office haven't addressed any of them, not to meant that the border to Mexico is wide open and we currently have 300,000 or so immigrants in America that seemed to be able to get in just fine. While they say our economy is going up, yes spending for the higher class has come up. The president didn't address the fact that 1 and 5 or so Americans have health care, that proverty levels have increased along with the gap between the rich and poor. Education is getting worse. Since bush was put in office education as far as what I'm seeing as a college student, has seemed to spike and loans are harder to get - they are becoming privatized. I'm working on getting a degree and I'm wondering how am even going to get a job. My brother has a 3.9 GPA, studied at Cambridge for a semester, and works had a job that is much much beneath him. These politicians are not focused on issues that are relevant to the middle-class in any way, and I'm sick of it.
